This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Aspiring Qld Deputy Premier receives Disability Pension

Jump to new

Julia

In Memoriam
Joined
10 May 2005
Posts
16,986
Reactions
1,973
The ABC news this evening disclosed that, despite being one of the wealthiest men in Queensland, aspiring Liberal Leader, Dr Bruce Flegg is in receipt of a Disability Pension from the government, or in other words, from his fellow tax payers, many of whom as we all know are struggling to survive.

He has a huge stock portfolio and owns a string of medical centres throughout Qld. He was questioned today about the conflict of interest regarding his stock portfolio and a position where he would have to make decisions about various Queensland businesses. He replied that he didn't really think there was any conflict (!) but if there were, then he would put them in some sort of trust structure. i.e. no longer have his name attached to them.

I frankly can't believe not only the total lack of morality in this man taking a Disability Pension in the face of his very considerable wealth, but even more his incredible stupidity in thinking (a) it wouldn't come out, and (b) if it did come out it wouldn't matter!

I don't want to vote for the Beattie government after their multiple stuff-ups, but certainly won't be voting for this cretin.

Julia
 
Wow, a politician with his own interests at heart, who would have thought?

Are you allowed to vote Julia, are you an Aussie citizen on the electoral roll?
 
Realist said:
Wow, a politician with his own interests at heart, who would have thought?

Are you allowed to vote Julia, are you an Aussie citizen on the electoral roll?
Click to expand...

Yes, Realist, I'm an Australian citizen and am still deciding who to vote for.
It's a ghastly choice - Beattie has got by on charm and saying "I'm sorry" and both the Coalition Leaders are pathetic.

I wasn't at all surprised that the good Dr Flegg should have his own interests at heart, but it doesn't say much for his political nous that he didn't disengage from this Disability Pension before getting involved in politics.

Julia
 
Some clarification please. Is Dr Flegg an ex-serviceman? If so, is the Disability Pension the result of a decision of an independant body that the disability is the result of his service and he should be awarded compensation as a result under Commonwealth legislation? If that is the case then he is no different from the late Sir Rhodan Cutler VC (former Governor General) or any other ex-service person who receives similar compensation and continues in gainful employment, etc.

Less emotive clap trap and more rational thinking please.

From a person who is not an ex-serviceman/woman.
 
Well, the criteria relating to service pension entitlement is at best, very very foggy. My father was classed as a war veteran (Korean war) and basically lost his ear and brow due to skin cancers caused by exposure during his service on HMAS Australia (Naval vessel) and hearing (mechanical exposure) eventually succumbing to secondaries.

He had to fight tooth and nail to get any type of financial support to cover his medical treatment, but was refused a pension. He was refused time and time again, despite having specialists reports stating his case. Finally, after 5 years, he was given free treatment to have his skin cancer's removed (every three months or so). And a hearing aid every 6 months. But that was it.

Did this person actually serve in a war zone? Unless he did, then he should not be entitled to a pension when people like my dad, who did serve and died prematurely as a result, could not get a cent for living expenses, but had to survive on the aged pension only.
 
How is it possible to have such a vast difference in obtaining rightful benefits?

As to morality, I wander where is decency of some people?
I’d imagine that at some level of wealth one could decline or at least suspend collecting pension.

Like couple of politicians who resigned from over generous super.
 
Interesting. The argument seems to be that because this person in question is (a) a politician and (b) wealthy in his own right; then he should not be allowed to access to rights available under Commonwealth legislation. If that is the case, then the logical extension of the argument is that because this person in question is (a) a politician and (b) wealthy in his own right; he should not be allowed to have access to Medicare rebates avaiable under Commonwealth legislation should he require medical treatment (ignoring the fact that he is a doctor). It should also follow that if he is involved in a motor vehicle accident, becomes a quadraplegic and he is not at fault, then because this person in question is (a) a politician and (b) wealthy in his own right; he should not have access to a third party claim under State legislation.

Does this also mean that if he were not a politician but wealthy in his own right he should not have access to any of the above and at what point on the wealth scale do those rights cease?

Emotion and perception.
 
That isnt what I am saying. I am saying that because allocation of the war service pension is granted to some people, and not to others, then there is obviosuly some subjectivity in the decision making process. And when that happens it opens the wider debate as to why some people who need it cant get it, and others who apparently dont need it can get it.

My father had to retire early because of his cancers (plural) and hearing disability, had limited super, didnt own his own home etc. He needed AND DESERVED to receive a pension as he incurred these disabilities as a result of war service.

And that doesnt appear to be the case with the person mentioned, not that I can find out much about him but obviously he seems quite fit and healty and independently wealthy and able to go about his life, unlike my father.

Not emotion and perception, but cold hard facts for me!
 
But that still doesn't detract from the proposition that just because a person is a politician and wealthy means that they should be denied the right to access legislation which applies to them. The reasons why your late father was not given what you view as his just benefits and why this politician was may be something to do with the construct of the legislation itself. However, I have some understanding of how you must feel as my late Grandfather applied to the Repat Department for benefits and although he served in WWII got knocked backed.
 
So Julia, who will you vote for? You can't stand Beattie but you don't feel like voting for the 'cretin' Flegg or his 'pathetic' sidekick Springborg.

I agree with your assessment of Beattie but I think you're being a bit tough on Sringborg.
As for Flegg, he's a stumblebum when it comes to handling the media, and maybe there's some truth in what you say about him with regard to his wealth, and receiving disability payments. (personally I wouldn't know about this).

But surely it's the policies of a political party, first and foremost, rather than the wealth of its leader/s, their level of charisma, or their level of skill in handling the media, that should form the basis of our decision to vote for them or against them?

Do you think the coalitions policies stack up favourably against those of the ALP? Do you think they'd do a better job than the ALP of implementing those policies and looking after the long term interests of Queensland?

In relation to the above questions, I have to admit I'm undecided. I think Beattie has done a good job in the development of Queensland - he's a 'can do' man of a similar stamp to Joh Bjelke-Petersen.
But on the debit side, he and his ALP mates have an unenviable record in some areas, health and power being two that spring to mind.
I see no reason why Flegg and Springborg couldn't also do a good job of developing Queensland, and maybe they can improve on Beattie's record in health and power.

I have to admit that when Beattie stupidly called for a minute of silence in parliament as a mark of respect to a filthy Australian drug smuggling criminal who was hanged in Singapore, I vowed and declared there and then that he'd never get my vote.
However, that was just my emotional side showing through. In reality, the man should be judged on his record in regard to managing the affairs of Queensland, rather than on that stupid 'minute of silence' fiasco.

One thing I feel sure about is that Bruce Flegg won't last long as leader of the Libs, regardless of the outcome of the Queensland election.

Cheers
Bunyip
 
Often people pick up the trade, profession, career for some secondary reasons, like what they can get rather than what they can give, making them not best suited for what they were hired for.

Teacher for example can look at regular and many holidays all paid.

Politicians, generous super, perks, if you stay there long enough or get high enough indexed pension, gold medicare card, office and car for life.

There are probably many more like paedophiles getting any job just to be close to children.
 
Snake Pliskin said:
Julia,

Have you thought about going into politics?
We need caring polititions. What party would you run for?
Click to expand...

Snake

Never, never, never in my wildest dreams!!! I am much too selfish with my privacy and time. There might be 10% of me that would like to try to make a difference (don't all aspiring politicians say that?), the remaining 90% is simply not tolerant enough to be patient with all the grizzles.

I doubt very much that the Qld electorate would find me an attractive proposition at all.

Julia
 

Judd

I believe he is an ex-serviceman and presume he is in fact fully entitled to the payment. I didn't question his entitlement. I questioned his political nouse, and to a lesser extent his sense of morality, in not at least suspending such a payment while he is running for political office.

If he is displaying such poor judgment in an area which is guaranteed to turn many voters against him, and it hasn't occurred to him that thisis the case, then I'm not going to have a lot of confidence in his capacity to run Qld.

Your argument that when people are independently wealthy they should still be entitled to all that they would be if they were poor is of course absolutely valid. I agree with you.

Julia
 

Bunyip

You've mentioned several aspects of the dilemma which I'm currently tossing around. Still haven't decided. I agree particularly about the minute's silence thing.

Yes, we should indeed be deciding on a party on the basis of their policies.
However, with the Coalition, although I have heard some policies which I really like, I simply don't have the confidence that they will effectively implement them. It's easy to say "elect us and we will fix the Health System". Oh, really? How exactly? And Beattie is no different, as always.
He is promising hundreds of new hospital beds but is somewhat silent about where the medical staff is going to come from to service these beds, both doctors and nurses.

So, really, ho hum, it's the same old pre-election stuff. Promises and more promises.

I share your view on the likely length of Dr Flegg's political career. Sadly, though, there doesn't exactly seem to be an overwhelmingly impressive list of candidates to take over from him. I do feel a bit sorry for him.

Julia
 
Julia said:
Bunyip

So, really, ho hum, it's the same old pre-election stuff. Promises and more promises.

Julia
Click to expand...

Maybe promisees should be qualified with what politician is going to do if unsuccessful within timeframe stipulated.

For example - If I don’t achieve 100 extra beds in public hospitals by 1 Jul 2008 I will resign and I will not collect any entitlements government throws at me.

This could put some credibility. Maybe there would not be as many promisees?
 
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20242841-421,00.html

According to above link:

Also in the interests register, under the heading "other substantial sources of income", Dr Flegg reveals he is receiving a disability allowance from the Department of Veterans' Affairs.

Dr Flegg served in the regular army for six years from 1976 at the rank of captain.

"It is in relation to an injury that left me with an ongoing disability," he said.

"It is a small matter, but it provides me with free medical treatment for the injury.

"The nature of the injury is not something that I want to discuss publicly."


I only bring this fact up to confirm that the disability allowance he receives is inrelation to Veterans' Affairs.
 

Julia,

You never know. I`M sure ASF members would vote for you.

Thanks for your insight though.

Snake
 


Nice to have such a rational person on board.

But I bet no one won a VC while thinking rationally.
 
Bloveld said:
Nice to have such a rational person on board. But I bet no one won a VC while thinking rationally.
Click to expand...
I agree. To take the argument one step further...No one gets married while acting rationally either. Hence I maintain that there is a lot in common between winning a VC and getting married.
I've tried to put myself in the mind of a father going off to war ... Or the thousands of Aussies that went over the wall at Gallipoli or Flanders etc....

If the war hadn't got in the way..
It's just a wee skirmish child over in France, Dad's back in six months or a year,
a skirmish? why that's when grown men do a dance, with cannon and rifle and spear,
six months? the time child to read you the tale of Alice's Wonderland queer,
and look after your mum, cos she's just a bit pale, and try not to learn the word fear.

Mustard gas son? why it's yellowish green and drifts down on you in the trenches,
blisters? those things on your lungs and your spleen as you splutter in blood muddied benches,
But don't worry my boy, daddy's got this mask, and this armour and bulletproof dentures,
and this halo (I wish) that solved the task of living through such misadventures.

Here's a gift to keep you amused my boy till I RUN back one fine sunny day,
but ...in case I don't, then remember this toy each night as you kneel to pray,
How we planned to do all those things so keen when father's and children play
and the miriad things that might have been, had the war not got in the way.

I go now my child but I'd much prefer to watch you sleep and just .. stay,
your small babe's dreams and your sleeping purr and your tiny nest of hay,
and I go now my child though my heart is in two, and I go to meet my frey,
and if I should die with my hair so dark - its that you may grow to be grey.

They say that we give "our all" my son, but you know that's not quiote true,
for our soul becomes ten feet tall my son, and a part of it lives on in you,
and I'll be there to answer your call my son, if it's nigh on the last thing I do,
but - I'd much rather BE there, my small wee son, and to teach you to tie your shoe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
The Night of the Long Prawn
Replies
0
Views
3K
Michael Cornips
M
Iemma gone!
Replies
9
Views
3K
trinity
Uranium in for correction, not a rout
Replies
0
Views
8K
motion
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...