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.

Hi Yuyutsu.

Did you read the explanation by Ms Gillard in February last year? She explained then how and why circumstances had changed, didn’t she? Why was that not fair enough?

There is no real rational basis for anyone to suggest the system Australia has now is “a terrible tax, it saves no good purpose, it harms Australia”, is there? So I hope you are just being mischievous there.

The policy now in place is certainly different from the one Ms Gillard promised that a majority Labor government would deliver. But it is the policy that seems to have the support of the overwhelming majority of climate professionals, and most members of the Parliament today, including Tony Abbott and the Liberals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74

Dear Alan,

I'm afraid I haven't seen Julia's explanation -has anything changed according to her in the real world (as opposed to the political field)?

Well I was a bit exaggerating using the word 'terrible' as I believe Julia would under the circumstances, but I happen to believe in essence that this is a bad tax - though not the worst we have. This is not a tax on carbon, but on savings, because it creates inflation. No wonder that the Labor socialists like it: take away from those who saved for a rainy day and hand it to those who spend like there's no tomorrow (a carbon trading-scheme wouldn't have this effect). This tax also creates many new government paper-shuffling jobs to administer.

It's untrue that Tony Abbott and the Liberals support this policy -in fact they promised to repeal the carbon tax if elected (subject to not having other countries do the same) -I listened to your clip and what Tony said at the very beginning was: "If you want to put a price on carbon"... the rest is conditional on that.

"The overwhelming majority of climate professionals" is not an indication: if you don't believe there is a problem to begin with, then you wouldn't become a climate professional, then once you do and are on the government's payroll, why would you want to become jobless? or if in the academy and already published papers, obviously you wouldn't be happy to find them falsified.

Initially they scared us that the sea will rise by 300 meters, then only by 60 meters (that's when my brother built a house 63 meters above sea level, so he can have a private beach), and their last version is only ONE meter in a century. So much fuss for a rise of just one meter? Had we been at least able to prevent it -but that would require such economic sacrifices that will send half the world starving. So much cheaper to just accept that the sea will rise by one centimeter a year and take the necessary measures to adapt!

More power to Andrew Wilkie and anyone who stands up for poker machine reform.

I think that the best reform for poker machines is to phase them out and not allow replacement machines.

Time for winding down and eventually dissolving a casino-like culture at the local level of our metropolitan, city and regional centres by phasing out poker machines.

Jobs- either imagined or real in gaming should be no justification for keeping gaming machines that has brought personal and household violence, desperation and human despair.

Real jobs should be about products and services that benefit people, not make work schemes or jobs that lead to an increase in social and financial problems for even one person,let alone a substantial number of people.

YuYu
Perhaps you should just listen to the vast majority of climate scientists - not pollies.

Hey, do you really understand what a 60 cm rise means, let alone one metre?

ps: if all the ice on the planet melted, it wouldn't increase SL by 300 metres. Where did you get that?

Dear Webby,

I am not a gambler, those poker machines disgust me and like you I am looking forward for that culture to dissolve, but by forcibly taking away the ability to use those machines, people also lose the opportunity to resist that temptation, to use their free choice and will-power to stay away from that evil, and that's what makes us grow.

I understand your concern for those who fail and use those machines, but think about all the others who do not. All those who may feel the tickle to gamble, but overcome it - why take away their merit? and why take away the power and opportunity of those who still gamble to one day grow out of it as well? It is only that which we freely choose that counts.

Regarding jobs, indeed Australian society is already too focused on them and the gaming industry is only the tip of the iceberg of jobs we could do away with and have more free time to fulfill what life is really about. Yet again, people ought to quit such degrading jobs by their own free conscience - otherwise they will simply create similar or equivalent jobs and fall again in the same trap.

Dear Bonmot,

300 meters is what I heard on the radio in the first days when they started talking about global-warming, must have been a calculation error. I understand now that this was impossible and indeed that was later revised, but at the time I believed the scientists and was quite scared.

If the sea was to rise by 60cm today it would be a tsunami, but with 60-years' notice, 1cm/year, there is so much you could do about it and anyway it's not realistically preventable. Some options are:

* Don't rebuild near the beach once buildings reach their natural end.
* Fortify existing buildings if they are so important.
* Build dams (as in Holland).
* Build floating cities.
* Landfill around shallow islands.
* Drown (this will help relieving the earth of human infestation).
* Reduce population by having no more children.

Yuyutsu
No, not a calculation error. If you really did hear that number, it was not said by a real scientist.

Adapting and mitigation is a must. It's unfortunate that there is a concerted effort to deny and delay.

Wilkie was stupid enough to believe that Juliar would double cross the Australian electorate yet keep her promise to him.

A promise from Juliar is not worth the paper it is written on.