Julia Gillard might be excused for thinking this leadership business is pretty straightforward after swapping a few ministers around and fixing the mining tax. But this was not so much political genius as common sense. From here on in however, it gets harder.

All smiles: Julia Gillard after the mining deal was announced yesterday. Photo: Kym Smith

At her first press conference as Labor leader, Julia Gillard said she wanted to get three things sorted before she pulled the election trigger. First order of business was the issue du jour, resolving the Resource Super Profits Tax. Then came asylum seekers and community anxiousness over continuing boat arrivals, and finally, repairing Labor’s standing on climate change.

But first things first. Kevin Rudd’s clumsy reversal on emissions trading aside, it was his self-started fight over the RSPT more than anything else, that was killing the Government.

Not since Gough Whitlam took on private medicine to bring in Medibank in the 1970s and before that Ben Chifley tried to nationalise the banks in 1949, had a government had such a ferocious fight with private capital. In Chifley’s case, it cost him government. In Kevin Rudd’s, the prime ministership.

His sales job on the Resource Super Profits Tax was botched from day one. The ``we have the balance about right’’ approach seemed tailor-made to maximise its own opposition. Worst of all, the policy was a solution in search of a problem. And a complex one at that.

The Government miscalculated the RSPT on four levels. First, it assumed a latent community resentment about greedy miners getting fat on our resources. Second, it assumed that people would therefore readily welcome a massive new impost clawing back those excessive profits for re-distribution to the community. Third, it assumed that because of the first two, the Government need not vex itself about the miners squealing because it merely proved they were greedy and unreasonable Rudd insiders privately welcomed the fight initially thinking it was good for them to be seen fighting with the big end of town. And, fourth, that it possessed the communications skills to carry a complex argument in simple terms in precsiesly the way it did not do with its emissions trading scheme. All four were wrong. The longer the dispute dragged on, the worse it looked for the Government.

That Ms Gillard has apparently pulled this one out of the fire is a major turning point. While the polls have already shown the switch to Ms Gillard has pleased voters, the material justification for the change-over, the first tangible dividend from that painful but necessary coup, has rolled in with her resolution of this imbroglio.

Its swift settlement proves that a new leader, even where she was intimately involved in the creation of the problem, has a leave pass to draw a line under the past and move forward untainted. Or put another way, what for Mr Rudd would have been a humiliating capitulation, is for Ms Gillard, a sensible and productive way forward.

But she knows that it’s the early stuff that is, in some ways, the easiest to fix - the low hanging fruit.

The next two hurdles are more difficult. The mining tax has been resolved over the negotiating table. Voters don’t need to know the complexities of it all but will be relieved that those ``in the know’’ are satsified. If they’re happy, so are we. Job done.

But border protection and climate change policy are arguments that must be won not across the PM’s coffee table but in the notoriously tough court of public opinion. In the case of border policy, what Ms Gillard must do now, is address irrational but nonetheless real fears about boat-loads of asylum seekers over-running the country. She must adjust existing policy in a way that convinces aspirational swinging voters in the outer-suburbs, that she is tough on border security. Extra Navy and border patrol boats are likely but they don’t stop the flow - nothing will. Hardening rhetoric beyond that may come at a considerable cost on the left of the spectrum. Much of Labor’s poll resurgence since Ms Gillard took over has come from the Greens. Presenting as John Howard lite on asylum seekers risks sending them back again.

On climate change, she has to come up with a policy that is both simple and convincing - a carbon tax fits that bill but word is a simpler ETS is favoured.

It’s one problem down, two to go. But the worst hurdles lay ahead and managing expectations will be critical to success. Labor MPs will be hoping she has not already set the bar too high.

77 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Andrew says:

      06:50am | 03/07/10

      Haven’t we just seen this approach by the popular (at the time) Kevin07 when he was elected. I’m gunna, I’m gunna, I’m gunna, I can do anything I’m so popular, I’m the best you just watch me.

    • Back home in Chipping Sodbury says:

      07:11am | 04/07/10

      All the hard work starts,So Gillard(Shorten) works on the theory that they completely stuff things and then celebrate fixing their own mistakes,Its an old Manchester Industrial Revolution union manifesto,if there no work create your own by not doing your job properly in the first pace
      This is now a government deeply ensconced in nineteen century English politics and union implemented ideology,disaster and the beauty is that no one is responsible as long as you have Red(grey tinted red) Hair

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      08:05am | 03/07/10

      Julia shouldn’t allow Abbott to set the agenda for the election. Which she wont by the way she is currently travelling. He has been caught on the back foot with the mining tax. The poor little man is already jumping on it as the theme for the election, Julia will move past this within days and leave him hanging in the wind. The issue of ACTUAL boat arrival is also a non issue blown up by the racist conservative few wind bags. We have a lot bigger problems than boats arriving at Christmas island, and Julia needs to show what a racist scare campaign by the liberals this issue is. I dont think she will or needs to put a climate change policy out before the election. But make it apart of the theme for the election along with health.  Go ALP!!!! your country needs you!!!

    • Kev says:

      11:07am | 03/07/10

      Rob, I hope Gillard follows your advice.  Considering boat arrivals as a non event and saying we will look at the ETS after the election will help the conservative cause enormously.  You need to get out more or read more if thats your thinking.

    • Rosie says:

      11:15am | 03/07/10

      Go ALP!!!! your country needs you!!! Hello your country!

      Give me back my taxes please!

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      09:07pm | 03/07/10

      Kev says:11:07am; the conservatives will jump on any populist cause going, when you start making policy on media churnings you know you’ve lost the race

      Rosie says:11:15am; now now the hippy cause died out in the 60’s you’ll just have to learn to pay your taxes like everybody else

    • Ryan says:

      11:46am | 05/07/10

      “Go ALP!!!! your country needs you!!!” : the country didn’t need them up until they stuffed it up.

    • Julie Coker-Godson says:

      08:28am | 03/07/10

      I get concerned about asylum seekers because many of them destroy their documents so that our security checkers have to start from scratch and in some cases people have already been accepted as refugees in another camp but refuse to wait until a country has a place for them.  They decide instead to “force the issue” by getting onto boats to come here regardless of the risk to their lives and that of their families.  Its wrong and it should be discouraged in the strongest terms at every level.  On another note, I used to live in the UK between the periods 1972-73 and 1977-86.  I have friends there who tell me I wouldn’t know the place now as some areas are totally taken over by non-UK born citizens, usually from the same country of origin.  I understand from one of my friends who lives in Hackney that it is totally overcrowded in London and the immediate surrounds.  A lot of indigenous English people have moved out of the area and into the country to get away from London.  The point is, over-concentration of immigrants in any one given area is going to cause concern and resentment and more consideration needs to be given to the location of new arrivals to prevent this from happening.

    • steve says:

      12:40am | 05/07/10

      Julie Coker - Godson for prime minister three cheers for our new leader aye !

    • Ryan says:

      11:39am | 05/07/10

      The concern in the UK I believe is the complete lack of integration and instead the divying up of the UK as little enclaves of each country from which the immigrants come. The original residents being forced from the area mostly through intimidation. Take a look at Sydney, its happening here too.

    • James says:

      08:59am | 03/07/10

      Ok so are we now going to see the “lurch to the right” as Rudd mentioned was going on in the Labor Party? “What ever it takes” as Peter Garrett said their motto was. Is Julia going to try and be another “everything to everyone” again just to win votes? More poll driven Policies only zone?

    • DD Ball says:

      09:04am | 03/07/10

      The chief problem for Gillard is that she has already failed. She should have changed things when she knifed Rudd, after all, it was the popularity of the person, not the person that was unpopular, and Rudd was unpopular due to bad policy. Gillard held deathly tight to the bad policy. She has retained the bad tax, but made it more political and annoying, so that the mining corporations can’t be bothered to continue opposing it and so it may appear they endorse it.
      Her choice of ministers shows she has no new idea, nothing worth brining to the PM’s position. Instead she is trying to sell the tired and old. She is a puppet, or a rabbit staring at headlights and not knowing which way to run.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      09:14am | 03/07/10

      Both issues are a festering sore in the community and i don’t share the writer’s dismissal of the people’s concerns on border control as irrational.
      They have many and varied reasons for their fears over the seemingly unstoppable flow of people enting our country via the back door.
      refugees require taxpayer funded welfare -
      health risks -
      criminal element risks -
      terrorist entry risks -
      increased waiting time placed on legal entries -
      jobs provided to illegal entrants displacing jobless Australians -

      These are just a few of the concerns ot in the community on border control ,
      and voters will have it as a priority on election day.
      The E.T.S. is a really big worry , the effects of which , have been left largely unexplained to the Australian public.
      People are not stupid , they know that E.T.S. costs will flow on to the price of everything ,  * food * rates * insurance* transport* fuel * freight* clothing* etc etc etc .  The problems with spiralling costs will make the G.S.T. effects look tame indeed.  One utility item in for a big whack upwards is power and this rise alone affects so many other items in cost , that we use everyday. The effects of an E.T.S. are frightening , the public have a weather eye on this controversial measure and woe betide the foolish politician who choses to ignore the people’s concerns.

    • Bill says:

      12:57pm | 03/07/10

      A good sumnation, Wayne. These are real issues and when they are raised and questions asked, the Labor response is always to vilify the person asking the questions. Questioners are always dismissed as “hysterical”, “xenophobic”, “redneck” or as “racist”. This is a dishonest response but our cowardly media, with few exceptions, have never had the integrity to call this Labor response and insist that they answer the questions.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      01:19pm | 03/07/10

      Wayne Fehlhaber says:09:14am; Nothing like a good old liberal fear campaign on boat people eh’ health risks - criminal element risks -
      terrorist entry risks - Please point to where you got your satistics, I bet as usual more Waffle from Waffler Jayne. We had one WA liberal member this morning on AM Agenda saying how the liberals when elected will be towing the boats back to their country of origin. I cant wait to see that!!!

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      01:33pm | 03/07/10

      Wayne Fehlhaber says:09:14am; I dont think you should be comparing the GST to anything. I think we all remember the problem the liberals had bring that in. Didn’t it cost Hewson the leadership??? and we ended up with in P Keating’s words “The little desiccated coconut”  interesting how history repeats itself isn’t it, except this times we got a rose ; )

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      08:02am | 04/07/10

      Rob r Charteris :  As Bill has stated , these are real issues and when they are raised and questions asked , the Labor response is always villification of the person asking for answers.
      In your case Rob , it is the usual Labor dogma the party has polluted your brain with over a long period of time.  Try to think for yourself for a change .

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      09:10am | 04/07/10

      Wayne Fehlhaber says:08:02am; As usual you cant deliver the facts, just liberal spin. I’ll say again “Please point to where you got your satistics” on “health risks - criminal element risks - terrorist entry risks” I didn’t ask for liberal spin… it’s a pretty easy question.

    • Ben81 says:

      08:16pm | 04/07/10

      Rob, where did Wayne quote any statistics?  He clearly said that the points he mentioned were examples of peoples concerns.  How can anyone not blinded by the politics of the issue not understand that pointing out those obvious risks is plainly justified when we’re talking about people arriving with no identification from areas flooded with extremists?

      Let’s play your silly little game, show me some statistics that say those things are no risk.  You’d better come back with some facts that show the things that Wayne mentioned are both not a risk and not things that people are concerned about, otherwise you have “nothing but spin” and don’t have a grasp of basic reading comprehension.

    • T.Chong says:

      09:19am | 03/07/10

      :Mark, after years in politics, having being involved in all types of machinations etc, I’m pretty sure that Gillard might have some idea about what lies ahead, though i’m sure that the PM, and her team , will appreciate the News Corp meedias input into how to run things proper.
      Just let them know.

    • Mayday says:

      09:25am | 03/07/10

      Firstly wedge politics pushing the “class war.”
      Secondly treating the voter like an ignoramus, deaf, dumb and blind to the poor policies and feeble attempts at administering such policy.
      Thirdly keeping the Unions happy by having a go at the big end of town.
      Finally allowing Ken Henry (a public servant) to speak on behalf of the Treasurer.
      Our de facto treasurer Swan will have to let Ken Henry go and actually do his
      job now which is a real worry…....bring on the election please, amateur hour is over.

    • thatmosis says:

      09:33am | 03/07/10

      The ETS is dead and buried and should be left to rest in peace. The science that supported the ETS was proved time and time again to be false or manipulated to achieve the desired outcome. The ETS is nothing more than another Tax Grab by a Tax mad Government who’s only aim as far as I can see is to impost the public and business with more and more taxes to pay for their policies gone bad which were aided and abbetted by Gillard,aka The Wicked Witch of the West. This supposed breakthrough for the Mining Tax will leave other businesses having to foot the entire bill for the raising of the Compulsary Superannuation Levy which was supposed to be offset by reduced Tax. It may seem like a win to the brain dead but in fact it is a further example of this Government doing deals with a minority to save their political skins whilst the majority suffer.

    • Press says:

      02:11pm | 03/07/10

      Climate science false? Simply not so.

      The evidence of man-made global warming is already there, and grows with each passing year.  We’ll need some luck and some good will to negotiate useful action world wide in coming years - if we’re to keep the rise to a bearable 2 degrees or so.

      The longer we delay, the harder it will be. And every year we delay, the more it’ll cost. And most of us still want somethig done, and soon.

      Keep your insults, mate. They do nothing for your post, and count for nothing against global warming.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      03:03pm | 03/07/10

      Oh, Climate Change is far from dead and buried, and is a major issue in the community. The ETS on the other hand, is bad policy and should be replaced with a straight carbon tax on domestic industry and carbon tariff on imports.

    • Northern Steve says:

      07:28pm | 03/07/10

      I don’t know what science you are talking about, but the fundamentals of climate change are still true.  Firstly, excess CO2 will cause our planet to heat up (methane is worse). secondly, we are creating (as humanity) more CO2 than ever in our history.  If the quantity of CO2 accumulating in our atmosphere and oceans is not reduced, climate change will occur.  Other changes already occurring include acidification of the ocean (from excess CO2 being absorbed).  What scientists are still working on is exactly what will happen, but there is enough evidence in our fossil record and in the earth’s crust and ice to show massive changes in the past.

      To dismiss it as wrong or disproven is to misunderstand just exactly how complex our biosphere is.

    • Northern Steve says:

      08:50pm | 03/07/10

      Pia, I partricularly like this bit right at the start of that web page

      “Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors.”

      So, really, what we have is a list of papers on climate change that could say anything.

      Oh, and here’s a quote from one I picked at random:
      “As a result, it is expected that increases in atmospheric CO2 content will result in significant changes in surface temperature” (The Role of Convective Model Choice in Calculating the Climate Impact of Doubling CO2)

      Yes there are scpetics, yes the science is still unsure, but more about the actual consequences and time-frame.  Few scientists doubt that there will be climate change.

    • Northern Steve says:

      09:40pm | 03/07/10

      And here’s another one Pia - one of the articles from your link really managing to deliberately mislead.  I’ve got high school students that could pick holes in this article.

      “and it will take centuries of net CO2 absorption before even a neutral pH of 7 is reached.” (An Alternative View of Climate Change for Steelmakers)

      Now, the pH of the ocean is approx 8, and relies on it being 8 (slightly basic) for our current marine ecosystem to exist as it does.  By the time it gets to 7, our oceans will be absolutely devastated.  In fact much smaller changes would be devestating, and the effects are already being noted with a drop in pH of only 0.1 since the industrial revolution.  So why is the paper talking about a pH of 7?  It’s a puppy, that’s all.

      If that’s the sort of crap on your list of 750 peer-reviewed papers, its got no credibility.

    • Riley W. says:

      04:00am | 04/07/10

      Wake up, you’re all being played for fools by politicians, bureaucrats and global banksters. Government has corrupted science.

      The AGW hypothesis is a failure. Natural variability is still the major driver of the climate changes.  The earth’s climate is always changing - it has for 4.5 billion years and will continue to do so - to speak of ‘climate change’ as if it is something “new” is misleading. Recent changes are not unusual.

      Carbon is NOT a pollutant.  Carbon is the building block for all life on earth. It provides all of the food and most the energy for the human race. Climate “models” used by the IPCC fail lack the scientific integrity needed for use in climate prediction and related policy decision making.

      Australia produces less than 1.5% of global emissions. Even if we reduced those to zero overnight (a 100% reduction), it would make no difference to the climate (even if we assume that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature). So 5 - 15% reduction will achieve less than nothing.

      There seems to be in Australia, a desire to “do something” for the environment. To give back. To help global communities, to be good ‘citizens’. This wave of good intent by good people has been hijacked by the government and by those with vested interests.

      Australia should focus on reducing actual pollution, not CO2, which is a harmless gas and essential for all plant life on earth - from our environment. The hard sell on an emissions trading scheme simply does not add up. An emissions trading scheme will achieve absolutely nothing for the climate, but will do enormous damage to our industry, our economy, and the standard of living of all Australians.

      This issue is not going to disappear quickly; far too much money has been vested in AGW programs and investments (including by Labor). But one must believe that in due course the truth will out and the fraud and deception will be revealed in all its forms.

    • Poptech says:

      08:55am | 04/07/10

      Northern Steve,

      The paper (The Role of Convective Model Choice in Calculating the Climate Impact of Doubling CO2) also says,

      “Interestingly, the use of the cumulus-type parameterization appears to eliminate the possibility of a runaway greenhouse.”

    • Northern Steve says:

      10:50am | 04/07/10

      Riley, you’re all over the place.
      First you state that carbon is not a pollutant, its the base of life.  Well, yes, but it depends on what compound that carbon is in.  It is the base of life, and as CO2 it is a pollutant, and in another compound its a poison (cyanide), and in another form you put it in your tea (sugar) and so on.

      As far as nature being the driver for climate change, yes it has, and until recently our output has paled in comparison to nature, but our output of CO2 (a pollutant) is rising beyond the normal rate, and into the realm where it can cause change.  Just because climate change has happened in the past due ot natural causes, it doesn’t therefore mean that we cannot ALSO be a cause.

      Then you go on to say that Oz produces on 1.5% of the global carbon pollution.  How is that relevant ot this debate?  Our size in the world doesn’t change the fact that CO2 can cause climate change.  It may affect our role in world, but doesn’t change the debate we’re having.  You’re just trying to distract with something irrelevant (Oh look, a puppy!)

      CO2 is not a harmless gas.  It does exactly what the science says it does, which is to trap heat.  The more there is, the more it traps.  It doesn’t matter if it comes from a volcano or from people it still has an affect.  We can’t control the volcanoes, we can control our output.

    • Northern Steve says:

      06:23pm | 04/07/10

      Yep, Poptech, it does.
      And if you read it more carefully, you will see that it is comparing two methods for predicting temperature change in the atmosphere, and it definitely says that the cumulus type technique is the LESS useful of two techniques.  The other technique, the more sensitive technique, does not preclude the runaway greenhouse technique.

      On a broader note, you’ll notice that two random samples (which they were) are either lacking in scientific accuracy, or are actually supportive of the view that climate change may occur due to CO2 emissions

    • Poptech says:

      06:20am | 06/07/10

      Northern Steve,,

      It says nothing about it being less useful. It says it is less sensitive because it is. The point of the paper is that adding in a physically-based, cumulus-type parameterization (clouds) you have a climate model that more effectively radiates heat into space and prevents a runaway greenhouse.

      Your samples do not support AGW alarm which is the point of the list.

      The list is proof of overwhelming support for skeptics arguments in the peer-reviewed literature.

    • Luke4 says:

      09:45am | 03/07/10

      It’s interesting to see now that Gillard is PM, they can pretend that the last 2 1/2 years of Governance in this country by the Labor Party never occurred.

    • Kev says:

      11:11am | 03/07/10

      It is interesting. Its as if the day of her ascendancy was Day Zero for the ALP.  The Gang of Four have been sent to the dustbin of history and sweet Julia had nothing to do with all those strange decisions.

      I wonder if the punters will notice or, indeed, whether the Coalition will regularly remind them.

      Hop so!

    • Jason says:

      11:44am | 03/07/10

      On one hand Luke, Labor defend the changing of prime minister with “people don’t vote for the person, they vote for the party”.  But then they refuse to be judged by their past 2 and half years as a party - and blame only one person.  Hmmmm work that one out.
      I have no doubt that Gillard will win any election, judging by the fact that 70% of sheeple thought Kevin was brilliant up until recently.  You can only sit back and laugh.

    • Mavis says:

      01:04pm | 03/07/10

      NSW Labor used this con the voter for the last four premiers. Each time Iemma, Rees or Kenneally presented the voter with a new shade of lipstic for the pig. However, the voter swallowed the line time after time.

      Watch as our media get conned yet again?

    • BobM says:

      02:59pm | 03/07/10

      And where is Persephone?

    • Freeman says:

      03:51pm | 03/07/10

      yep,
      in the very same way NSW state labor has. and it will work for them too.

    • Brad Coward says:

      05:28pm | 03/07/10

      Yes, where was Julia “Sparkles” Gillard during that first two and half years of the Rudd government and why isn’t the media pushing the question ?  She wasn’t locked in a dunny.  She wasn’t out the back enjoying a cuppa and a vanilla slice.  She wasn’t sitting on a beach somewhere in the Pacific Ocean fantasy island.

      Why aren’t the media interested in her part in the failures of the government led by Kevin Rudd ?

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      06:25pm | 03/07/10

      Luke4 ”  i agree , Gillard is frantically trying to distance herself from the Rudd disasters of the past 2.5 years . The irony lies in the fact that she signed off on everything that ended in disaster . The insulation tragedy ,
      the BER rip-off , the R.S.P.T. debacle etc.
      The stench of a government on the nose will follow her all the way to the ballot box.

    • TimB says:

      01:45am | 04/07/10

      “On one hand Luke, Labor defend the changing of prime minister with “people don’t vote for the person, they vote for the party”.  But then they refuse to be judged by their past 2 and half years as a party - and blame only one person.  Hmmmm work that one out.”

      Exactly Jason. I’ve been saying (or trying to say) that for the last week. But then you get Labor drones like Seano, TChong, Rob R, and Nosthow trying to deflect from this obvious hypocracy by repeating a list of Liberal opposition leaders like a mantra. Not one of them has the guts to admit & explain this hypocracy head on. All they can do is spout rhetoric and insults in the hope that no-one notices their lack of coherent argument.

      Whilst I’m sure the"clean slate” tactic might fool a lot of voters, it’s my hope that NSW voters won’t go for it.
      Yes, they’ve fallen for it once before (Iemma in ‘07), but it’s precisely because of how badly that decision has turned out that they won’t fall for it again.
      In this current term we’ve had both Iemma and Rees dumped in an attempt to make Labor more palatable with the voters, culminating with installing Keneally in the chair. But if the Penrith by-election result was anything to judge by, it hasn’t worked at all.

      With any luck they will see the parallels between NSW Labor and Federal Labor, and vote out this absolute train wreck of a government.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      12:10pm | 04/07/10

      TimB says:01:45am;It really is quite simple we don’t need to explain any hypocrisy it only that liberals that are calling it hypocrisy for their own agenda. It’s much like getting an Atheist to explain God, the question is simply irrelevant. No guts to it and hence gutless is irrelevant. You don’t understand the workings of the ALP although your types are the first to think so and assume. We don’t bother trying to understand the working of the Liberal party its irrelevant just like god, you and every other snivelling liberal. We don’t lose any sleep over it either, so don’t get your knickers in a knot or so uptight about it, it just leads to an early death, chronic heart disease, high blood pressure, angina or shingles. Be happy and life will take its course. Btw, it’s hypocrisy not hypocracy and not to be confused with democracy.

    • TimB says:

      08:57pm | 04/07/10

      @ Rob R:

      “All they can do is spout rhetoric and insults in the hope that no-one notices their lack of coherent argument.”

      Thanks for proving my point. Nowhere in your babble was a coherent & valid argument.

    • Anthony of WA says:

      11:50pm | 04/07/10

      BobM, I was wondering the same thing, Persphone must have got the sack along with Rudd what a laugh

    • Ryan says:

      12:07pm | 05/07/10

      @BobM : Yes she has been missing since comrade Joooolia came to power. Either she got the sack as minister for propoganda or she was Jooolia.

    • Reggieman says:

      10:40am | 03/07/10

      I can’t wait until Saint Julia cures cancer too. I am awaiting the announcement at any moment.

    • Neil says:

      10:41am | 03/07/10

      I don’t think Julia has solved the mining tax issue just yet. Don’t get too excited. Her new deal is going to upset small business who will now have to pay more to cover the increase in superannuation and leaving out the smaller end of town in the mining industry and only dealing with the big 3 will come back to haunt her. I’ve heard alot of journo’s commenting on Abbott being left out on his own now that the big 3 mining company’s are “happier” with her deal than Rudds. Abbott says he will dump this tax and it was a stupid idea in the first place. I tend to agree. And when Julia’s glowing headlines “mission accomplished” with the miners, is proven to be not quite the truth, Abbott won’t be so much out on his own. She has only shut up the big 3….............more to come I would expect.

    • BobM says:

      10:34am | 04/07/10

      Watching ‘Insiders’ this morning on the ABC and all commentators are saying that it was a ‘major back down by the Gillard government’. I wonder if the media will report it that way, or as a great win for our First Female Prime Minister.

    • Darryl Price says:

      10:55am | 03/07/10

      I like the way the labor apologists tactfully label the concerns of a large percentage of the population as a racist scare campaign driven by the conservatives. This way they get to tut tut and remonstrate and correct the voters thinking, without actually chastising them for what the socialist claptrappers consider an incorrect position.

    • Jason says:

      11:37am | 03/07/10

      I’ll judge Julia with her policy on mental health.  Abbott released his policy which won widespread support in the mental health circles and the medical profession.
      Working in emergency services, I’ve seen first hand the problems associated with mental health and the affect it has on the public, the health system and the economy.
      Unfortunately it has become an epidemic and paramedics are being assaulted daily when dealing with people who have left it too late to deal with their mental health.  I have also seen the problems that police have when dealing with the mentally ill.  I can name quite a few police shootings over my time which involved mentally ill persons. 
      This is one subject that shouldn’t be political but at last something appears to be happening on this front.  Hopefully Labor follow suit and that’s real government, not just fixing problems you caused yourself.

    • David says:

      11:37am | 03/07/10

      “But this was not so much political genius as common sense.”

      Yes exactly. Common sense. Its nothing to be sneered at. Julia has it in spades and its something the sophist Libs currently running the party (like Abbot and Pyne) seem to severely lack.

    • Rosie says:

      11:47am | 03/07/10

      This coming elections is Kevin 07 revisited. The only difference is, smart people know the fact that Gillard comes with a load of political baggage! This tells me that everything she does and utters is nothing but a political fix. Labour will call themselves “economic conservatives” but we know that “economic conservatives” do not run a Robin Hood style Govt.

      If the woman is ballsy and honest enough to declare that she is not a believer in God Almighty why isn’t she supporting “gay marriages?” What does it matter to her whether it is Adam & Eve or Adam & Steve?

      Wake Up Australia!

    • NO ETS says:

      11:51am | 03/07/10

      The ETS is a scam tax based on fraudulent science.
      I will NEVER vote to be taxed on carbon - the basis of LIFE.

    • Jason says:

      12:03pm | 03/07/10

      We might as well not even bother with an election.

      Tony says Rudd is no good.  I agree says Julia
      Tony says the mining tax was flawed.  I agree says Julia
      Tony says Labor’s (Julia’s) asylum seeking policy is flawed. I agree says Julia
      Tony says Labor’s ETS policy is a disaster.  I agree says Julia
      Tony says we don’t need a big Australia so soon.  I agree says Julia
      Tony says we have a problem with pink batts.      I agree says Julia

      Need I say more.

    • Bruce says:

      12:54pm | 03/07/10

      The mining tax issue has NOT been resolved, as much as the labor party would like to think it to be. There is much to be settled and many more head lines yet.  I am more concerned with Gillards basic political philosophy and her past association as the secretary of the left wing “Socialist Forum”. My understanding is Gillard is the first Australian PM from the left wing of the labor party.

    • millie m says:

      01:09pm | 03/07/10

      Good grief - the ETS?
      No thanks.
      I couldn’t stand any more moralizing and lecturing by Penny WRong.
      There is beyond enough evidence to show the science is NOT settled.

    • nine lives says:

      01:17pm | 03/07/10

      I think its time for the Public to take a deep breath and think about what shape the economy and country as a whole would be in if there had been no coalition opposition pulling Labor back into line and bit by bit forcing them to dump their stupid policies, we would be in utter chaos.

      Now we have Gillard telling us that the RSPT is dead - hallelujulia goes up the cry from the MSM - this is wonderment unsurpassed, but when the Liberals say that Work Choices is dead, ooohh buggaman stuff, this cannot be so, we must believe the party who for the last 3 years have lied and obfuscated beyond belief but not believe the opposition.

      Australian journalists helped Kevin07 get elelected, they ignored all Labor’s failings whilst focusing on things like Abbotts speedos, and now they’ve brought Kevin down and ushered in Gillard without a whimper. Don’t give Labor another term to do even more damage.

    • labor no more says:

      01:22pm | 03/07/10

      I believe the following 3 will lead to the Labor Government being voted back in:

      1.  Gillard is becoming more attractive. Her picture has had more photoshopping than Michael Jackson. How in the space of one week has she become more attractive day by day by day? Her image is now more presentable on TV, women’s magazines and newspapers.

      2.  She has apparently fixed the miner’s tax problem and with the aid of MSM is successfully avoiding any blame for past disastrous decisions, in which she, Rudd and the other kitchen cabinet were equally to blame.

      3. All that remains is for the tabloids, including the Herald Sun, to keep lauding her and building her up for everything she does until the election and she and Labor are home and hosed.

      It appears that what counts most with the MSM is the profits her physiognomy will generate by way of advertising rather than changing a government which has been a disaster to this nation. God help Australia.

    • Nila says:

      01:24pm | 03/07/10

      There is no “hard part”. Overnight the rorts, waste, debacles and sins of the Labor party have been washed away by the mainstream media again. Just like with KRudd and we all know how well that ended up.

    • Gregg says:

      02:37pm | 03/07/10

      ” The mining tax has been resolved over the negotiating table. Voters don’t need to know the complexities of it all but will be relieved that those ``in the know’’ are satsified. If they’re happy, so are we. Job done. “
      Are you so easily led up the garden path Mark?
      Considering the renamed SP Tax a done deal may be so in political talk but then just like how other programs have run off the financial rails, the wellness of this political deal will be in full assessment.
      Just that it is the national budgetting process on the run makes for us being done, that’s for sure and done in to be sure.
      ” what Ms Gillard must do now, is address irrational but nonetheless real fears about boat-loads of asylum seekers over-running the country.”
      It is not irrational to be concerned over
      . loss of life at sea.
      . Australians being forced into situations where their lives are endangered.
      . the continual usurping of resources in a multitude of areas.
      . the cost of long term contracts with large suburban motels.
      . how will assimilation occur when out of the way areas like a ex mining camp at Leonara are being used.
      It is not so much being tough on border security but rational!
      The pacific solution was criticised for being despicable and costly but we did not have Christmas Island developed at that stage, an installation that the current government have only been too happy to use.
      But they have also signalled with abandonment of the TPVs that heading south in a boat is a sure way of getting into Australia way ahead of people in the UN refugees camps that have been waiting for many years.
      So they have kept coming and Christmas Island is bursting at the seams.
      The government has been saying for well over a year now that people would have come anyway and if that is what they thought, why not then increase the holding capacity at Christmas Island, six to a room instead of four or whatever, more sleeping portables and rostered meal times etc. 
      But rather than dissuade potential arrivees from even attempting such trips, all they have done is put a hold on processing!
      You are right with the first part of
      ” Extra Navy and border patrol boats are likely but they don’t stop the flow ” - but nothing will?.
      A steady flow had been previously halted and it only started up again with this current government.
      Australia can be proud of it’s long term refugee program where people from UN camps are brought to Australia in a planned approach so as assimilation can occur and the movements en masse will only detract from the ability to run that program effectively.
      If it is so hard to convince the Greens that it is far better for our refugee program to be run in the structured way it is via movement through UN channels, then you would have to ask whether the Greens are worth being concerned about , other than for their preferences of course.

      As for the ETS, carbon tax or whatever one may call it, aside from whether Australians want to absorb more costs implanted upon them by Labor programs, there are Scientists and credible scientists at that who do take pride in being called Sceptics for being prepared to question what the IPCC produce and politicians seem to take great delight in pushing whether they understand it or not.

    • Gregg says:

      03:16pm | 03/07/10

      The greatest moral challenge of our lifetime!, so said Kev.
      What will the former Lady in Waiting say?
      And yet it could be asked whether any organisation could form a concise credible blueprint, roadmap or whatever other buzz word may abound for it.
      I would be happy just to get a hollistic description that takes into account our crust covered molten mass surrounded by oodles of space and with a sun that some scientists believe may in a few billion years re-absorb our planet.
      No more Third Rock from the Sun!
      The IPCC comprises of somewhere between 1500-2000 scientists, the number probably varying because of some who have left the tribe of believers.
      People in many differnt locations/organisations.
      There has of course been a few reviews along the way and secret emails amongst head honchos disclosing all may not be as it is claimed.
      So what of the committee decisions that have been arrived at?
      I have read at times of the IPCC forming an overview through peer review of scientific scenario papers from various sources, even student bodies but we shouldn’t knock them - but is it more a ” work in continual process ” but only working on material produced by true believers? 
      How many scientists exist outside of the IPCC 20,000 perhaps?, or more and what of their views.
      Just for a moment think of our earth as a molten mass with a crust that regularly has fissures opening to allow some of the molten mass gases and solids to vent.
      This ball of ours is completely surrounded by much greater volumes of nothing much at all other than the air extending outwards for hundreds of miles.
      Does any scientific committee have the scope to not just measure accurately what has occurred or is occurring and also project accurately the future.
      We have had the recent Icelandic eruption, a little Krakatoa is building again and then there are regular earth tremors, some that with land slides into water cause tsunamis that make the Indian Ocean one look like a bathtub awash as far as height goes.
      There are reports that the dust from Krakatoa darkened the skies for three years following the eruption!, but life kind of went on for we’re here!
      What we can measure is the global depletion of resources though new dicoveries do regularly seem to occur thankfully and the resultant pollution that can occur with or without Gulf Oil releases though measurement of the latter is questionable and the forever for now increasing population to consume even more resources.
      Curtailing both will likely have an impact on our environment but what impact in regard to climate variations remains debatable given there is ample evidence of many cyclic changes.
      Nature is a powerful force as we are often witness to and whilst some manmade interventions such as sea walls can work dependent on how strong nature wants to be, it may be far better within Australia to look at what can be done to harness what nature gives us rather than attempt to change the future.
      If we ever have a government prepared to offer such foresight, a Carbon Tax may be palatable but with form on the board of current government, would you wanting them to have any more of your money?

    • Freeman says:

      04:18pm | 03/07/10

      Good points on the ALP’s miscalculation on the RSPT and ETS.
      But surley now the ALP have secured 2nd term by booting out rudd and backing down on the 40% RSPT. Smells too much like NSW state labor for my liking. just keep changing leaders and capitilizing on each leaders honeymoon period in the polls & pretending the leadership change means new goverment, all the while wasting public funds and failing to properly implement anything. just tell the electorate what they want to hear and hold onto power at any cost, it’ all that matters.

    • Bleeding Heart says:

      12:37am | 04/07/10

      Lets think about this: I will drop your wages by 1% but increase your tax by 3%, I imagine that there would be hell to pay.
      Yet the business community is expected tojump for joy over a piddling 1% cut in company tax rate to help pay for a 3% increase in superannuation.
      Will be interesting to see how many people have a job in a few years as the business cash cow will probably have run dry by then.

    • Mark says:

      01:16am | 04/07/10

      The flow of asylum seekers is directly propotional to the amount of people seeking asylum in the region and has little or nothing to do with change in government policy.
      The fact is less than 1% of our immigrates have arrived by boats , but why let the facts stand in the way of a good scare campaign.
      As for wedge politics John Howard was the master of the wedge and the Tampa was the biggest wedge of them all (what ever it takes) , totally ruined Australia’s reputation overseas as a compassionate country , hence the ICC don’t want a bar of the man.
      Man influenced climate change is a fact , the science is complex and beyond the grasp of most lay people to understand fully. Do I believe the vast majority of climatologist who have spent a lifetime studying this or do I go with a geologist who is a director of several mining companies?
      Australians per captia are the worlds biggest carbon producers , we need to move our economy to a low carbon model and the only way to do this is to put a price on Carbon in some way and then let the market do its thing.
      I think the miners got of light but still an extra $10.5 billion in the pockets of Australians is great win and only an idoit would roll that back after the big miners have agreed to pay it.
      Labor has made some errors in its first term but most first term federal governments do , they have also done some great things the biggest being gettings us through the GFC without mass unemployment , yes that cost us a bit and yes some of it was wasted but looking at the big picture it was worth every cent as it prevented our poorest citizens from losing jobs on mass.
      Labor is not perfect but compared to what is seating on the benches opposite they looking very good.

    • Eric says:

      08:41am | 04/07/10

      Rubbish. The flow of boat people declined under the Howard government’s successful policies, and rose again once Rudd dumped the TPV.

      As for the numbers of boat people, that is irrelevant. What matters is the principle of being able to control our own borders, and the steady upward trend since Rudd broke the system.

      The Labor Party with its outdated wedge politics of class and race is an incompetent government that has set us back many years. Time for them to go.

    • marley says:

      11:08am | 04/07/10

      While I’m not particularly concerned about asylum seekers, given the very small numbers Australia gets in comparison to other wealthy countries, I disagree that the current influx is due to regional issues and not to policy issues. 

      The perception that Australia’s policy changed with Rudd - the end to the Pacific Solution (sort of), the removal of TPVs, contributed directly to rebuilding the regional people-smuggling business. The agents had no trouble resurrecting their business plans and marketing seats on boats to Australia because, in the absence of the various impediments put in the way via the Pacific Solution, Aus once more became a desirable destination.  Also, Rudd’s clumsy dealings with Indonesia on the Oceanic Viking and other arrivals has, I suspect, reduced the cooperation we’re getting from them on dealing with people smugglers.

      That’s why the numbers are up 30% here, but down a significant percentage in the countries that normally get, for example, Sri Lankas (ie Canada).

      So, undoubtedly some tweaking of border policy and asylum policy is called for.

      That does not mean, however, that I think we need to go back to the Howard days.  Nor does it mean that Australia is about to be overrun by hordes of Tamils or Hazaras.  Manifestly, that is not the case.  My own view would be that the government could sell a policy that involved rebuilding cooperation with the Indonesians, combined with an faster assessment of claims and a more efficient removal system for those found not to be refugees.

    • Gregg says:

      12:07pm | 04/07/10

      On your proportional basis Mark, that would mean for all the years of minimal flow numbers of asylum seekers that there would have been minimal numbers in the region and when you look at UN refugee camp numbers that is far from the truth. 
      You can criticise the Tampa incident all you like but whilst Australia has had a refugee program for many years, why allow its structure to be demolished by people planning on forcing their way in.
      If you have people in a waiting room at a hospital, would you think it OK for busloads to arrive from interstate thinking they should get priority treatment?
      Man may impact on climate change but what is not too well proven is the extent of that impact given the known extent of cyclical variations and why is it you never really find the IPCC people and their supporters prepared to explain climate change in the context of cyclical variations.
      People with open minds are more likely to communicate better with others of open minds rather than closed minds, a great example of that just occurring in politics.
      Have you looked into the reasoning behind Australia’s carbon production, the resources sector, transportation/capita because of population/country size ratio, reliance on coal fired base load power stations!
      Do you believe we should not export coal?
      Do you believe we should not transport food to cities?
      Do you believe Solar, Wind, Tidal energy can provide base load requirements?
      Gillard and Swan are misleading the Australian people and if she claims the same figures in parliament she will be misleading parliament on the reduction in taxes with her backflip on the RSPT and that is aside from whether it should have been applied at all.
      The new agreement has been reached with three major companies and one has to ask whether they represent the whole industry.
      Without the whole industry involved, how can you say they agree to it?
      The 10.5B may in fact be closer to 6.5B and the real figure only ever known when a full accounting assessment has been done.
      You claim it’ll be in the pockets of Australians and how so when it’ll be helping to fund the massive deficit this government has raised, and yes you do need to ask just how much that helped us to get through the GFC and for how long for the GFC is far from over and what do you think could happen if demand for resources will fall as it is likely to with China having less demand for manufactured product.
      You’ll not only having people still losing jobs but the government will get even less income from mines production falling and the interest on borrowings for all that deficit will still need to be paid.
      I’m pleased you agree Labor is not perfect and as for those on the opposition benches, they are only the party that brought the country back from a 96B deficit about 14 years ago to have a healthy budget.
      Now we’re just off down the same track again with just not Kevin losing his way.

    • Freeman says:

      09:08pm | 04/07/10

      Mark,
      one only has to remember how many freeloaders were arriving by boat in 1999 before howard took action on boat people to see that your argument on this is worthless.

    • Mark says:

      01:56am | 05/07/10

      Actually I believe we should be adopting nuclear power as our base load solution until renewable energy and sufficent energy stoarge systems can be developed.
      As long as we put a price on Carbon to accelerate development of these technologies , we should only have to use the nuclear option for 50 - 80 years maybe.

      As for getting out of debt I could do that as well if I sold the farm as they say.
      Thats 50-80 years of not making the carbon load in the atmosphere much worse.
      We also have the perfect geological stable landscape to store not only our waste but the rest of the worlds as well (Multi Billion Dollar Future Business and we use the profit to invest in renewables).

    • Mike says:

      11:03am | 04/07/10

      The jury is still well and truly out on Gillard. Once everyone gets over the euphoria of the new messiah saving the Labor Party, judgement day will come as it did for Kevin. He was the messiah that saved us from Howard apparently and didn’t even last 1 term.

    • Jana says:

      11:22am | 04/07/10

      You have to love it, there’s Gillard and Swan standing up there on their podium as proud as punch (no pun intended) as if they’ve just started a new Party. Hey guys guess what, your still the incompetent Labor Party, we’re not all fooled!

    • Andy says:

      01:07pm | 04/07/10

      Who’s kidding who here? Who were those people running the country for the last 2 1/2 years? Aliens? Did they just disappear over night? AMAZING! Julia and Wayne Swan you are hero’s!

    • thatmosis says:

      01:24pm | 04/07/10

      These people who say the ETS is essential make me laugh or throw up. How many of them actually live “Green” and I mean on Solar Power exclusively, Solar Hot Water exclusively have water tanks to supply their daily needs, grow their own vegeatables and use the scraps as a compost for their gardens….... ? Or are these armchair ETS lovers all talk and no action. I dont agree with the ETS because the science is wrong, flawed and manipulated and will impost on the Australian Tax payer needlessly for no value to the environement but still managed to live “Green” as above. Put your lifestyle where your mouths are before you make statements about saving the planet clowns.

    • Against the Man says:

      02:59pm | 04/07/10

      Gillard was side by side with rudd in coming up with the usual useless labor policy. She is as guilty as rudd and there is no way she can wash her hands clean of the whole mess. She is a back stabber and she cannot be trusted. Does she care about our future? Does she have a stake in our future?

      ps: Please break out the truth with regards to the BER, that alone will sink her to the deepest debts (pun intended) of the political oceans.

    • Ture Sjolander says:

      05:05pm | 05/07/10

      Bob, Rod. Rob, Tony, Mark, Marc, Jim, Slim, Kevin, Ben, Ryan, Andrew, James, Adam, Peter, Tim, Greg, Bill, David, Andy Pandy
      what a small little world…

    • Ture Sjolander says:

      06:24pm | 05/07/10

      Wow, a bloody &%$#@*^() foreigner get 4 lines. Surprise!
      heeheeh

      au09.homestead.com/

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

@AndrewCatsaras Agreed. Kills more people than AIDS. Yet tolerated. Meanwhile: Good Insiders piece again Andrew.

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @JamieTravers: I'm in Europe and don't care for Eurovision, why is my twitter feed filled with Aussies recounting the bloody thing!?

Anthony Sharwood

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter