We all know it’s coming. We all know it’s going to be ‘tough’ (to quote Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Treasurer Wayne Swan, Finance Minister Penny Wong and a host of others). Yes, Budget time looms again on the horizon – and it’s becoming a de facto election battleground.
Already we’ve seen both the Government and the Opposition in a race to the bottom on welfare. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott delivers a new ‘plan’ or ‘package’ almost every day, which – in his own words – is designed to be ‘a test for government’. All up, it’s a rather ridiculous competition on which side can claim to be fiscally tougher, while challenging the other to fund various areas of Australian life.
Most of this, of course, is simple posturing. We have no details. Oh, the occasional figure gets waved around in a vague manner, but that figure is so hung about with caveats and ‘I’m not playing a rule in, rule out game’ that frankly, it might as well have been pulled out of a hat. For all we know, that’s exactly what’s going on.
None of this is new. It’s almost an article of faith that as Budget time approaches, this sort of dollar-based manoeuvring and points-scoring dominates the political discussion. But it is frustrating. Government money is public money, and our job is to wait and see what they want to do with it. Little wonder, then, that polls fluctuate wildly.
With that in mind, it’s time for The Conscience Vote to put up another Open Thread, and here are some thoughts to kick that off.
What do you want to see out of the Budget?
The government’s promised to keep to its self-imposed schedule to bring Australia back into surplus. Given the terrible disasters that struck earlier this year, and the massive cleanup bill, should they consider moving that date back rather than cutting too deeply into public funds?
Are there any areas that need more funds, not less?
Are there any areas that are already overfunded, in your opinion – and what should the government do about that?
Most of all – why do you think these things should happen?
Go wild. Make a wish list. This isn’t about crunching the numbers – it’s about what you think Australia needs, right now, regardless of what either Gillard or Abbott say.
It was a day when Parliament was entirely given over to condolence motions to victims of the recent natural disasters, and celebrating the life of Corporal Richard Atkinson, killed in action in Afghanistan earlier this month. It was a day when Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Nationals Leader Warren Truss, among others, almost broke down during their speeches.
And it was a day when the Coalition finally released their proposed budget cuts to pay for flood relief.
All in all, a pretty full news cycle in terms of Australian politics. There was so much to choose from – bipartisanship, stories about those who died in the floods, pulling apart the budget cuts to see if they stacked up. It was a veritable smorgasbord.
So what became the focus of media attention?
A Prime Minister’s tears, two words and seventy seconds of silence.
Julia Gillard’s speech of condolence started fairly conventionally, setting the scene with formal words. Then, a few moments later, there was this:
‘Here today, it’s with very great sorrow that I offer words of condolence to Australians who are now facing this hard journey and to assure them they won’t travel that hard journey alone – we won’t let go Mr Speaker, we won’t let go.’
As she said those words, Gillard’s throat seemed to close over and her voice started to thicken and shake. As she continued, it was clear she was fighting back tears – a fight she lost. It wasn’t until her closing remarks that she was able to compose herself. Even then, as she sat down, she looked shattered, surreptitiously wiping tears away while she listened to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s speech.
Those watching and commenting via the internet were stunned. There was clear empathy for Gillard, which was summed up by a tweet from @AshGebranious – ‘Behold Australia. The real Julia’.
But then came the unbelievable accusations that Gillard was ‘faking it’. Internet commentary was vicious – the mainstream media was more circumspect, but still …
Andrew Bolt danced around the issue – paraphrased, his blog (published within minutes of the speech’s conclusion) boiled down to, ‘I won’t say she faked it, but it’s awfully interesting that she should cry just when everyone’s talking about how wooden she is’. He developed his theme later in The Daily Telegraph: it was ‘too perfect, and timed too well’. Everyone would always wonder if those tears were real, he opined – not that he thought that, of course. Dennis Shanahan was a little more clever, confining himself to remarks that crying wouldn’t save Gillard in the eyes of Australia. The 3AW blog commented cynically that it was ‘better late than never’.
See what they did there?
It’s not that they disbelieve her. It’s just that she was so ‘wooden’ and ‘robotic’ that, well, it’s difficult to credit. People could be forgiven for distrusting it. Why, only on Monday night people were talking about it on QandA.
Never mind that Warren Truss, hardly renowned for displaying emotional vulnerability, struggled to control his voice during his own speech. There was not even a hint that Truss might be faking it.
Never mind that Gillard – a notoriously private person who struggles to keep her personal life away from her political one – had tears in her eyes during the Apology to the Stolen Generations. That’s long forgotten.
The emotion that Gillard displayed yesterday was very, very real. To believe she was faking, you’d have to credit her with a talent for acting worthy of Oscar nomination. To believe she was faking, you’d have to accept that she is so completely without any moral sense that she would deliberately work herself into a state where she nearly broke down several times just to get a bump in her approval rating.
Watch this video – it’s a small snippet of the whole thing. There’s nothing fake going on.
Then there was the sh*tstorm in a teacup that boiled over on Tony Abbott last night, courtesy of Channel 7.
Over three months ago Abbott, visiting troops in Afghanistan, engaged a group of soldiers in conversation about. The topic was the recent death of Lance-Corporal Jared McKinney. Ostensibly off-camera, the mic was nonetheless live and it was possible to make out what was being said. On being told, ‘”Was everything done perfectly? Absolutely not. Was it tragic? Absolutely,’ Abbott nodded thoughtfully. He replied, ‘It’s pretty obvious that, uh, well, that sometimes shit happens’. At the time, the soldiers appeared to agree, and certainly no one visible in the footage seemed to take offence. Something must have pinged on Liberal strategists’ radars, though, because for the Opposition engaged Channel 7 in an FOI fight to prevent the incident being aired.
Finally confronted with it by reporter Mark Riley, laptop in hand, Abbott replied, ‘Look, you’ve taken this out of context. You weren’t there. I would never seek to make light of the death of an Australian soldier.’ Riley challenged him to supply the context. Abbott’s reaction was extraordinary.
He stood staring at Riley for a full 70 seconds (although only 24 seconds was aired due to time constraints, according to Channel 7′s Jodie Speers), jerking his head rapidly up and down and shaking slightly. Finally he said only, ‘I’ve given you the response you deserve’, and left.
Media and commentwitters alike leaped to their keyboards to get their reactions out. Shock was quickly followed by condemnation, but it wasn’t long before it settled down into a prevailing opinion that there was nothing wrong with what Abbott said, but rather his reaction to being shown the footage – and that the real villain of the piece was Mark Riley.
Laurie Oakes said Abbott was ‘stupid’, while Hugh Riminton described it as an ‘ugly’ day for the Opposition Leader. There was wide support on the internet for the notion that Abbott should simply have punched Riley in the nose for pulling a stunt like that.
Then came the analysis, and the speculation. Abbott was clearly restraining his fury during that long silence. Why didn’t he just deliver the smackdown to Riley? Was he lost for words? Can he just not handle an off-the-cuff situation? Was this the beginning of the end? Would it trigger a leadership spill?
It didn’t stop there. Over twelve hours later, it’s still the lead story. Members of the Australian Defence Force were invited to comment, as were Lance-Corporal McKinney’s family. Anthony Albanese took the opportunity to sink the boot in, trying to create the impression that Abbott was completely insensitive.
And the man himself? Well, he was out on radio early this morning explaining himself with ever-more frayed patience.
All this over two words and seventy seconds of silence.
‘Shit happens’. It’s one of those all-purpose phrases that can mean everything from callous dismissal of another’s trouble to a philosophical observation that sometimes all the preparation in the world can’t prevent things going wrong. In Abbott’s case, it was fairly obvious that he meant the latter. There was nothing insensitive about it. At worst, it was a clumsy attempt at camaraderie – Abbott trying to show rough sympathy to those who were all too familiar with the feeling of being powerless, who know that you simply can’t anticipate every possibility. That sometimes, shit just happens.
The death of a soldier is something that strikes people deeply. Usually it’s someone who is young, perhaps with a young family, who’s put themselves in harm’s way because we have asked them to do so. We hold it almost sacred – you don’t politicise, you don’t criticise, and you certainly don’t exploit it for a sound bite.
Think of the anger and disgust that surges whenever someone comes out on Anzac Day to protest against war. Even people who might ordinarily feel that war is a terrible evil will condemn someone who decides to profane that day.
Now put yourself in Tony Abbott’s shoes. An opportunistic reporter fronts up to needle him about what must have been a very difficult conversation – and chooses to do it on a day when emotions are already raw. The sense of mourning in the Parliament yesterday was very real, and it’s fair to say that few in the chamber were unaffected. Add to that the fact that part of those speeches dealt with the death of another soldier serving in Afghanistan.
Suddenly 70 seconds of silence starts to look pretty understandable, doesn’t it?
Watch the video. The interview starts about 1:30 minutes in, but it’s clear from the surrounding context that the aim was always to exploit Lance-Corporal McKinney’s death.
Sure, as a politician Abbott probably should have had an answer ready to clarify his remarks and rebuke Riley. Maybe he did have one. He knew he was going to be interviewed about his trip to Afghanistan, although perhaps not the specific questions. But when the moment came, Abbott didn’t react as a politician. He was a man furious with someone who exploited a soldier’s death.
What’s remarkable is that Abbott didn’t verbally flay Riley. He held it in and got himself under control enough to shut down the interview. I’m not sure many of us could have had that kind of restraint under the same circumstances.
So in the end, what we saw yesterday were two political leaders who, for a few moments, weren’t politicians. They were vulnerable human beings showing us sorrow and outrage.
In our political milieu, the most frequent criticism of our elected representatives is that they are not ‘genuine’ – that all we get are scripted remarks designed to deflect scrutiny and convey exactly no information, and confected emotion carefully calculated for maximum appropriateness. It’s extraordinary, then, that on a day when we saw politicians revealed as people, they received such vicious criticism. Gillard and Abbott were pilloried for doing exactly what we said we wanted them to do – step out from behind the political masks and show us the ‘real’ people underneath.
It’s a truism that we get the government we deserve. If yesterday is anything to go by, if our leaders retreat to the safety of scripts and media advisors, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Yesterday Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said that the Coalition would do everything ‘humanly’ possible to bring down the Labor government. Today it’s off to a flying start, and its first target is the creation of a proposed ‘reconstruction inspectorate’ announced by Gillard.
The inspectorate is tasked with overseeing all federally-funded rebuilding projects, to make sure the money is spent wisely. Along with this new oversight body, Gillard said that the states would have to provide independently audited financial statements to support any claim on government funds to rebuild infrastructure.
She appointed former Liberal Premier and federal Finance Minister John Fahey to head up the inspectorate, which will have the power to examine contracts, inspect projects, investigate complaints and help develop tendering process and management systems. It would not duplicate the powers of the newly-created Queensland Recovery Authority, but rather provide a new level of checks and balances.
Fahey is joined by experienced managers from well-respected firms: Martin Albrecht from the mining and construction corporation Thiess and Matt Sheerin from financial firm Deloitte. Gillard also announced that Brad Orgill, who conducted the Building the Education Revolution inquiry, would join the Queensland Reconstruction Authority Board.
Abbott initially slammed the idea of an inspectorate. It was an unnecessary new level of bureaucracy, and proof that the government was addicted to spending. The government and Treasury should be able to handle this task.
But let’s take a look at this proposed inspectorate. This body is not designed to take the place of organisations that actually call for tenders, prepare the financial statements and carry out the rebuilding work. Their purpose is advisory and precautionary. In essence, Gillard created a think tank who, based on years of experience in finance and construction, has the power to prevent the kind of debacle that can result from poor oversight of a major project. The insulation scheme is a case in point.
And it’s headed up by a former Liberal MP. Why a Liberal? There are a few possibilities here, about equally plausible.
First, Fahey is eminently qualified. Over his political career he served at both state and federal levels, with considerable experience in handling major projects and large expenditures.
Second, he’s not a serving MP. He can be said to be politically disinterested.
Third, he’s a former Liberal Minister. He has no reason to co-operate in any potential cover-up of questionable or wasteful spending that might occur. In fact, he’s as close to above reproach as any politician is likely to get. Many would remember how, in 1994, he tackled a would-be assassin who tried to target Prince Charles.
Fourth, as a Liberal, his appointment can be said to show bipartisanship.
Finally, appointing Fahey – and the inspectorate itself, more generally – to oversee expenditure on such a sensitive project sends a message to Australians that the government understands that it needs to take care with public money. Indeed, Gillard herself hinted at this as the primary reason for creating the body.
Practically, there is no downside to the inspectorate, no matter where you place yourself in the political spectrum. If you think the government cannot be trusted with money, then the inspectorate is a way to pull them into line. If you think that, despite the best of intentions, things go wrong occasionally, then it’s an insurance policy. If you think that everything will proceed without a major hitch, then it’s a good advisory body to have around, and a talent pool on which to draw in making big decisions.
It may be that, overnight, the Coalition realised this.
This morning the Coalition dropped the attack on the idea of the inspectorate. Instead, the new message – faithfully repeated in Parliament House doorstops – was that Labor had simply acknowledged that the only person capable of managing money was a Liberal. Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey was particularly pleased with the opportunity to expound on this. His grin got wider and wider as he drove home the point – repeatedly – that Labor has proved everything the Coalition has been saying about them. When media attempted to ask him about the – as yet non-existent – proposed Coalition spending cuts, he informed them that what they ‘should’ be reading and writing about was how Labor had effectively endorsed the Coalition as better economic managers.
The suggestion is ludicrous. The Coalition would have us believe that the government has knowingly dealt itself a death blow, by yielding the field on an issue that has been a point of attack for the Opposition, and an area of concern for the public. That Gillard would undermine fatally the government’s long-held stance that it can, and has, managed the economy well in very difficult times. That she would deliver a public slap in the face to Treasurer Wayne Swan and Finance Minister Penny Wong.
The idea has potential traction with the public, however. Based on the failure of the insulation program alone, many people are already inclined to view the Labor government as unable to manage money. That perception is helped along by the Coalition’s constant mis-reporting of the Orgill Inquiry into the BER program as an utter disaster. The reality is that less than 3% of schools had valid cause for complaint regarding value for money or quality of workmanship; nonetheless the message has stuck that the BER – like the insulation scheme – failed.
Given this predisposition, people might well believe that creation of the recovery inspectorate does represent confirmation of their fears.
But here’s an interesting point: remember the Australian Wheat Board scandal, when it was uncovered that agricultural companies were paying kickbacks to circumvent UN sanctions on the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq during the Oil-for-Food program? And how the government’s Cole inquiry was unable to find any evidence that the Howard government knew, condoned or tacitly authorised said kickbacks? Professor Stephen Bartos at the University of Canberra presented a paper showing that lack of a ‘strong sceptical and dispassionate regulator’ was a key failure that allowed the illegal activities to take place – indeed, to flourish.
Far from proving a lack of economic management ability, independent oversight is a sensible, practical way of ensuring value for money. It has the bonus of being a political shield, but the primary benefit is protection of public funds and the needs of the flood disaster victims.
It remains to be seen whether Labor can effectively counter this new Coalition strategy. In doing so, they’ll have to tread very carefully. It’s always risky when governments acknowledge past mistakes and take steps to ensure they do not repeat them. Gillard’s initial announcement held a good mix of humility, sincerity and determination – but Abbott and the Coalition seem now determined to portray that as an admission of weakness and incompetence.
Sadly, it will probably come down to whose rhetoric is louder, repeated more often and makes for better sound bites. And the Coalition isn’t about to let up. If there’s one thing they know how to do well, it’s control the news cycle.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott met with his Shadow Cabinet today. The topic was flood recovery, the aim to come up with an alternative plan to Labor’s two-pronged approach of flood levy and spending cuts. Tipped off that Abbott was going to interrupt proceedings to make an announcement, the media – mainstream, new and social – pricked up its ears.
Since the release of details of the flood levy, the Coalition have insisted that the entire amount for flood relief could be raised through spending cuts. To date, however, there have been no specifics. Apart from a re-hash of the ‘NBN is bad’ message and a vague notion that – because devastating floods have occurred – we don’t need a water buyback scheme, it’s been all about the rhetoric. There’s ‘fat in the budget’. There are ‘savings to be had’. Abbott is happy to sit down ‘in a spirit of bipartisanship’ to show Labor exactly where those might be. The Coalition, it seems, are great believers in the idea that if you repeat something often enough, people will start to believe it.
What we expected today, then, were a few details as to exactly where Abbott had found the ‘fat’.
What we got was five minutes of railing against the government – accompanied by Abbott’s trademark ‘I’m really savouring this moment’ grin – followed by a reassurance that people supported the Coalition, and that details would be forthcoming. Soon.
Shades of the Abbott-Hockey-Robb merry-go-round during the election campaign. Heavy on the sizzle, light – or in this case, non-existent – on the sausage.
But what we did get was the clearest possible indication of the Coalition’s goals in this Parliamentary session.
‘We will be doing everything we humanly can to get rid of a bad government,’ he said.
‘Every month that this government lasts is, in a sense, a worse month for our country than it should be … it’s our job to bring about change for the better.’
So much for ‘we’re just trying to hold the government to account’. So much for ‘we need to provide a credible alternative government’.
You can’t spin this. It’s a declaration; the Coalition are dedicating themselves to bringing down the Labour government, before July rolls around and the Greens take the balance of power in the Senate.
Listening to Abbott, you could be forgiven for thinking that the election campaign has already started. He accused the ‘Rudd/Gillard government’ (yes, he’s still using that line) of being ‘addicted to taxes, addicted to spending and … [having] no agenda for the country other than its own survival’. They ‘can’t be trusted with money’, and they know it. (The mere fact that they’ve established an oversight authority to ensure that all flood recovery money is properly spent proves it, apparently.) The Coalition has a ‘better’ plan, but we won’t find out about it in a hurry.
Sound familiar? Remind you of August last year? It should.
In the words of the immortal Yogi Berra, it’s ‘de ja vu all over again’.
There’s one crucial difference, though. It’s only been six months since the election.
That doesn’t seem to matter to the Coalition, though. Their entire attitude since the Independents decided to support Labor has been that this is not a legitimate government, and that somehow the Liberal/National parties were cheated of their ‘rightful’ place as leaders of the country. The ‘we were robbed’ rhetoric dropped off fairly quickly, but the sentiment remains. They protested that they weren’t just out to ‘wreck’ everything the government tried to do, but their actions showed a consistent, almost mindless adherence to the principle of ‘if Labor’s for it then we’re agin it’.
Now we have it confirmed straight from the horse’s mouth. Abbott says it’s the Coalition’s ‘job’ to change the government. The only way to do that is to force an election, preferably before the dreaded ‘Labor-Greens alliance’ comes into full effect. And – short of unforeseen circumstances necessitating a by-election – that means blocking the government at every turn, until there is no alternative for Gillard but to declare the government unworkable and call a double dissolution.
It’s an incredibly risky proposition. To make it work, Abbott needs the three Independents on side. That means either wedging them against their own electorates’ best interests, or convincing them that the government simply can’t deliver what it promised. Either will take a good deal of wrangling. Senator Barnaby Joyce in particular is vicious in his attacks on Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, and even manages to incur the wrath of Bob Katter (arguably the most right-leaning of the three).
Even if the Coalition can’t convince the Independents, however, they can create a bottleneck. When nothing gets done, people get frustrated; and sometimes, the most appealing alternative is to simply wipe the slate clean and start again.
Whether Abbott can manage to bring down the government is arguable. What’s clear, though, is that he intends to try, and he’s not even bothering to hide it anymore.
Yesterday on Insiders, the Opposition Leader twisted and turned over an incredibly insensitive email asking for donations for the Coalition’s campaign to stop the flood levy that was sent just as Cyclone Yasi bore down on far north Queensland. He refused to take any responsibility, or even apologise on behalf of his party. In an otherwise lightweight interview, he stammered and sweated and would only say that it wasn’t his fault – and in any case, he was just concerned for the well-being of all Australians.
Today, with Deputy Leader Julie Bishop giggling at his side, he embraced the role of wrecker with a huge smile and undisguised relish. Gone was the serious man worried about small business and working families, the self-proclaimed protector of Australia’s standard of living. Instead we were treated to Abbott-as-headkicker, gleefully aggressive and seemingly interested in nothing more than the opportunity to usurp the throne.
It was all a little bit Richard the Third, really.
So the next time Tony Abbott or the Coalition stands up on television or at an event and says they’re just looking out for the ordinary Australian, remember his words today:
‘We will be doing everything we humanly can to get rid of a bad government.’
This isn’t about us. This is about ‘vaulting ambition’, that takes nothing into account but itself. And if we are thrown into turmoil by Opposition blockades, stalled programs and – potentially – another expensive election campaign and the chaos that would result from a Coalition government killing one initiative-in-progress after the other?
As the rhetoric surrounding the proposed flood levy grows ever more hysterical (as exemplified by Senator George Brandis’ performance on Sky’s AM Agenda this morning), it’s easy to succumb to despair. Sometimes, though, you hear things that restore your faith and admiration in people.
Toowoomba in Queensland was incredibly hard hit by the flash floods that hit the Lockyer Valley, killing at least 20 people. Some of the images from that horrifying day were collected by The Chronicle. As you click through, you can see just how much of the town was affected. The cost of cleaning, rebuilding and replacing everything that was damaged is still being calculated, but is undoubtedly very, very high.
People in Toowoomba could be forgiven for feeling just a little bit selfish right now. The job ahead of them is tremendous. The University of Southern Queensland, though, has its eye on the larger situation. While its Toowoomba campus was relatively unaffected by the floods, USQ has been heavily involved in helping with flood relief for its students and the wider community. They’ve undertaken to provide fleet cars for police and volunteer groups, counselling services through its Faculty of Science and organised collection centres where people can donate food, clothing and money.
It goes much further than that. Yesterday I learned that USQ has also set up a system whereby employees can donate to the flood relief through payroll deductions. Judy Halter, USQ’s Senior Public Relations Co-ordinator, confirmed that the total amount of money raised so far is $29,500.
Many of the staff at the Toowoomba campus live in the surrounding area, which was devastated by floods. They would be automatically exempt from a flood levy. It would be understandable if they decided that under the circumstances, they were going to save their money for their own recovery needs.
They’re not. Judy Halter wrote, ‘USQ’s commitment to assist the people in our communities is supported by all levels from Council, Senior Management, staff and students’.
People at USQ understand the importance of lending a helping hand. Even when their own situations are adversely affected, they’ve dug deep for the whole community.
And yet there are people in Melbourne and Sydney whining about having to sacrifice a single cup of coffee each week so that their fresh fruit and vegetables can make it into the supermarkets. They should take a long, hard look at themselves.
Congratulations, USQ Toowoomba. You provide a wonderful example of generosity and real understanding of community spirit for the rest of us.
All the focus right now is on the flood levy. Gillard’s announcement last week that for one year, Australians will pay a small amount to help fund rebuilding infrastructure in areas devastated by the recent floods is the topic of the moment.
The rural Independents want a promise of a permanent natural disaster relief fund in return for their vote. New South Wales Premier Kristina Keneally wants a special deal so her constituents pay less than the rest of the country. The Opposition is determined to vote against the levy. In an extraordinary display of patronising false humility, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott even volunteered to help Gillard find more things to cut in the budget if it was too hard for her. If his intention was to portray himself as willing to be helpful, it backfired horribly – instead, he created an impression of someone with a superiority complex patting the ‘poor little girl’ on the head. It didn’t help that, over the weekend, he said that voting on the flood levy might be the opportunity his Coalition needs to oust Labor and get back into government.
But while all this is going on, the rest of Gillard’s announced plans to pay for flood recovery are flying under the radar. There was some initial comment from the Greens and the media, but it was quickly lost in the wrangling over the levy.
Funds will be redirected from infrastructure projects. In her address to the National Press Club, Gillard indicated six roads projects in Queensland would be delayed by one to three years, providing $325 million. Premier Anna Bligh endorsed these delays the same day as they were announced.
Gillard said she would announced a further $675 million, sourced from delays to existing projects, in the coming days.
She also announced caps on a series of programs, including the National Rental Affordability Scheme and the LPG Vehicle Scheme. In education, the Capital Development Pool and the Australian Learning and Teaching Council will be discontinued. Some existing programs – the Building Better Regional Cities and Priority Regional Infrastructure Program – will have their funds redirected to rebuilding flood-damaged infrastructure.
There’s been little, if any comment on this.
It’s the third part of the package, though, that has the Greens in particular hopping mad.
A whole suite of so-called ‘green’ programs are to be either scrapped, deferred or capped.
The Cleaner Car Rebate Scheme (dubbed ‘cash for clunkers’ by the media), Green Car Innovation Fund and the Green Start Fund will be scrapped.
The Solar Hot Water Rebate, Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute and Solar Homes and Communities Plan will all have their funding capped. She explained that for some programs, the ‘cap’ was actually a reduction in the total funds available, as demand had not been as high as anticipated.
Finally, the Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships and Solar Flagships programs will be deferred.
It would be fair to say that much of Australia did a double-take when they heard this announcement. Although there is by no means ‘complete consensus’ on the effect of climate change on extreme weather, it’s safe to say the majority of people favour ‘greening up’, if only to reduce the country’s dependence on oil and tackle pollution. Add to that the facts that securing the Greens’ support was vital for Labor to form government, that the Greens will soon hold the balance of power in the Senate and look to be significant players in the upcoming New South Wales election – and Labor’s plan looks like political suicide.
At the very least, it seems to make no sense at all. Labor’s tried to position itself as serious about tackling climate change. Gillard’s rhetoric on the subject of a carbon price has an unmistakable ‘line-in-the-sand’ quality, and she has shown every sign of being willing to do whatever it takes to bring that about. Why, then, would she slash funds from programs linked to one of Labor’s avowed policy pillars??
The clue is in Gillard’s speech:
‘The key to these carbon abatement program savings is my determination to deliver a carbon price.’
All other initiatives, she asserted, flow from the establishment of a price on carbon. Indeed, the pressure of increased carbon costs practically guarantees investment in renewable energy.
Politically, this is a clear attempt to wedge the Greens. If they want programs to tackle climate change, they’ll need to support Labor’s eventual plan for a carbon price. It’s an incredibly risky move. Labor has to walk a fine line here to avoid alienating the Greens entirely, which could see us right back where we were under Kevin Rudd – with a hostile Senate pressuring the government from both the right and left.
Last time that happened, it brought down the Prime Minister. That Labor is willing to take that chance again may be a sign of Gillard’s confidence in her ability to sell something unpopular – or it may be a giant bluff.
This strategy may not have a formal name, but it’s familiar. It’s called ‘putting all your eggs in one basket’.
But politics aside, what are the practical consequences of the proposed cuts to these green programs?
By not going ahead with the Cleaner Cars Rebate, the government rids itself of a program that was unpopular from the start. Both the Opposition and the Greens rubbished the proposal, which would see car buyers given a modest rebate when they traded in old cars for newer, greener models. A similar program in the US suffered cost blowouts, and was widely seen to have done little to encourage drivers to choose energy-efficient vehicles. Although this program was part of Labor’s election promises, breaking it is unlikely to attract much criticism – especially given where the money will go.
Solar Flagships was scheduled to fund two large-scale solar power stations in 2011. This will now be delayed. Gillard has not said for how long, but confirmed that the project was not scrapped. The effect of the delay is difficult to calculate; it’s unknown how much time it would take to build the stations and get them connected to the national grid. Clearly, any further dependence on coal-fired power than is necessary presents a problem, however.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an initiative fraught with problems. Apart from being a technology which seems increasingly unviable, with limited – if any – application in Australia, there are now indications that existing installations are now leaking dangerously. Greens Senator Christine Milne noted back in 2008 that the problems with CCS could lead to increased costs for Australian taxpayers, since the government would be liable for any leaks.
Deferring funding to the Carbon Capture and Storage Institute gives the government a bet each way. If the technology does indeed prove unviable, there can be no claims of waste. If, on the other hand, the Institute starts making real headway with CCS, the government can re-allocate funding in the future. Either way, there are few practical problems associated with re-directing money from this program to flood recovery.
The Green Start program is another millstone around Labor’s neck. Set up to replace their failed Green Loans program, Green Start had already been largely scrapped over a month ago. Gillard’s announcement at the Press Club was really only the final nail in the coffin. Funding was set aside to compensate businesses who might be adversely affected by the closure of Rounds 1 and 2. What little remains will now go towards flood recovery.
The Green Cars Innovation program has had real problems. Widely seen as supporting the automotive industry at the expense of ‘real’ action on climate change, money already granted to companies has seen little in the way of results so far. Of only four cars supposed to be manufactured with the help of the program, only one (the hybrid Toyota Camry) is on the road. The others are due to roll out some time this year. The program has already had its funding lowered due to lower than expected demand, and came in for serious criticism from the Greens.
The capped programs, whose funding pools are to be reduced guided by lack of demand, are still in place. Expected uptake for the Solar Hot Water and Homes and Communities plans did not eventuate. It’s arguable that demand may increase, especially in the areas affected by floods. As things stand, however, the money is unspent and some is able to be re-directed. Unless installation of solar hot water skyrockets in the near future, there will still be rebates available. The government also leaves the way open for raising the ceiling at a later date if demand does increase.
So these cuts to green programs boil down to scrapping two programs that was unlikely to have much beneficial effect on emissions, scrapping another that would have closed down in a month’s time, lowering the ceiling on programs whose uptake was lower than expected, and deferring funding for an initiative fraught with technological problems. As noted above, the effect of deferring Solar Flagships is unknown.
Other ‘green’ programs remain in place. These include school solar funding, the Renewable Energy Venture fund, money for getting renewable power generators connected to the grid, tax deductions for business that improve their energy efficiency rating, new mandatory standards for vehicle emissions and power stations, and a substantial Green Building fund.
Whatever the real situation as regards these proposed program cuts and caps, the problem is that they look bad. The government needs to do a lot more to sell this part of its flood recovery package to parliament and the public alike. They could do worse than start by giving people the information they need to truly assess the effect of these changes.
But then again, asking a government to treat its people as intelligent human beings with a right to know the facts of any given situation has always been a big ask. And we’re all culpable in this – we’ve let our elected representatives get away for too long with giving us only half the facts. This needs to change – and this is as good an opportunity as the current government is ever likely to get.
The preliminary costs to rebuild the infrastructure destroyed by the floods is estimated by Treasury to be $5.6 billion over the next four years, the bulk of which is needed for Queensland alone. This figure only takes into account such public infrastructure as public transport, ferries, ports, rail and roads; it does not include the costs to private businesses and individuals, which are still being estimated. It’s a staggering amount – and that’s without factoring in the likely effects on both state and national economies, which may drop our expected Gross Domestic Product figure by as much as 0.5%.
Under longstanding national disaster arrangements with the states, the federal government pays 75% of that $5.6 billion. Given that the budget is in deficit, there are really only three ways to find that money – borrow it, take it from other programs or institute a levy. Gillard absolutely ruled out borrowing, calling it a ‘soft option’. Instead, the government proposes to combine the other two approaches, bringing in a flood levy and cutting and capping programs.
On the face of it, there are a lot of numbers and it all gets confusing pretty quickly, so I want to deal with these two proposals in separate posts. Let’s start with the one that’s provoked the most hysterical rhetoric so far – the levy.
This will be raised over the 2011-12 financial year. Those earning between $50,001-100,000 per year will pay 0.5% on their taxable income, while those who make over $100,000 will pay 1%. Low income earners – under $50,000 – and those affected by the floods will be exempt.
Gillard absolutely ruled out extending the levy past the 2011-12 financial year. So Australians are being asked to pay a set amount, once, to help offset the cost of rebuilding infrastructure around the country.
According to Treasury’s fact sheet, that means someone earning $80,000 will pay $149.76, or $2.88 per week. That’s a little more than half the price of a decent latte that you might grab on the way to work. On a salary of $55,000, the amount drops to $24.96, or 48c per week – about the price of an apple.
If you’re lucky enough to earn $300,000, you’ll pay $2250.04 – the equivalent of replacing your 12-month-old MacBook Pro, or a big family meal at KFC every week.
Cue the aforementioned hysterical rhetoric.
It’s ‘grossly unfair’, according to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. It’s ‘unprecedented,’ shouted Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey. It’s ‘unnecessary,’ according to any Opposition MP or Senator who could secure air time.
Abbott warned that ‘flood victims and volunteers’ would be hit with the tax. Hockey railed about how terrible it was to ask people to donate money and time to help flood victims and then slug them with a tax they had no choice about paying. Both tutted about the unfairness of bringing in this levy ‘on top of the mining tax and the carbon tax’, and said there was more than enough ‘fat in the budget’ to pay for the rebuilding – the government simply hadn’t looked hard enough.
Finally – and most egregiously – the Opposition claimed that because of the levy, people would be less likely to donate to disaster relief appeals in the future. Instead, they’d simply wait for a levy that they were forced to pay.
Reality check.
Anyone in receipt of a Disaster Relief Payment is exempt from the levy. Abbott says this is unfair, because unless your home was pretty much destroyed, you can’t get that payment. Take a look at the qualifying conditions from the government’s Disaster Assist website, however. Yes, you’re eligible for that payment if your house was destroyed, someone was injured or someone was killed. What Abbott failed to mention was that you are also eligible if you were stranded or kept out of your house by floodwaters for 24 hours, lost power for 48 hours due to floods or your sewage backed up for the same amount of time.
So if your power stayed on and you need to have your carpets cleaned, possibly replace a few pieces of furniture – you’ll have to pay the levy. Otherwise, you’re exempt.
What about the idea that this is ‘unprecedented’? Queensland Premier Anna Bligh pointed out that the idea of a levy is nothing new. She cited four from recent years. To fund the Guns Buy-Back Scheme after the Port Arthur massacre, the Howard government increased the Medicare levy by 0.2% in 1996, lifted in 1997. In 2000, the Howard government placed a levy of 11c per litre on milk to help fund deregulation of the dairy industry that was only discontinued after 2008. When Ansett Airlines – a private company – collapsed in 2001, the Howard government raised a $10 per airline ticket levy to help pay entitlements for the laid-off workers. That levy was abolished in 2003. Finally, a levy of 3c per kilogram of sugar to help fund restructuring for growers, was instituted in 2003 and lifted in 2006.
The only thing ‘unprecedented’ about the Gillard government’s flood levy is that it will be used to fund rebuilding national public infrastructure after natural disasters – not prop up or bail out failing industry.
As for the claims of ‘more fat in the budget’ – this is speculation at best, nonsense at worst. When asked, Abbott’s only response to ‘where else would you get money from?’ is to point at the NBN. Get rid of that, and apparently all our problems would be solved. I’ve already covered the consequences of scrapping this major infrastructure work-in-progress. Needless to say, those sorts of details don’t factor in Abbott’s condemnation of the government’s levy.
And then there’s the idea that a levy will make people less likely to donate. I’m disgusted to say that I’ve seen a fair few people posting around the net that they intend to withhold potential future donations on the basis of this levy. Worst of all was the call for people to ask for their donations back from the Premier’s Appeal, or to cancel cheques and credit card payments. ‘Why should I have to pay twice?’ was the substance of their reasoning.
I hardly know where to start.
First, no one ‘has’ to pay twice. Those who chose to donate to the Premier’s Appeal did so voluntarily – and deserve thanks for doing so. But it was their choice.
Second, this isn’t some kind of ‘double-dip. Money collected from the voluntary appeal is earmarked for individuals hit by flood damage – the ‘Mums and Dads’, to use Bligh’s phrase. The levy is purely for rebuilding public infrastructure.
But what’s behind this incredibly mean-spirited sentiment?
The idea that we should just ‘wait for the tax’ undercuts the entire rationale for giving money to people in need. Public funds are already spent to help homeless people and those with major disabilities – does this mean we should therefore stop giving to St Vincent de Paul or Vision Australia? We send millions of dollars overseas in aid – should we no longer donate to World Vision or Care Australia? And how about all those kids, who are covered by Medicare? Surely we don’t need to donate to the Good Friday Appeal?
The whole notion is patently absurd.
Or is this about visibility? Is it just that people want to be seem to be voluntarily giving up their money to help others? What a repugnant idea – that we should only give when we can tell others we’ve done so.
I’d like to think it’s not about the fact that donations are tax deductible, and a levy is not.
Is there something ideological at work here, something that says it’s fine for us to donate to privately run charities or through businesses such as Coles and Woolworths, but not through the government that is directly accountable to us? This is particularly nonsensical. If a government rips us off, we have recourse. We can find out where the money has gone. Prying that sort of information out of charities and businesses is considerably more difficult, if not outright impossible. Ultimately, we can even vote out a government if we find it’s screwed around with that money. We can’t demand that a charity cease to operate unless we can prove criminal acts – see my earlier point about getting that information.
The Premiers of Western Australia and Victoria – both Liberal – endorsed the levy. Abbott, however, just goes right on raising meaningless objections and pandering to the pettiness of the mean-spirited.
It’s worth repeating: this levy is tiny. It requires almost no sacrifice from the majority of Australians – and what little it does ask is surely worth it. That money will help Brisbane and other flood-affected areas return to something like business as usual, with knock-on benefits for the entire country. Even aside from the economic benefits, the simple humanity of helping out others is something to be desired.
To end on an encouraging note: many people have already signalled that – although they earn well under the levy threshold – they would be happy to pay the levy. At least one said last night that they would donate more money to the Premier’s Appeal (besides their initial donations), and make public statements to the effect that this because they were exempt from the levy, but wanted to contribute anyway.
That’s certainly something I plan to do. And maybe if enough people do likewise, it will send a message to Abbott and the Opposition that Australians are both capable of compassion and able to see through spin and rhetoric to the heart of an issue.
Bob Brown isn’t the only politician putting his foot in his mouth when it comes to the floods currently besieging large parts of Australia, it seems. In The Punch today, Shadow Minister for Innovation Sophie Mirabella decided to give us her considered opinion – complete with a characteristically crass swipe at Brown’s comments. Her words, however, go far further than Brown’s ‘make the coal industry pay’ remarks.
Floods are ‘natural’, she wrote. What short memories we silly humans have. Why, every week it seems we have a ‘one in 200 year’ flood, but if we really looked we’d see that floods have always been with us.
Having set a fairly patronising tone, Mirabella settled in to what appeared to be the real object of her article – a diatribe against those who believe that climate change contributes to extreme weather events. She singled out climate activist and academic Professor Tim Flannery as the ringleader of this ‘alarmist’ group, who are apparently so powerful and persuasive that they can make people believe things that simply aren’t true – like the idea that our actions can affect global weather patterns. With scorn fairly dripping from the page, she derided as ‘arrogant’ the very notion that humans could be such ‘all-powerful weather makers’.
See what she did there? This is actually a very sneaky and clever strategy. We tend to think we are fairly powerless in the grand scheme of things (whether harming the planet or influencing an election outcome) – and in the face of natural disasters such as these floods, that idea is exacerbated. You only have to spend a little time reading and listening to the words of those in the Lockyer Valley to get a sense of just how helpless and overwhelmed people feel. Mirabella capitalised on that shamelessly. The barely-concealed subtext is, ‘How could we possibly be powerful enough to do such mighty things? The mere notion is ridiculous!’
It’s a technique often used by those who argue that climate change is either (a) not happening or (b) nothing to do with us. It looks humble, but it’s a false humility. Humans can, and have affected the planet via everything from wholesale deforestation to nuclear accidents and bombs. To pretend otherwise is its own special brand of arrogance, and one Mirabella embraced with enthusiasm.
She followed up with the classic climate change denial argument: ‘… these cyclical weather patterns, with random extreme events, have always been part of our nation’s and indeed our planet’s history. They are not new. They are not more ferocious. They are not “payback” for the Queensland Coal Industry … They are not nature’s way of punishing modern man for his sins. They are simply natural events.’ Actually, it’s not an argument – it’s a series of assertions designed to shut down debate. Mirabella offered no evidence other than to list dates of past floods, and relied on misdirection and blatant misstatements to obscure the gaping hole in her arguments. While Brown’s comments were ill-advised at best, at no time did he say that the floods were some kind of ‘payback’ from a vengeful Mother Nature – but it served Mirabella’s purpose to suggest otherwise.
(As an aside, it’s curious to see such blatant denial rhetoric from Mirabella – especially since her party has a stated policy on the need to reduce carbon emissions. At the very least, it poses questions for the Liberal Party as to its position on climate change – have they returned to the days of ‘absolute crap’ and Nick Minchin’s Senate tirades about hysterical pseudo-science?)
The misstatements kept coming. Mirabella’s explanation for why the floods were so back hinged on her ability to obscure a few basic principles of flood mitigation. It’s all about Wivenhoe dam, she said. If those operating the dam had kept to its ‘original purpose’ and not ‘ignored the lessons of the past’, the water levels would not have been dangerously high when the ‘big wet’ arrived. She ended her article with a pious exhortation not to forget ‘the lessons of history’ in our ‘shock and grief’ over the devastation of the floods.
Mirabella relied on people’s basic ignorance of the rather specialised area of dam management. Yes, levels were high, but water releases had been taking place since November 2010. Wivenhoe was never at capacity – ’100% full’ does not mean there is no more room, but refers to the drinking water level (about 1.1 cubic kilometre of the total 2.6 cubic kilometre storage). There is a further 115% storage available for flood mitigation before the dam is in danger of overtopping. Before it reaches that level controlled releases are made to reduce stress on the infrastructure.
She also misstated the dam’s ‘original purpose’. Though originally considered in response to the 1974 floods, Wivenhoe was never intended to be purely for flood mitigation. It was also constructed to supply drinking water to south-east Queensland, and even serves to supply storage for Wivenhoe hydro-electric power station.
None of that matters to Mirabella, apparently. She seemed content to capitalise on another predictable consequence of natural disasters – the need to find someone to blame. By lying, she exploited the sense of hurt and outrage growing in those who suffered from the floods.
Herein lies the contrast between her article and Bob Brown’s comments. Nothing Brown said was a lie.
Certainly, one can argue as to how much the coal industry – by virtue of supplying the fossil fuel – contributes to climate change, but even the Coal Association itself doesn’t deny there is an effect. Mirabella, however, ignored clear, well-known facts for the sole purpose of discrediting the idea that human contributions to climate change need to be addressed. She didn’t confine herself to attacking Brown, either – which would have been politically understandable given his comments about the floods – but struck out indiscriminately.
In doing so, she politicised the suffering of people around Australia in an unconscionable way. Her criticism of Brown for taking the opportunity to link the floods to climate change was disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst. Given that she had plenty of time to consider her position in light of the reception given Brown’s comments, the latter seems more likely.
And there is just no excuse for smearing those in charge of Wivenhoe dam, nor for misleading and panicking people. Mirabella’s lies and rhetoric callously exploited people who are suffering, who have lost everything and face disruption to their lives for perhaps months to come – all in the name of scoring dubious political points.
In the last week we saw three-quarters of Queensland devastated by floods, with 20 lives lost and possibly more bodies still unrecovered. New South Wales and Tasmania were also hit, and Victoria is currently in the grip of its own flood crisis in the north and west of the state. Even Western Australia saw some flooding.
The damage bill is likely to be enormous – much of Queensland’s infrastructure will need to be rebuilt, and that’s without even taking into account private home repairs and rebuilding. Disruptions to industry will affect food production and export, as well as mining revenue.
During this time, politicians are taking care to watch their words very closely. Anna Bligh, Queensland’s Labor Premier, shows herself to be a competent and compassionate leader, completely on top of the situation and showing her empathy for the people of her state. As Liberal Party strategist Grahame Morris noted somewhat wryly, ‘It’s just as well for the Opposition that there isn’t going to be a state election any time soon.’
By contrast, Prime Minister Julia Gillard appears to periodically undergo personality suppression. Delivering announcements about monetary assistance from the Commonwealth, she looks robotic and aloof, especially comparing to Bligh. Nonetheless, she says all the right things – even if they do come off sounding a little like platitudes.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott sounded a bum note when he visited Brisbane late last week. Interviewed by Sky’s Kieran Gilbert, Abbott made a point of saying how important it was to have a healthy budget surplus to deal with crises like the floods. In itself, that skated right up to the point of political commentary – but he followed it up by saying this (presumably the floods) was why he had always been skeptical of the current government’s ability to bring the budget back to surplus. It’s probably just as well for Gilbert that he couldn’t see the Twitter feed at that point, which exploded with advice that boiled down to, ‘You’re standing on a balcony, toss him over!’ No one, it seemed, wanted to hear political spin while the Brisbane River was flooding the streets of Queensland’s capital and lives were being lost.
Later, Abbott was heard to quote a Bible verse in which the writer observes that God makes it rain on both the good and evil alike. Perhaps he meant it philosophically. It sounded flippant.
But the Foot-in-Mouth Award in the current situation really has to go to Senator Bob Brown, leader of the Greens. During an interview, Brown delivered a truly stunning argument that went something like this. Burning coal puts greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases warm the ocean – its temperature is demonstrably going up. When this happens, the weather gets more extreme. More extreme weather = the kind of floods going on right now. The solution? Institute the originally-planned mining tax right now, and make the coal mining companies pay for rebuilding the infrastructure.
Let’s leave aside the whole ‘is-the-climate-changing-and-is-it-our-fault’ debate right now, because that’s not really the point. It’s not about the truth or otherwise of Brown’s assertions. It’s about what many saw as – at best – an incredibly tactless comment, and at worst as a blatant political act devoid of compassion.
Brown’s motives were surely well-intentioned. After all, if you’re looking for a way to drive home the dangers of unchecked climate change, the floods are a perfect example. It’s difficult to deny that something extraordinary is going on. Perhaps if he’d simply observed that the terrible toll taken by the floods showed how important it was for us to address climate change to avoid the same kind of disasters in the future, he would have gotten a better reception.
By going further and suggesting what was obviously designed to be punitive action against the coal industry, Brown undermined his own message. Suddenly it wasn’t about dealing with current and future crises, but about sticking it to one of the Greens’ perceived ‘enemies’. He unwittingly confirmed every hysterical stereotype of the ‘greenie’ – more concerned about the ‘environment’ than human lives, seeing ‘global warming’ at every turn and willing to use tragedy to prove a political point and bash big business. At that point, any truth contained in Brown’s original message becomes lost – and the way is open for others to claim the moral high ground.
Ralph Foreman, representing the Coal Association, appeared on PM Agenda this afternoon to do just. Now wasn’t the time for ‘emotional’ and ‘off-the-cuff’ rhetoric, he suggested. We don’t know that these floods are caused by climate change – we should let the scientists do their work. After all, the coal industry supports the idea of action on climate change – they’ll ‘work with anyone’ on a carbon price – but Brown’s comments are ‘not the sort of irrational thinking that we want to see introduced into this debate’.
Foreman went on to point out how much his industry would suffer as a result of the floods. It will take weeks to pump out the mines and an unknown time to make infrastructure repairs. All the time the companies will take ‘a substantial hit’ to their revenues – Queensland’s state revenues will be affected by the loss of royalties. Nonetheless, coal companies are already contributing ‘substantially’ to the Premier’s Flood Relief Appeal, and expect to give more money.
In that one interview, the coal industry managed to position itself as a rational and mature participant in the climate change debate, as well as a victim of the floods doing its best to pitch in and help everyone else recover. Brown – and by extension, the Greens – were successfully painted as callous and out of touch with reality.
Andrew Bolt and his ilk must have been fairly dancing for joy when they heard Brown’s comments.
Now, I’m not suggesting for a moment that Brown is the kind of mindless hippie fanatic certain news outlets like to suggest he is – far from it. But in calling for a tax clearly designed to punish the coal mining industry, Brown played into the hands of those very people. It was an extraordinarily naive thing to do, and I can only speculate as to what prompted it.
Maybe he was shocked at the extent of the floods. Maybe it was frustration – he looked at something that might have been much less dreadful if climate change had been tackled earlier. Maybe he was tired. Or maybe it was just a case of his mouth running ahead of his inner media advisor in the heat of an interview.
Whatever his reasons, Brown and the Greens now have to quickly move into damage control mode. They need to be out there doing the rounds of the media clarifying his remarks – and taking the hits. Brown needs to acknowledge that what he said was at least ill-advised, and show that he is mindful of how the floods nearly crippled one state, and badly disrupted others.
The Greens have made a huge tactical error. The coal industry has already capitalised on it – and when the time comes to look at the mining tax and carbon tax in Parliament, the odds are good that the Coalition will do the same thing. Abbott has a perfect opportunity to position his party as more ‘humane’ than the Greens – they care about people, not making cheap political points. (Yes, yes, I know, but how often have we heard that?) There’s real potential for central reforms of the Gillard government to be fatally undermined. The Coalition have already signalled their unwillingness to come to the negotiating table – the last thing the Greens should do is provide them with a justification for doing so.
Right now very few people want to hear theories about La Nina, or climate change, or whether more flood mitigation dams might have saved Gatton and Grantham from being virtually wiped out. People have been killed, lost their homes, their livelihoods, and whole communities are gone. Queensland in particular has only just begun to count up the cost of rebuilding. Some people at this point don’t know where they will live. In such situations, people want to hear that their elected representatives understand what’s happening and are doing everything they can to make things better. They’ll punish anyone who takes their pain and turns it into a political point, no matter what party they belong to or what they believe.
The human face of this disaster is what was lost when Brown started to talk about climate change and mining taxes – now he needs to bring it back.
Posted by theconsciencevote 
