Apr 122010
 

The Liberal Party journalist of choice has risen once again to spit his poison at the labor government.


This time, over the threatened Referendum by Rudd in lieu of consensus from the State Premiers on his health reforms.
Milne may have points, other than those on his ears, but his delivery is distinctly partisan. To claim Rudd has plenty of ‘ticker’ but no heart, avoids the issue he draws parallels with being the Tampa election of 2001. No-one can say with any veracity that Howard didn’t run on the “we’ll-decide-who-comes-and-the-manner-in-which-they-come” out of pure political expedience and not out of genuine thoughtful care for those risking their lives at sea in rickerty boats. Those sort of claims and counter claims from journalists, especially partisan journalists merely paint the speaker for what they are.
Yes, Rudd is a political animal, and not a bad one at that. Not in the Keating or Howard league, to be sure, but he is his own man, no doubts. Whether or not he’s a committed Christian, Buddhist or Kallathumpian lawyer is of no nevermind, and a very poor attempt by Milne to pull the man down on the basis of something which simply isn’t part & parcel of the politicians art.
Whether or not we see a referendum on hospital management by the Commonwealth is a moot point. personally, I think the people should be given a voice in this matter and not simply leave it to the ballot box as part & parcel of a general election to be lumped in with copious sundry other policy platforms. Who knows, maybe the people do want a change. Maybe the people will opt for a centralised hospital funding regime. It’s unlikely, simply because it means change and Aussies don’t like change. Especially where health care is concerned. Frankly, it’s not down to the likes of Glenn Milne to denigrate this politician or that politician in order to get his viewpoint out. As a journalist, he should be skilled enough to do so without resorting to ad hominem.