This might be a sound article. Not sure. It got derailed at the 5th sentence. The bit about Bob Brown and Andrew Wilkie “expressing no concern that she [Julia Gillard] could tell the Australian people that ‘There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead’ as a prelude to its introduction.”

And then claiming this was “Dudding the Australian people”.

Perhaps Mr Mackerras doesn’t understand Australia’s electoral system very well. But as most well-informed analysts seem to recall it, Ms Gillard made the no tax undertaking as leader of the ALP in the 2010 campaign when she was expecting either the ALP or the Liberal-National Coalition to form government. After all, this had been the outcome of every federal election since World War One except for 1940. (Any reputable psephologist will confirm this.)

Had Ms Gillard’s party won a majority at the election and gone on to break the commitment, then certainly she could be accused of dudding the people. But the electors actually voted for a strange and unique bunch of parties and independents to form the current administration – not a Labor majority.

In the complex horse-trading after the poll, both sides made it clear that without a clear majority they could not be expected to implement their party’s program in full. One leader is even quoted as making a generous anatomical offer – not sufficiently attractive, it seems.

So it could be argued that the people dudded Julia Gillard, not the other way round.

"both sides made it clear that without a clear majority they could not be expected to implement their party’s program in full"

That's quite different to implementing a significant policy which was specifically referenced as something that would not be done.

If Julia had announced the Malaysia Solution as part of the ALP platform then failed to get it through parliment she would not be dudding the people, that would be a part of the party's program which could not be implemented.

Doing something that she specifically said that they would not do in order to get power is a different matter.

R0bert

Yes, fair comment, Robert.

But the ALP offered itself for office in 2010 with a commitment to a cap and trade system. The Greens went to the people with the carbon tax. The electorate rejected a Labor majority government and gave the nation instead a raggedy alliance - with Greens having a major say.

So it's hardly Labor's fault, is it?

Besides, Julia has said Labor still intends to implement its preferred option in due course. But later rather than sooner in deference to the electorate's decision.

So if we are looking for cheap shots and political point scoring, okay, fair enough. But if we are seeking to understand and work constructively within Australia’s complex democracy, I hope we can do better than the analysis offered above.

The anti-pokie lobby has always appealed the sanctimonious amongst us. They were vocal. They were outraged. They said pokies were a scourge. They said much but the electorate showed good common sense in asserting quite rightly that compulsive pokie gambling was restricted to a very, very small minority.

The fashionable word is "scourge", I believe.

Gambling is a "scourge" on the Australian community.

Alcohol is a "scourge" on society at large.

Smoking is a "scourge" on the nation's health, one that needs to be eliminated.

Is it the task of government to a) eradicate these "scourges" by making each one unlawful, b) penalise those who choose to drink/smoke/gamble by imposing ever higher taxes upon their activities, or c) discourage us, as far as possible, from indulging in these activities through a campaign of education?

Thankfully, no government has yet opted for a). Thus, we are still able to choose whether we indulge, or not. Freedom is quite important. At least, it becomes so, when it is taken away.

Drinking gets the c) approach, and occasionally a bit of b) - e.g. the (failed) alcopop tax. We splutter on about how families are ruined, lives are endangered, but no-one has yet suggested carrying around an ID card that says "don't allow me to drink more than two schooners".

While smoking gets b) and c), with both barrels. As it should. It's a health issue that aligns with a revenue issue. The more I tax you, the less you are likely to smoke. Perfect symmetry.

What is it about gambling, that causes the legislators to come up with a plan that is neither a full-bodied c), nor a version of b), but is about as complex and unworkable a system as could possibly be imagined?

And what is it about politicians, who dump their principles at the first opportunity, when they smell the potential to lose massive industry support? (No need to answer that, of course)

I hope the whole thing gets dumped into the bucket of silly ideas, and we can get on with what passes for a normal life.

p.s. I know a number of GA members, who as well as being responsible for themselves, do a great deal of work counselling the afflicted. So, there's no need to lecture me on the evils of gambling.

"both sides made it clear that without a clear majority they could not be expected to implement their party’s program in full"

If that was the case, then Julia should have appeared with tears in her eyes and apologise: "Sorry mates, this is a terrible tax, it saves no good purpose, it harms Australia, but my hands are tied - without the Greens I would have had no government at all, so this must be and hopefully give me more votes next time around so I can repeal this tax".

She didn't.