Julia Gillard: A tragedy in the making

I feel it poignant that at the end of one of the most interesting days in Australia politics, that I give my two cents about the end of the Rudd government, and party selection of Gillard to the office of PM. In the media fray after the spill, I came across the interesting headline, 'The King is dead, long live the Queen'. For me, it really summed up the situation that had entailed. Julia Gillard, as popular and powerful as she might be at the moment, will most likely suffer the same fate as Rudd. She is but another political tragedy in the making; a capable leader that can be removed for (limited) bad press and factional infighting. But beforehand, a look at the past PM, Kevin Rudd.

As much as I began to criticise the Rudd government about its political inaction and obvious, disastrous blunders, it was a party, who had a leader that would have been more effective than the alternate PM, Tony Abbott. As in the 21 out of 23 newspolls since May, Rudd polled above Abbott by a substantial margin, predicting him to win the next election. He also had the power of a first term government on his side. Couple this with the fact that Abbott was considered by some analysts, to be unelectable, and was partially encroaching on the polls because he'd kept his mouth shut. Politicians have done backflips before with even smaller margins; take the Howard government implementing the GST for example. Rudd was a politician cashed up with political capital, but he wasn't prepared to use it or take a risk. For that, he's now been punished by his own party.

Though his departure has to be one of the most courageous and selfless deeds of any politician within the last decade. He put the vote of leadership to the party, clear and simple; sorting out the rumours that had been slowly building and spreading. The party, as seen last year with the Liberals, often almost self destructs before a caucus vote occurs. But Kevin Rudd did it to quell rumours. Mistakes made by him in questioning Gillard's faithfulness, pushy factions, power hunger MP's and the end of his perfect public image, turned it from a vote to a slaughter. His subsequent decision not to challenge Gillard, because of her huge support, further strengthened her legitimacy to rule and didn't cause the party to melt down. While he may have been soft on "the greatest moral challenge of our time", he was a swift, decisive and audacious in this decision, which I believe is one of the greatest bows from office a PM has made.

This quick overturn, from having Rudd as PM one day, to Gillard the next, fundamentally rocks the cornerstone of Australia's democracy. Political parties don't recognise the mandate for politicians to rule.   As Rudd stated during his press statement before the caucus vote, he had been given the mandate, by the people, to govern as PM. At the '07 election, Australia decided it was Kevin Rudd to be the PM, not Julia, (despite her popularity). And from newspolls, which were sliding, but weren't at all seriously hinting at the Rudd government not being reelected, confirmed his ability to lead the Labor party. The ability for the party to realign it's leadership, so quickly and unexpectedly, is almost a miscarriage of representative democracy, as it further diminishes the power of the people to choose its effective leader (and cabinet). Australia effectively chose the 'kitchen cabinet' style of the Rudd government, and while not particularly effective, it was still preferential to the alternative, highly conservative Liberal front-bench. I'm in no stage advocating that there should never be a way to remove a PM from office internally. Though systems like a vote of no confidence within the parliament, or at least having the partial legitimacy of being massively down in the polls, would justify the silent spill that occurred today. It's like the the Labor party are moving back into the era of being controlled by union groups and factions. The Kevin Rudd "car" wasn't broken or out of fuel, it needed an oil change, and maybe bit of spit and polish. But dumping him is a great waste of a popular political leader.

So what changes are we likely to see under the Gillard rule? Since Gillard hasn't taken any hardline policy steps as deputy PM, it's hard to tell. Despite having factional support from the left of the party, there's belief she may move right. What's likely to disappear, is the ability for the Labor leader to choose their own cabinet, which Rudd did with his landslide victory. Lindsay Tanner will not be contesting the next election. Despite being one of the better performers of the Rudd government's cabinet and front bench, he's seen the writing on the wall and is now practically handing over his seat to the Greens. They will be the biggest benefactors of this change in leadership, even if Gillard clearly wins the next election. The ETS is not going to rise from the grave, and putting political spin on it, in any case, is difficult. Because of Gillard's heavy involvement within the 'kitchen cabinet' that has been effectively blamed for Rudd's downfall, she is too, part to blame for the fails of micro managing government's role. Though this will be well dug up when it comes to mudslinging campaigns during the next election, sometime this year.

I'm more than supportive of Julia Gillard, as a politician, and as PM. But the process that occurred that put her into power, for me, undermines most of my faith within her to be a substantive, withstanding PM. It also erodes for me, the power of the PM. The almost instantaneous ability to remove a PM from office, in such a way, needs to be reformed. No matter how successful Julia Gillard may become, a dive in the polls and the miniscule threat of loosing the election could see her deposed of. And for a politician with her ability and strength to lead, in good times and in bad, the current system makes her a tragedy in the making.

Links: 
Labor wastes a perfectly good PM - National Times

Labor decides salvation lies in panic - National Times

In new PM, Abbott has a tougher opponent - National Times

I may delight, I may disappoint, but I'll be working hard - National Times

Lindsay Tanner resignation opens door to Greens in seat of Melbourne - The Australian 

Gillard says challenge 'a tough decision' - ABC Online

Is there such a thing as 'digital privacy'?

The discussion about privacy on the internet is continuing to heat up, with Google now being taken to a US court for 'illegally' obtaining and storing data it received when driving round in the US, mapping for Google's Streetview. Criticisms have now moved on to Facebook, for its continual change of privacy settings. Governments around the world, including the Australian government, are struggling to apply normal legislation about privacy to these companies, and the internet at large. Do people make a conscience choice to give up personal information to companies and third parties? Or are they being misled? Regardless of what they choose to give up, the most concerning issue is what's being taken without your knowledge or consent. Tougher laws are needed, to give clarity to people interacting with the web, but also to companies who are providing ever expanding services. It's about time Australia introduced a comprehensive internet "bill of rights", clarifying laws already murky, and start setting precedence for protecting users privacy.

The main misconception with online privacy is that if you don't disclose any personal information, you're completely safe. Though even though you may not disclose your address, name, or picture of yourself, even more personal information about you can be surreptitiously disclosed. A US phone company was able to pinpoint a random customers exact location with over 90% accuracy, by only using past records of their phone usage. Thus whatever you've done in your past, can now be dug up to effect your present. And with digital media, it is even easier to track, record, analyse and distribute this data. From what you like to buy, to what you search the most on Google, all this is recorded. Even when you do a Google search or use a website, you may not be imparting 'vital' information about yourself, such as your name or location, enough information can be gathered about you without your knowledge. AOL once recorded the search results of individual clients then gave the clients a random ID. Through the compilation of just search data, other companies were able to track down individuals, by only having a list of search terms.

But it's not just AOL who does this. Google records your ISP number (it's like a car registration number for your computer), thus it records all the searches you conduct. One of the great points of Google is that is brings back search results that you want. Though it can only do this through gathering information about our habits. Are we legally able to opt out of this system? Can we have our records expunged if we choose to? Did we ever legally sign a contract with Google allowing it to do this? NO! And that's the problem. We inherently allow them to do this, every time we hit search! Such practices need legal clarification, so we know our digital rights to privacy, and companies know how much data they can collect.

Though companies, such as Facebook and Google, have a direct interest in obtaining our personal information, because it relates directly to profits. The more information they know about us, the more personalised the 'ads' become, thus the more likely we are to click on them and let Facebook and Google make a profit. The majority of websites are based on advertising models, so they want to know what we like, in order to sell it to us in an add. But what if we don't want to relinquish such information? With companies like Facebook assuming that we are happy to reveal this information, as seen with their lackluster privacy policy which is about to be radically changed due to user backlash, it's hard for us to choose what information we would like to reveal and what information we want kept hidden.

Google's blatant storage of information it 'accidently' harvested from unlocked wi-fi networks when it was conducting its Streetview mapping in the US, is an example of how sometimes, these companies are happy to overstep the mark for profit. So what we need are clear rules, outlining what rights we have on the internet, and legally, what companies can obtain without our consenting. While the government's proposed internet filter is meant to weed out the nasty side of the internet, clarification about everyones rights to the internet is a more important step. Because the real danger of todays internet isn't a virus or illicit material, located on an unknown server. It's the 'legal', daylight robbery of everyones information, regardless of whether its a photo, name or search details that when complied, can track you down, that is the real threat.

As seen when people mix their digital life with their real life, things can quickly turn sour. While Facebook was only the platform and not the cause Nona Belomesoff's death, greater awareness and clarification about privacy laws can prevent other harms from occurring; such the chat-roulette location scandal. I implore the Australian government to consider outlining in great detail, the legal rights to privacy people have in this digital age. At the moment, internet based companies are evolving their services and are harvesting information faster than the legal or political system can catch up. It's time we clarified, whether we do have a right to 'digital privacy'.

Links:
Facebook bows to privacy pressure - The Age online

Teen's murder sparks Facebook privacy plea - ABC online

Forget Facebook privacy, your digital life is being monitored - National Times

US judge wants copies of Google Street View data - The Australian Online 

From "Super Tax" to super spin.

As soon as the Rudd government announced plans to implement a 40% super profits tax, the big mining companies automatically opposed such a plan. And why wouldn't they? The more money they make, the better the Australian economy is, right? Or as with all profit driven businesses, they do it for personal reasons, with altruism long forgotten. The 40% super profits tax is a tax long overdue. While the Australian mining sector is critical sector within our economy, maintaining its longevity and retaining benefits for all Australians, not just those who are employed by Rio Tinto or BHP, is critical. 

While the Henry Tax review didn't explicitly make the recommendation to implement such a tax, it does endorse it. With economic modeling demonstrating that there will still be, continued foreign and national investment into mining and resource ventures within Australia, this demonstrates that this new tax is not going to destroy the whole Australian economy, as some would have you believe.

The main question within the debate over the tax, which has been softly put by the government and not 'spun' enough in comparison to the oppositions "big new tax" catchphrase, is the question about the ownership of these resources. While the major, international conglomerate companies such as Rio Tinto and BHP find the resources, the owners of these resources is still the Commonwealth, thus 'public property', owned by the Australian people. The government, representing the views and values of the majority of the population, decide which way to disperse these precious resources. A company who finds resources, whether coal, gold, oil (even trees), can't start digging until it's granted government permission through license. So the Rudd government has the full capacity to stop particular mining ventures, and/or impose whatever conditions they believe necessary upon them. This includes environmental conditions, to taxation on profits. It is done to make sure the financial benefits of these resources, are spread amongst the Australian people equally. So while these companies are running campaigns about how they already do so much for the Australian economy, under this tax, they will be doing more.

Though one of the most asserted comments, coming from both the floundering Abbott opposition and cashed up resource industry, is the asserted statement that investment within Australia will stop. But unless the mines and resources magically float overseas, how can this be possible? Companies want to mine in Australia, not because they like our working ours, red sand or ultimately, even our tax rate; it's because we have the resources in quantities that no other country has. In both coal, uranium, aluminum, natural gas, gold and diamonds, we are almost world leaders for the amount of resources we have. And when the notion of Australia becoming less "internationally competitive" arrises, I encourage you to laugh. This is a "super profits tax", not a normal tax that takes a percentage cut out of every dollar earned. This takes a cut not out of the final profits that are made, but the absurd multi million/billion dollar profits that are made. These companies will already be making multi million dollar profits, so the incentive for them to continue investing and digging up resources within Australia are still there.

Though lastly, and on a point of politics, the opposition claiming that this is just a "cash grab" for a Government heavily in debt is just ludicrous. The IMF supports the mining tax, on the basis that it believes such measures will help prevent Australia slipping into recession if the world economy turns sour again. But the Rudd government isn't going to be sending you the money from the tax, directly in the mail, or spending it on a dodgy insulation scheme, but instead will be co-contributing it to your super. This will assist Australia's long term economic growth by allowing more people to be less reliant on the government for pensions. And then there's the added bonus of having more savings and investment within the Australian economy, though superannuation investments.

So while the Rudd government hasn't spun this new "super tax" to make it a completely 'won' political issue for them, all independent economic modeling and investigation has highlighted that this super profits tax will have a positive effect on the Australian mining sector, which is still be one of the most heavily subsidies industries within Australia. While the industry is obviously worried about missing out on a few extra million from their multi billion dollar profits, they are going overboard in their response, claiming that they are 'reviewing' projects within Australian and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising campaigns. They're spinning themselves and the Australian people, into a pointless frenzy. Hopefully the Rudd government wont' let this policy slide into oblivion, outdone by selfish groups prepared to shout "big new tax" and "economic Armageddon", despite facts being otherwise.


Links:
Growing rich pains: the downside to mining boom - National Times

Rudd's resources super profits tax will hit food: Tony Abbott - The Australian 

Resources tax - cracks widen - The Australian Business

Wayne Swan sells mining tax to states amid marginal seats risk - The Australian 

Miners reject the Resource Super Profits tax grab - The Age Business Day

40% of minerals go to the nation - The Age