Naturally enough, our Prime Minister delivered a mind-numblingly soporific speech to announce her plans. The plans, in my humble opinion, were fine; in that a one-off levy to pay for the barely comprehensible damage to Queensland seems fair enough. I don't like many of the environmental cuts she's proposed, but given the choice, I'd rather have a carbon tax in the long term, so I can live with them, assuming she can get one through parliament. (I'm trusting the Government to vigorously pursue one, which is as much on me as it is on them.) Put another way, I'm a pragmatist, and don't believe in a world where the end result of a natural disaster is one where everyone gets to feel happy about things. I just wish she could convey her policies and decisions in a language that doesn't make me want to drink paint.
Whilst many Australians have been exceedingly generous in their donations, I'm a bit tired of hearing how much the everyone has contributed, for the simple reason that I know it's bollocks. Many people have contributed nothing at all. Sad, but true.
And whether people have donated or not, the simple fact remains that to date, not enough has been donated to cover the costs. So what's the alternative to a levy? Tax only those who've not yet donated? I suppose you could do that, if you don't mind the irony of creating a levy by default, but I rather do mind such stupid ideas being bandied about. Donations are brilliant, and too much of the good work done in our society already depends on them in order to continue, but to retain their ideological merit they simply must be seen as adjacent to other revenue. And if you donated (by definition) voluntarily as a pre-emptive strike against an involuntary contribution, then, you're a generous soul, but also a generous fool.
So we're left with the need to raise money through a levy and the cutting of spending. Of course, Abbott's had a cry about there being more fat (govt spending) to cut, and has clasped the chance to sink the boot into the NBN with both feet. (Which will perhaps take more balance and poise than he's got.) I don't blame him for taking this tack; after all, he's in Opposition, he's a blunt instrument, and as yet, the Government have shown no ability to counter this approach. I mean honestly, how hard can it be to corner him into naming the further cuts he'd make and then put them (the cuts) on a human face? It's not hard, and still the Government doesn't do it. If they're going to get better at Governing, they're going to have to get better at politics. I mean, should we sell Parliament House to rebuilt an Ipswitch suburb? No, probably not. Logically, it's a matter of degrees, with a movable line. The Government simply must get better at fighting for where it wants the line to be.
I mean, when Abbott speaks of "fat", how hard is it to get him to clarify his point?And the same goes with the NBN; no disaster, short of nuclear war, is big enough to shut down all other projects and infrastructure. And given the independents want it, does he really think that Gillard will shelve it and doom her own Government? I hardly think so. So he's either stupid, or he thinks Gillard is stupid, or he thinks the electorate is stupid. Either way, it's probably time for a new theme.
Although it might have seemed sound politics for Gillard to promise a quick return to a budgetary surplus, it plays as hollow when the only reasons offered for doing so seem poll-driven, rather than fiscally sound. And the tragedy is that a quick return to budget surplus is fiscally sound, as is pressing on with the NBN, but once again, the Government has done a lousy job of selling its policies.
I don't know why I'm annoyed. I should be used to this by now. I can only be grateful that, incredibly, Colin Barnett has come out in favour of the levy, which will take some of the wind out of Abbott's sails. And it's interesting that some of the independents are lobbying for permanent levy for an emergency relief fund. On first glance, it's not a bad idea. People are encouraged to budget for emergencies, so why shouldn't a country?
And perhaps it's for the best that she's likely got a fight on her hands to get this through Parliament. After all, tough decisions deserve that title for a reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment