The carbon tax and the flood levy—are they examples of the Government doing what it wants rather than expressing the will of the people. John Smith comments.
I've been puzzled by this concept with our government for some time now. The simple question of
'do our governments do what we want them to' do requires a very complicated and systematic type answer. In a way, we seem to jump to conclusions before we actually see things out. Are we inclined to be slightly cynical about whether a government is doing what's best for us, or best for its own interests?
Now, I've seen plenty of criticism about the federal government recently about the
Carbon Tax and the
Flood Levy. It's hard to understand where all Australians really stand on the issue. I mean let's break it down, both are essentially a tax and are aiming for a long term project that has really only just been thought out at the last minute as a consequence of either a natural disaster or overwhelming political pressure.
The
Carbon Tax is, basically, no matter how you look at it, going to increase power bills to a significant degree. This of course leads to the already high cost of living. I can understand the idea of it. It's similar to raising interest rates to stop spending, but in this case to raise power so we don't use as much so that we produce less carbon/pollution for our sacred planet. However, if you look at in the context of the future, is the Carbon Tax the right idea? Shouldn't we be trying to limit our emissions like we say we should be (that's been the argument for a couple of years now)? We always hear this talk about having so and so percentage of emissions cut by so and so date. Could it be safe to say that the Carbon Tax is the start of this process to reduce, or are we looking at several more initiatives to reduce our emissions in the form of other taxes and or trading schemes as the government proposed?
But in return, aren't we taxed enough? Isn't the price of living already sky high? In comparison to other countries we pay much much more when it comes to groceries and just normal fees that our lovely big four banks practically slap onto everything. I've been to America, I went to a 7/11. Their equivalent of a 2L bottle of Coca Cola is US 99c. What I mean to say is, going into a supermarket today with $10 gets you hardly anything but in America, gets you at least 10 bottles of Cola! The next point is, especially for people who live in New South Wales, given the electricity was fire-saled by the fantabulous Kristina Keneally. Our electricity prices are going to skyrocket! It's not really a matter of turning the air conditioner off more often but an issue that the air conditioner wasn't on to begin with and we're still paying as if electricity pumps gold straight to our homes! Where do we draw the line? Should we pay more for the future to be safeguarded or is this one hardship too many for Australians to endure? I don't really have a clue, to be honest.
The
Flood Levy is another juicy one when it comes to politics. You gotta hand it to Gillard and Abbott, parliament is usually boring as hell. But with this issue as well as the Carbon Tax they make parliamentary TV almost as good as when Paul Keating let it rip on Hewson, Downer or Howard. The concept is that the government plans to generate most of the funding that's essential for the rebuilding of Queensland. Now, don't get me wrong. I agree hand-on-heart and I think everyone else in Australia agrees we need to be helping Queensland. I'm sure the majority of Australians one way or another have contributed to the rebuild. The service from all the tradesmen who went up for free and helped rebuild for free demonstrates, no matter how much we criticise, the Australian Spirit still burns as strongly as ever.
To me,the Flood Levy is like the Government saying
'well, while the donations of Australians was great 'nall, it's hardly anything compared to the 6 billion dollars of damage inflicted and we need to generate the funds quick to get the rebuild going as soon as possible'.
The government likes to say it's about rebuilding Queensland but it's really to help rebuild infrastructure that the Queensland government decided to leave uninsured. The rebuilding of individual houses is going to have to come from somewhere else, however it is crucial to get the roads and district services back to working grade again. The bill is set to pass soon with the support of Independent Senator Nick Xenophon, who amended his support to force states to sign up for insurance (upon which I couldn't agree more—good on you Nick!)
However, is this concept of a Flood Levy just a one off? Or is it going to keep re-occurring every time something just completely ridiculous decides to attack Australia? It's hard to say, even with the insurance if we get another severe flooding or cyclone that requires multi-billion dollar support, will we just go to the concept of a levy since the precedent has been set with this policy? I suppose it's a worthwhile argument the Coalition makes that in the event of a natural disaster, under their government, they had a surplus they would have been able to use to help rebuild. I stand undecided on the Flood Levy. I do however think that we need to direct funds there as quickly as possible and don't particularly mind paying some extra on top to bring back our family up in Queensland back from the hardship they just experienced.
But you've got to think, wouldn't the flood levy kill all prospects of donations to the floods/cyclones? Where I work we have little collection boxes all over the place for money for the floods (an example of business doing their part for the floods). We emptied them out last Friday and we've barely had $15 this week when we raked in over $400 last month. The levy certainly in my opinion has slapped the taxpayer on the wrist and perhaps would think twice before donating to a charity in the future, which is sad because donating to a charity is always a good thing as every institution puts every dollar it gets to good use.
But when we really think about it... do our governments do what we want? Or do they push ahead with policies that might be unpopular but achieve the job desired?
Whether you're with Labor, Liberal, Green, National or even consider yourself Independent it's worth pondering the question of our governments position on not just the Flood Levy and the Carbon Tax but every other major policy directive that we've had over the last 25 years. We should ask ourselves, was our government really justified in the decisions it made or did it really defy the nation completely?
Think about it.
