Qantas.con

So what is it that you want the taxpayer to pay for, directly or indirectly?

1. Exemptions from some regulations?
2. Application of new regulations, favourable to QF?
3. A fatter slice of the Federal government's travel pie?
4. Favourable legislation?
5. Repeal of legislation?
6. Obstacles to current market participants growing their business?
7. Obstacles to potential carriers entering the market?
8. Taxpayer loans?
9. Taxpayer gifts?
10. Easier access to credit?
11. Access to cheaper credit through Federal loan guarantees?
12. Taxpayer purchase of equity in QF?
13. Lower tax rates?
14. Hyper accelerated depreciation allowances?
15. Cutting and pasting the QF friendly 'no free trade in air services'approach from the Singapore-Australia FTA into the Korean, Chinese and UAE FTAs under negotiation?

Mr Joyce's job is to go into bat hard for his shareholders. On that score there is no argument. He is right to advocate one or more, or hey, even all of the above when he or his hard working lobbyists scratch backs in the corridors of Parliament.

What is demanded however of politicians, especially those in government, is to say 'no' to any solution, legislation, regulation, idea, concept, suggestion, innuendo, action or inducement that will corrupt the economic system in favour of so few, at the cost to so many.

Simply put, on behalf of the Federal government, Treasurer Joe Hockey cannot stand for two causes at the one time.

He can stand either for QF's 6 major shareholders (and the 124,000 small fry), or he can stand for the 23 million Aussies who are not shareholders.

He cannot possibly do both.