DISCRIMINATION DISGUISED

Am I being a bit off kilter when I believe that we are actually introducing laws that are discriminatory but yet so subtle we don't notice or don't care. In the past year or so there have been two laws, whilst on the surface we believe are good for us, but may also be state sponsored, contrary the constitution or unfair on a particular sector of our society..

Clearly we musty have a separation of Church and State, even though we have state funded religious instruction in our schools, but my point is that we recently passed a law that prohibited children from attending pre-school and child-care without evidence of being immunised against a range of potentially lethal childhood diseases.

Hallelujah, make people safeguard their children's health, I'm all for it.

However I would argue a very small point that there are some religions fanatical enough to believe that God will cure all ills and that there is never a need for medical intervention. No needles, no blood transfusions, no childbirth assistance, nothing that was not ordained by that bearded white mythical being who lives in the sky.

Is this not contrary to our laws that clearly state that there shall be no discrimination on religious grounds?

I don't agree with these parents but are we not all responsible for our own lives and have a free will given to us by that same bearded guy who lives in the sky.

Then comes the second whinge that I have and believe to be discriminatory. Although I have still to complete the paperwork I am eligible as a First Home Buyer for the Grant so generously provided from other taxpayers. When I was looking into this free money I took note that my contracts were signed prior to the changes (to come into effect after a certain December 31) being made to the Act and thus I was still eligible for the cash. I'm a greedy can't.

But the changes to the Act meant that, to satisfy the thirst of unscrupulous builders and developers whose pockets are filled with the hands of politicians, would only apply to 'New Builds' and not homes already erected.

What do we make of this and why do I call it discriminatory.

It is hard enough for young people to get a home these days, that was the purpose of the grant, but this change meant that young people, couples, even families who wanted to buy an already existing house were no longer eligible. That, my friends, is state sponsored discrimination.

Our governors talk glibbly about young people needing a hand up, having bigger families and creating stronger communities. Was it not 'the' Peter Costello who said “one for the family and one for the country”? Was it not that same Peter Costello that lauded the scheme and promoted it? Would he have axed it the way successive parliaments have done in such a clearly discriminatory fashion. Not to mention the 'buy Solar and get one free scheme' that was so popular the power generation companies paid politicians to dramatically reduce feed-in tariffs and purchase subsidies.

Hey big spender, Yes you, the elected one. Stop and think about these things after the lobbyists have told you what they want, think long and hard about what President Kennedy said 'think not of what your wallet can do for you but what you can do for your wallet.'