Pokies reform should be a straight forward policy.

Poker machines provide a substantial amount
of revenue for many Australian clubs.
(Image Source)

The petty politics that is going back and forth between Liberals, Labor and the independents over the Government's proposed pokies reform is ludicrous. The policy, which would require players to set a pre commitment for how much they are prepared to lose. The policy sounds straight forward enough; help stem the flow of problem gamblers who continue to feed coins into these machines. But the fury that has erupted in Canberra isn't because the policy is contentious or damaging, but because it is an issue that is relatively unimportant, and thus everyone can take a different position; just to be politically different.

One fact that has been long neglected in this debate, is the research conducted by Linda Hancock from Deakin University. Her research into pre-commitment has found that for problem gamblers who find themselves stuck in 'the zone' or a cycle of gambling to get out of debt, they very rarely act rationally. However if the Independents and Nick Xenophon get their way, there will be a maximum pokies bet of $1 introduced, limiting the maximum loss to be around $120 an hour (instead of over a possible $1000 at the moment). Linda Hancock's research, while mostly being ignored by politicians from either side, is damming evidence that pre-commitment legislation on pokies is needed, if just to help stem the losses for problem gamblers.

It is at this point, that the opposition become ludicrous in their stance against the pokies reform. They should be capitalising upon this and criticising the government for being too weak to truly tackle problem gambling. Instead, their discussion paper, just released, is almost a carbon copy of the government's policy, only with the change to make pre-commitment instalment on machines voluntary, and a greater emphasis on counselling and alcohol training. Though their catch cry, along with the AFL and NRL and Clubs NSW, is that local sporting and RSL clubs will go bust. Though the icing on this cake of hypocrisy is that they too acknowledge that this mandatory pre-commitment legislation will do nothing to help stop problem gamblers. Let's unpick this brilliant piece of logic

First: (The Opposition) The scheme won't work. The evidence proves so - Yet they would like to introduce the same themselves, albeit voluntarily. If we acceptance their logic that a pre-commitment scheme won't work, then neither should theirs!
Secondly: Pre-comittment lockouts on poker machines will kill off local sporting clubs and RSLs - Hold on, you said it wouldn't work, so how will they loose revenue and be forced to close?
Thirdly: They will still lose some money - Not only is that a concession that it will work, but if that's the case, then they're profiteering of the worst cases of problem gamblers. That's highly unethical!
Fourthly: But the installation of pre-commitment lockouts will also be costly and expensive - So clubs won't install them voluntarily under your proposal either, because it will still be too costly, they'll lose money, and they will have to close.
Fifthly: It'll force these problem gamblers onto the internet, where they can gamble even more: Well put limits and regulation upon that too! Pre-commitment on pokies and internet gambling restrictions are not mutually exclusive ideas. 

This storm in a tea cup debate about pokies reform is just low brow political postulating. The government is playing a very similar game, claiming that the opposition are in the pockets of the gaming industry and are prepared to hurt Australian families, especially those effected by gambling problems, for cheap political points. It's very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Though industries and lobby groups like the NRL, AFL, RSL and Clubs NSW are playing equally dirty, by fudging figures and disingenuously representing the consequences for them for such a proposal.

It's coming towards the end of the year and both parties are trying to create artificial distance between each other and their policies. However in doing so, they both neglect to pass what should be, a straight forward policy to assist (to a limited extent) problem gamblers. Though least of all should discussion or a proposal about comprehensive gambling policy be made. That would be all too bold.

Links
RLS jobs at stake - Queensland Times
AFL joins NRL in pokies revolt - The Sydney Morning Herald
Abbott attacked over Pokies discussion paper - Lateline transcript
Abbott talks up opposition to pokies reform - ABC
Abbott needs pokies rethink: welfare group - Sydney Morning Herald
Clubs use tricky numbers to outfox pokies reform - The Australian (and surprisingly enough, it's not behind a paywall....yet)

The Congo's poverty will not end with mining

Gold miners pass mud along a human chain in an open pit mine
North-eastern Congo. (REUTERS/Finbarr O'Reilly)

The Congo is one of the most impoverished nations in Africa, with more than 70% of its population living below the poverty line.  Yet this troubled nation sits on more than $24 trillion worth of minerals. Such mineral worth is greater than the annual economic output of both the US and entire European area combined. But accessing and distributing such wealth has not only been unsuccessful in reducing poverty within the Congo, but it has directly attributed to increased violence with militia rebel groups, slavery and social instability.

President Joseph Kabila, who is seeking re-election in the coming months, has had a change of heart and is now seeking to tap into the Congo's troubled mines to bring economic prosperity to all if its people. In the past, foreign firms have been wary of investing in Congolese mines because of its bad reputation for human rights abuse, but also because of the instability of the country which regularly dips into localised, violent civil war. There is a critical need for foreign investment to reinvigorate the Congolese mineral sector and ensure efficient production. Local companies don't have the expertise, technology or skills to excavate minerals on a scale that rakes in exuberant profits. Though in neighbouring nations where this foreign direct investment does occur, typically, these profits mostly go back to the foreign companies, not the country itself. However in the Congo, where localised mining in the east is increasing, it is often decentralised and unaccountable to government officials, which causes other significant problems.

The history of civil war and militia violence that has plagued many African nations, including the Congo, means that local development of industry is hampered by systemic corruption. It is estimated that 98% of the mines operating in the east of the Congo is controlled, or have strong ties to militia groups. Because of this, local militia groups tax those who work within the mines, restrict which ethnic groups the profits go to, but most often just funnel the profits into munitions and war campaigns. Sadly, due to government ineptitude and corruption, whatever control government agencies do get over these mines leads to very similar outcomes.

What is most shocking about Congolese mining though is the way in which its operations seem only to be entrenching the poverty cycle. As most Congolese citizens live below the poverty line and have an income of less than $2 a day, or live on subsistent farms and have no income at all, the existence of mines should have very little affect upon them. However, as mines pay money, the notion of working in a mine for cash can become an attractive option for at least one member of a family. Such money, if received, can be used for buying more farm equipment, or much needed medicine. Though when most mines only pay their workers between 50c and $1 a day, the likelihood of them becoming indebted to the mine for other costs incurred (such as food, shelter or 'protection') leaves them in a position of virtual slavery. And as militia groups are the ones who benefit most from the mines, their campaigns of looting and disrupting local villages drives more people off farms and into mines, creating a vicious cycle of poverty and slavery.

As violence around mines becomes worse, and the profits from these minerals fund new conflicts, the international communities (though mainly the US') response through the 2010 Dodd-Frank banking act to restrict the importation of 'conflict minerals' has only plunged more citizens into poverty. For some mining operations, output has slowed by more than 95% as the only way to export these minerals is to do so illegally; which in and of itself results in less profits going to the impoverished workers, and less no security for working standards. The intentions of such a policy is commendable, as it attempts to stop multinational corporations purchasing cheap minerals which cause conflict within a post colonial nation. Yet the ban and reduction in purchasing of these minerals is already hurting tens of thousands of Congolese citizens who have moved to a life in the mines.

Even in a perfect world, whereby local governments weren't corrupt, where there are no militias and all the profits went back to the people; a mining boom in the Congo would still hurt many citizens. When a country finds a new export that brings in unprecedented financial capital from overseas markets, it drives more people to move into that industry because it is highly profitable. The consequence of this occurring rapidly is called the "Dutch disease". Simply put, the exportation of this new wonder good drastically increases the price of the dollar. This kills off any other industries which export goods, (such as textiles in the Congo) because international buyers can no longer afford the good due to the inflated dollar. It also rapidly increases the amount of imports into that nation. Because of the high dollar, it becomes cheaper to buy goods from overseas (such as food) than at the local market, which then kills off domestic industries. Then if at any point the export market crashes, such as if there is another global recession or minerals are found cheaper elsewhere, an economy that has completely re-geared itself for one industry is left with nothing to produce for domestic consumption or export. This effectively kills the economy, and damages it for decades to come. Though if magically, because of better governance and more responsible foreign investment, the mining sector in the Congo could be revolutionised, the Dutch disease would only hit the east of the Congo were most of the mining occurs.

The sad fact being is that we don't live in a perfect world. So there is little chance that the "Dutch disease" will reach the Congolese economy at all. Instead, the continuation of corrupt and militia driven mining will still occur, even while an international ban is in place. Though even if removed, it would cause just as much harm by increasing militias' ability to buy arms. It appears as though there is no solution to this most unfortunate circumstance. While it is depressing to end a post on such a dreary note, many economists, international institutions and trade experts advocate for varied solutions to help end poverty and instability in Africa (with varied and questionable degrees of success). What is clear though, is that mining in the Congo is not one of them.




Links:
Congo rape victims face slavery in gold and mineral mines - Guardian.co.uk
Digging for victory - The Economist
Still smuggling - The Economist
Mr Copper - The Economist

US debt ceiling woes

"I told you so" 

The US has always had a morbid fascination with its debt. Clocks had been set up around the country decades ago, showing the slow but steady increase in US public debt. With the 11th hour nigh before the US debt ceiling is reached on August 2nd, there is a strange, discomforting irony in going back and looking at the clocks that were originally passed off as a scaremongering tactic for conservative candidates. Though with Congress still not having come to a decision as to whether to raise the debt ceiling (and if so by how much), there is the ever growing possibility that the US may default.  And even if it doesn't, the US may still dip back into recession because of bad economic policies were rushed through at the last minute to avoid default.

The very idea of a debt ceiling for government makes perfect sense. It's a cap (the ceiling bit) on the amount of money the government can borrow. This in theory reduces the ability of a government to act irresponsibly and charge up the national credit card on irrelevant, pricey policies. Though in this circumstance, the US debt ceiling is acting as anything but a protection measure for the US government and economy. It has become a mere obstruction to the ability for the US government to make both timely policy, but also not to default and loose its AAA credit rating.

To take the view of the "Tea Party", Barack Obama - being as fiscally and politically irresponsible as he is -  is trying to ruin the US economy. In this situation, the debt ceiling wouldn't stop an economic disaster. As soon as the government over borrowed, either the government would have cease from acting on anything that cost or the US would loose its AAA credit rating and economic strife would ensure. The President could also ignore the ceiling and open up the possibility for impeachment, thus economically and politically disabling the economy. In no way does the US debt ceiling manage to avoid or mitigate bad political and economic decisions in relation to debt. It acts more as a guideline, a point of reference to which governments would not like to reach because of what it symbolises; bad economic management.

Though for Barack Obama, who is trying to stimulate the struggling US economy and also push through major yet costly healthcare reform, the debt ceiling acts only as a blockade to action. It prohibits the President from using his executive power to make decisive action where Congress dithers and dawdles.  Though the closer the US gets to hitting the $USD14.3 trillion ceiling, the more pressure is placed on him to take decisive action.

On the current course, if no action is taken, the US will break through the ceiling on August 2nd, requiring Congress to limit government expenditure, resulting in the US defaulting on some of its loans. The impact of this would not only likely plunge the US back into recession, but it would trigger a wave of instability over financial markets around the world. With the already unstable Eurozone, a US default would only worsen their situation. The other option is that the President ignores the ceiling (and continues spending) or priorities some payments so as to avoid default. Though this would cause a political/constitutional crisis with the President using his powers in the manner, creating even more uncertainty and instability. Hence the only real option that remains is negotiation and deal making with the Republicans. As the Republicans hold the majority in the  House of Representatives, and could realistically pass their own policy of heavy spending cuts through with a filibuster, politics in Congresses is getting very terse, tense and nasty.

It's 11th hour of Capital Hill with the 2nd August fast approaching. It is unknown whether it will be the Democrats or Republicans who become victims of circumstance by agreeing to a last minute deal in Congress. The one unknown variable in this political equation is the markets knowledge that the US economy is at its most fragile state since the 2008 GFC (Global Financial Crisis). This may be the hour for bold decision making and strong leadership; or a drawn out filibuster, political backstabbing and a solution that no one is really confident in.

Links

US House and Senate divided over debt ceiling issue - BBC news 

Q&A: Why has the US not agreed a new debt ceiling? - BBC news 

Talks resume as Senate kills off debt bill - ABC news 

Gillard politically sore, but not censured

Spooner Cartoon: Courtesy of the National Times

The Gillard government can't seem to win a trick at the moment. Be it the much debated (and despised) Carbon Tax, proposal to enforce plain packaging of cigarettes, to even the Malaysian solution. All have served to only drive Labor lower in the polls. Though this outcome can be expected from a government that lacks the nuance to sell their own successes, especially in contrast to a powerfully articulate and dogmatic opposition. With the Gillard government trying to push through large, often quite unpopular policies, it has come with little surprise that a motion to condemn Gillard's "Malaysia" solution has come about.

Condemnation of government policy from the Parliament is unheard of. That is because the government of the day makes up the majority of the Parliament, and so no condemnation motions are able to pass. Though in the case of a minority government, as Gillard herself admitted, the circumstance of policy being condemned is more likely. However seeing a policy condemned, rather than it not being passed, is more interesting. Foreign policy (which the Malaysian solution comes under) is directed by the executive (Government) without the need for Parliament's approval. This means that it's the government's decision alone when it comes to foreign policy. Unlike normal policy, which gets put before the Parliament, foreign policy does not. This means that the Parliament gets very little time or place to object to it, apart from MPs and Senators airing their views in the Media. However this may change when the Greens move to propose a bill requiring refugee and asylum seeker foreign policy to be put before the Parliament, instead of leaving that power to the executive. As the minority Gillard government couldn't knock down the condemnation motion, it is most likely that they won't be able to thwart the Greens and Parliament's attempts to strip the executive of this power.

Despite the condemnation motion passing, the very motivation behind it was mere coincidence, rather than mass Parliament outrage at the Malaysia solution. The motion only got support when the Liberal/National coalition and Greens finally managed to agree on something. For the Greens, it's the view that offshore processing is inhumane and wrong. For the Liberals/Nationals, it's the view that the Labor party is just plain wrong. While the general agreement between these parties led to a condemnation of the government's policy, it wasn't strong enough to censure the Prime Minister, as the Greens thought such a move would just be a mere political "stunt". Following Tony Abbott's belittling questions to Gillard about the history of such a motion, and Julie Bishops comparison of Julia Gillard to a third world dictator, it's hard to view these comments as anything less than a stunt.

The Malaysian solution is yet again a fizzle of a policy for the Gillard government. When the Labor party isn't chasing opinion polls to ensure support, it isn't successfully managing its image of being a strong government. The merits of an 800 possible refugee swap for thousands more is ludicrous. Even though Malaysia appears to be signing up to the UNHCR, the likely hood of its signatory resulting in better treatment of human rights is a stretch.

Despite the condemnation motion, Labor (if still in government) will pursue ahead with the Malaysia solution. Maybe after that, the polls will start to pick back up. But until then, unless Labor and Gillard manage to woo the public with strong effective policy, they'll have to withstand the tense time of being down in the polls.

Links: 
PM under fire over Malaysia deal - National Times

Parliament condemns Govt on Malaysia asylum deal - The World Today: ABC online

Defiant PM says it's not about polls - National Times

Asylum-seeker swap deal must have UNHCR approval - The Australian 

PM avoids censure as Malaysia deal condemned - ABC Online

UN enters into the fight for Libya

Muammar Gaddafi air forces strike anti government rebels
Image source: AFP and The Australian 

Within hours of the passing of a UN resolution authorising military action against Muammar Gaddafi's forces, western nations are preparing air strikes against the despotic Libyan dictator. The UN has authorised military action to prevent Gaddafi's forces from completely crushing civilian led rebel opposition, which only weeks ago, looked ready to topple the Gaddafi government. So far, Britain, France, the United States, Norway and Qatar are countries that have pledged support to enforce the no-fly zone. The French government has indicated that it will start to militarily intervene within 'hours', and Britain's prime minister, David Cameron, has announced that Tornado and Typhoon jets have been placed ready to take action against Libya. The Arab League of Nations has been calling for weeks for the no-fly zone. But it appears that for once, the UN has answered, and done so quickly. Libya's response has been confusing: Muammar Gaddafi's claimed he'll take Benghazi within hours, his Son has claimed the family will hold Tripoli, and Libya's Foreign, Minister Mussa Kussa has declared a ceasefire. Basically, Libya is in turmoil, and the situation changes by the hour.

Despite the ever changing position of the Libyan government, it has been outstanding how fast the UN has reacted to the situation. While it may have taken weeks for the resolution to come about, when it comes to international co-operation and military intervention, it usually takes several months. But the UN functioned effectively this time, because there was a universal consensus that a no-fly zone was needed. Debate was had, thought it didn't bogged down. No country within the security council voted against the proposal, five only abstained. For P5 countries like Russia and China, the use of their veto power would have decimated the resolution, and most likely dragged out debate on the issue for months. While countries like Germany and Poland have indicated that they won't assist in the efforts to enforce the no-fly zone, their acceptance of the international communities wishes to intervene in this matter has been critical assisting the passing of this resolution.

The UN security council resolution has authorised "all necessary measures" to ensure the safety of the Libyan people. Surprisingly, this resolution is more than just a no-fly zone. A no-fly zone gives the ability for the 'international community" to ensure no aircraft (Libyan or otherwise) to fly above Libyan territory. However the UN has authorised "all necessary measures"except the use of ground forces. This means that missile strikes and aerial attacks on Gaddafi's forces is legal.

However by the UN taking such an aggressive approach towards the Libyan situation, it may in fact, only assist Muammar Gaddafi in rallying civilians to fight against both the 'West', and the rebells. As with most North African and Middle Eastern nations, there is much anti-west sentiment. Governments, like Gaddafi claim that 'the west' is an invading force, corrupting the youth of Libya, destroying their culture, taking over their economy; basically causing anything that is bad within society. To outsiders, it sounds pretty bonkers. And that's because it is. But western nations haven't been perfect in their dealings with Arab and North African nations themselves. The US, despite putting a trade embargo upon weapons trading with Libya, it has happily allowed such trading via proxy through Egypt. The risk of the UN taking such a hardline stance against the Libyan dictator is that it gives something for Muammar Gaddafi to point to as 'evidence' that he was right all along. There is also the danger of causing further oppression to the Libyan people. Airstrikes, no matter how targeted, don't always kill exactly who they're intended to kill. As the civilian death toll rises, more and more Libyans who sat in the middle of the war and was neutral to both sides, will start to side with Gaddafi. Civilians will chose whichever side kills the less, and if that's Gaddafi and his forces, then the UN's efforts will backfire by strengthening the dictators regime.

Though there are also practical difficulties in establishing a no-fly zone in Libya. There is firstly, the complication of the 'cease fire' that  Libya's Foreign Minister, Mussa Kussa has announced. It will have to be seen whether all of Muammar Gaddafi's forces will adhere to this change in policy, or even whether Gaddafi and his family will adhere to it themselves. But secondly, there is the issue in being able to enforce a no-fly zone. Libya's military is highly outdated. They have fighter and bomber jets, but they're old cold war jets that have been made by the US. If they are even sent up into the air, they will be easily shot down. The only circumstance in which they could be used, would be to fight against those enforcing the no-fly zone. And if the Libyan army is successful, it will cause a lot of pain and loss of face for the UN. But Gaddafi has irregularly used these jets thus far, because the Libyan army uses helicopters instead. Fighting rebel groups are easier with helicopters. They're easier to manoeuvre and redirect in small scale warfare, such as taking over certain towns. But US jets aren't good at shooting down helicopters. Fighter jets fly too high and too fast to be able to combat low flying helicopters. So the US and major countries such as France, who will be enforcing this ban, don't have the technological capacity to fight on the Libyan army's level. Solutions will be found to this problem, but it means that combat between the no-fly zone enforces and the Libyan army will most likely be closer, meaning casualties are more likely to be higher than expected on the NATO side.

The UN has responded well to the international communities calls to implement a no-fly zone upon Libya. Muammar Gaddafi must not be able to stop a revolution from occurring by killing his own people. As the head of the Libyan state, he has a duty to protect his people. When he can no longer do so, other states are justified in acting to ensure civilians are kept safe. The UN, significantly encroaching upon Libyan's sovereignty, is rightly doing so when the consequences of not acting is that either a dictator succeeds, or anarchy rules. The situation in Libya is most likely going to get worse before it gets better. But hopefully, this no-fly zone will speed up the revolution that's been waiting to occur, and do so whilst shedding the least amount of blood.

Links: 
Libya announces immediate ceasefire, calls halt to military operations - The Australian
UN clears way for no-fly zone - ABC PM program

The colonel charges ahead - The Economist 

France says military action against Libya will come 'within hours' - The Telegraph

Military strikes on Libya within hours: France - ABC news

The inane sport of criticising politicians' sincerity

Gillard's 'sincere' response to the floods,
albeit with a prop. Image source: The Australian

Julia Gillard welled up in Parliament yesterday over the disaster that has been the Queensland floods. Tony Abbott was confronted by Channel 7 news reporters, asking for a response to his "shit happens" comment about the death of an Australian soldier in Afghanistan. Yet again, politicians are being judged on their style, spin and acting abilities, rather than the policies they are proposing. Politician baiting is becoming a tabloid sport; catching out unsuspecting politicians about their personal lives and minor gaffes, in order to elicit a response to make the front line-up of the nightly bulletin. It is a sobering thought to think that such insignificant trivialities about our politicians is what interests the general populous the most; and ultimately influences the way they vote.

After Gillard's condolence speech in Parliament yesterday, some political analysts and commentators are claiming that Gillard is finally showing her sincere and warm-heart to the flood victims. Others are more sceptical, claiming that this is just an elaborate act. People seem to be genuinely concerned about Gillard's lack of emotional response whilst she had been touring the flood affected areas. In a pure political sense, Gillard's emotional and personal response to the event shouldn't be of relevance; only her policy actions. Gillard welled up whilst reflecting on what had happened during the parliament's official condolence. Though even that is of little relevance. The PM personally cares. It's a nice thought, but it is not one that is fundamental to the overall objective of her job: to lead a government reconstruction effort. It doesn't matter how moved, touched and emotionally responsive Tony Abbott is to the Queensland floods, if his methods of reconstruction are subordinate to Gillard's. Furthermore from this, it is disgusting for the public to expect specific emotional responses from political leaders during times of crisis. Not everybody cries when they tour the aftermath of a natural disaster. Not everybody cries when they meet people who have been physically and emotionally traumatised and are desperately seeking assistance. Lots of water in Queensland, shouldn't correlate to lots of water around the eyes. Everybody has their own unique way of coping with grief, loss and trauma. Tony Abbott didn't well up in front of a TV camera, though no comment has been made about that!

Tony Abbott's recent gaffe of "shit happens" has called into question how genuine he is about the death of Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. Both sides of politics are very humble and sincere when it comes to Australian soldiers who have died whilst overseas. It is political suicide not to be. So under no circumstances, whilst Tony Abbott was chatting amongst Australian and US soldiers in Afghanistan, would he ever be flippant or disrespectful to any deceased Australian soldier. However "umm....well sometime shit happens doesn't it" sends a different message. It's one of flippancy and disrespect. Thus it is great for a short clip on the 6 o'clock news. Though such a comment was not taken out of context, only the "act" of him saying it was. Abbott would never utter such a phrase in Parliament or at his local church, but when having a casual chat out in a desert with Australian combat personal, Abbott changes his vernacular and actions to "extra blokey" mode.

His response however, to Channel 7s Hollywood-esque surprise interview, was completely inappropriate and personally damaging. Whether it be rage, surprise, or fear of answering a question that will make him look guilty, a Julie Bishop death stare for over 20 seconds is never good. His curt response of "you got the answer you deserve" highlighted how out of control he was within that situation. It was inappropriate of Channel 7 to accost him in such a way, though it is a politicians job to answer tough questions. He didn't answer this one, or deflect and avoided it well. It is ironically timed that Abbott should fall upon his own sword after chiding Gillard for her "tin eared" response to the Queensland floods. But such footage of Abbott saying "shit happened" shouldn't have been repressed, like the Liberal Party did with footage of Abbott shooting a firearm with Australian soldiers. They claimed it would "send the wrong message". Political parties shouldn't be able to control the public image of their constituents if they're running for office, and if that is what the public (regrettably) wants to know about.

What is becoming increasingly clear however, is the media and publics fixated attention on Gillard and her appearance. If she is not being criticised for a lack of crying and being emotional, the Australian or a tabloid will criticise her ever changing hair or whether she carries a purse. Even her dress was criticised whilst she toured flood affected Queensland towns. Since Gillard is a woman, whose dress sense will alter unlike the standard suit and tie for men, in the eyes of the public, there is more to critique. If Gillard is being too masculine in her dress sense and attitude in the chamber, she will be criticised for being bullish. Though if she lacks the "effeminate capabilities" of crying, she doesn't have a heart. Whilst never explicitly exploiting her gender in her campaign to become PM, people are happy to do that for her. Amanda Vanstone's only positive comment about Julia Gillard on Q&A (7/2/11) was that she was "a role model for young girls to look up to and say.... I can do that". If all young woman have to look up to is a PM being constantly criticised for her appearance as a result of her gender, then it doesn't offer much encouragement for ambitious young females wanting to enter the world of politics.

Julia Gillard's tears in parliament yesterday may be genuine, or they may have been put on after much criticism about her emotional response to the floods disaster. Her political commitment to help reconstruct Queensland however, is sincere. Tony Abbott's choice of phrasing whist talking to soldiers in Afghanistan was a strategic act. Though his political position of respecting the family and dignity of Australian soldiers killed in action, is sincere. Politicians act. But when the public deeply care about appearances and spin, the substance starts to get lost. This inane sport of critiquing the theatre of politics and judging the politicians of their performance, is damaging to government, and ludicrous at best. Don't text in your views about Gillard or Abbott's media performance. This is politics, not 'Canberra's got talent!'.

Links: 
Tears flow as Julia Gillard gets real - National Times

Flood victims bring Prime Minister Julia Gillard to tears - The Australian 

PM defends response to flood - The Age

Gillard the actor: Q&A Question 7/2/11 - Q&A website
Reporter asks question, Abbott loses it - National Times

Abbott's frozen fury lingers beyond his words - National Times

Levy turns flood reconstruction into political mess

Gillard and Bligh tour QLD flood areas
Image source: The Herald Sun

Despite a natural disaster that cost numerous lives, uprooted thousands of Queenslanders and left them homeless, and a reconstruction effort that will take years to complete, it is good to see politics in Canberra hasn't changed much. Both Liberal and Labor are squabbling at each other and all who will listen about how the other side isn't playing fair. Now they're turning to the popular kids - Oakshot and Windsor - to pick sides and tell the others they are wrong. For all the talk of a "mateship tax" and politicians keeping one eye on the "Lodge", the efficacy of the tax itself is being ignored. Instead, angry talk back listeners and radio hosts like Niel Mitchell are deciding on the validity of the tax, based on its popularity. No matter how the Gillard government plans to raise funds for the reconstruction effort, some people will be unhappy. But a longer term approach to disaster recovery funding is what really needs to be discussed.

The first step the government took to addressing the financial pitfall for the Queensland floods was winding back and cutting down on "Green investment" spending. While such actions were necessary, amongst some circles, it remains unpopular all the same. Julia Gillard herself may not believe (or want to acknowledge) that the floods of Queensland, NSW and Victoria can be attributed to climate change, but a reduction in "Green investment" won't make the flood waters rise. A lot of the Federal government's environmentally friendly initiatives have cost a lot, yet delivered little. The danger that exists in withdrawing funding from environment initiatives, is that the funds won't return. Once government coffers start filling up, new promises will be made in other areas, and the funds will go there.

The political debacle over recovery funding that has ensued, is paying little attention to the actual methods the Gillard government is doing to assist the recovery effort. Both Gillard and Abbott have done their fair share of hugging and 'meeting and greeting' flood victims in front of media packs. But it is the mentioning of the word 'tax' that is causing an even bigger stir amongst the opposition and tabloids. Reducing funds to existing schemes and delaying promises is one thing, but instituting a tax is laden with politically damaging connotations. Abbott was quick to put on the rhetoric about a tax not being about "mateship", but a cover up scheme for a government that is spending too much. Yet for all the spin and hot air, the tax itself is economically credible. The government must spend money on reconstructing Queensland's savaged infrastructure. As Queensland is a major industrial and mining hub of Australia, it makes economic sense to rebuild roads and rail that once were the economic lifelines of Australia during the GFC. Yet even principally, the Federal government should assist. As a Federation, each state assists others in times of need; it is the very essence of our federation. Otherwise we would be a cluster of 9 different independent States.

People may be outraged that they have already given to Queensland flood relief funds, yet that money only goes to helping people directly after the event (through relocation and clean up costs), not rebuilding roads, rail, hospitals and schools that have been washed away. Funds for the reconstruction need to come from somewhere, and raising revenue by adding a levy to income tax, at this point in time, appears to be the most economically sensible method. While NSW Premier Kristina Keneally claims that such a levy will put too much pressure on households and mortgages, this tax won't affect such pressure. By legislating such a tax, the RBA can clearly see funds exiting the market and slowing down the economy (because as people pay more tax, they spend less). Hence the RBA will defer increasing interest rates, because the Federal Government will be (inadvertently) correcting the economy cycle. At the end of the year, tax or no tax, families and households will be relatively the same. It is a question really of whom will be taking money out of your pay packet: the Government for rebuilding Queensland, or one of the big banks?

The political squabble and concern for people's hip pocket aside, one of the popular kids in the school that is the Australian parliament, has raised a valid point. Rob Oakshott believes that a national disaster reconstruction fund should be established. As natural disasters sporadically occur within each century, a more structured planned system in financing the recovery effort needs to be established. Every time a disaster occurs, whether it is a cyclone, flood or bushfire, the government's bottom line and spending promises are compromised in order to pay for the clean up and reconstruction. Gillard's flood levy may pull Queensland out of the mud this time, but it doesn't guarantee funds for any other disaster that could occur within the next few years. The real debate that should be occurring, is whether the flood levy should be transformed into an established "disaster fund" levy. That way, funds (or partial funds) will be on hand in times of National and State crisis. As politically dangerous taxes can be, Australia may continue to place itself in financial danger if it doesn't acknowledge and plan for future events like the Queensland floods.

Links: 
Flood levy does RBA's job - The Age (Business Day)
Flood levy to test Gillard's leadership - SMH
Levy flushes out a nation of heartless bastards - ABC 'The Drum'

Gillard faces battle for flood levy support - ABC Online

All bark but no bite - National Times

No excuse for floods tax: Abbott - The Australian