The federal budget was released last week, and it has generated varying criticisms and praise within the media. One of the more important issues is the environment, and the Labor governments policies in regard to climate change and renewable energy. 

First of all, the related issue of petrol prices. Nelson's plan to cut the excise is ridiculous. He would save the average driver around only $84 a year, and cost the government a lot in lost revenue. But more importantly this is a weak populist policy that goes against common sense. Nelson is bowing to popular pressure on the price of living and so on, rather than formulating good policy. A cut in the excise would ony reward those who drive inefficient cars, and punish those who do. The fact it would also reward those who have inadequate access to public transport is a different issue altogether. Nelson has demonstrated himself very willing to bend over under pressure. Lets hope that Rudd doesnt follow a similar plan under his proposed tax review.  

Now to energy supplies. Kenneth Davidson had an excellent article in The Age's opinion pages on Thursday which outlined the problems of energy supplies within the context of global warming. It seems both federal and state governments are happy to let fossil fuels keep on burning as long as they keep turning a profit. The idea of geosequestration that Rudd and Brumby are so eager to invest in will not be able to achieve the massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are needed. Realistically, it is more a good excuse to keep burning coal than a real way to solve the climate change crisis. Geosequestration offers our political and business leaders the chance to keep up business as usual. The problem with geosequestration is not only that it will not be sufficient, but also that it keeps taking government money from other more useful areas of research, such as solar power. 

Now we return to the budget, which offers a good example of this neglect to realistic sources of renewable energy. Rudd and Swan have cut in half the $8000 government solar panel subsidy for households that earn over $100,000. Not only is this killing off the fledgling Solar power industry, but again, it is bad policy. There is no argument for cutting off the government subsidy for any level of income, because the beneficiary of solar power is the environment, and therefore everyone, not any particular household. It is completely different to something like the 'baby bonus' which puts money directly into someone's pocket. Whether this is an ideological attack on apparent middle class welfare or just a money saving measure, it goes against this government's claim of being more environmentally progressive than the last. Now Rudd is cutting the environmental assistance that Howard was willing to allow. 

So we have both a government AND opposition made up of idiots, both coming up with bad environmental policy. What hope can we really lay in government to solve this problem?

Tommorrow we can finally end this uninteresting and soundbite-filled election campaign and well finally know if Kevin07 is really as popular as those polls suggest. My money is on a narrow Howard victory. People are too conservative, and apathetic, to affect a real change of government. Not that it would really be much of a change.

What I would have liked to have seen is some real division, some interesting debate, and more wacky and embarrassing situations and events, such as Tony Abbots "thats bullshit" to Roxon a couple of weeks ago. More importantly I would have liked to have seen some focus and debate over issues of actual importance. The majority of the election promise funding, for both parties, will go to tax cuts. How about some real investment in services and infrastructure rather than giving the upper bracket an extra few grand each year. The tax cuts are based on promoting choice for the public to choose where to spend their money, but with no public investment that choice becomes a forceful push into private service providers over the government. Both parties are run by the elite, so they can only ever represent elite interests.

Where was a real dabe about Iraq? Or Afghanistan? We even had a couple of Australian soldiers killed during the campaign but nobody major really questioned how right it was for them to be there in the first place. There was also little substantial talk on nuclear proliferation and power. Where would either party stand in the event of a US led attack on Iran? Would Rudd go 'all the way with GWB' like Howard in Iraq? Do we need to continue acting as a semi-colony to the US under either government? Howard also played down his nuclear power proposal, letting 'commercial factors' decide if it will ever take place. He knows it cant operate without government support, so what is really going to happen? Whats Labors policy on exporting Uranium? A clearance sale like the Coalition, or are we actually going to get serious about proliferation and use our biggest weapon against it?

But despite all this, I still think it is worth voting, and that a Labor government would (just) be the lesser evil. Hopefully interesting candidates such as Andrew Wilke can get in. Maybe Team Rudd can stop being so Howardesque and Garret can go back to his political roots a little after the election, whoever wins.  

At least this parade of the political class will end, and maybe theres even a chance things might get shaken up a bit!

What is going on with Team Rudd's death penalty policy? 

Reading The Age this morning I was delighted to read  Labor's Foreign Affairs spokesman Robert McLelland announcing a Labor government would from a regional coalition to abolish the death penalty in South East Asia. Finally, Rudd is showing he's more than just Howard with a smile. The proposed coalition may not really get too far considering that South East Asia is the region with the most government executions, but at least Labor was taking a principled stance. 

However Rudd has quickly distanced himself from any sort of real divergence with Howard. Saying on radio that Labor would never move to have the death penalty overturned in the case of a terrorist.  "We will not be making interventions diplomatically in support of any terrorists anywhere, anytime." 

You can’t really consider it a principle if you’re happy to let it slide every so often. The hypocrisy of the Howard government was made clear last year with the support of the death penalty when it comes to hanging Saddam Hussein, but not when it involves Australian drug traffickers.

Is the death penalty legitimate? Or is it a barbaric and inhumane like Labor argued it was last year.

"The death by hanging, beheading, electrocution, firing squad, or stoning is inhumane, no matter what the crime. Australia needs to use its position internationally and in the region to abolish the death penalty universally." Nicola Roxon argued last year.

I don’t see how Rudd or Howard could argue otherwise.

I thought APEC was crazy enough already, now we have this. 
How much is this big imperialist group-hug supposed to be costing? We already have one multi-million dollar meeting room, half a city in lockdown, along with numerous other programs. 

I am looking forward to the protests though...

For anyone living under a rock, in a cave, on mars, with earmuffs on, and with their eyes closed, the story goes like this… It all came about after the airport bombings in the UK. Haneef was linked to the attacks because he is related to some of the people allegedly involved (his cousins) and he lived with them sometime last year. A sim card belonging to Haneef was supposedly found in the burning jeep, but it later emerged it was found in the house of one of the terror suspects.

Haneef was arrested because of his sim card connection to these supposed terrorists. That sounds relatively insane in itself, because there was never any charge that the sim card was important to the attack, or that Haneef even knew about the attack prior to it occurring. Even more insane was the way Team Howard followed it up.

The idea of ‘security’ has (somehow?) been a strong suit of Howard, so they were understandably excited to hear this going on close to an election. But when the case started to look shaky and the Brisbane magistrate presiding over the case granted bail, the government stepped in and cancelled Haneef’s visa. Deeming him a threat to security, his visa was cancelled only hours after the bail decision (Effectively imprisonment through executive order, Lettre de Cachet anyone?). Bail can only be granted under the terror legislation for exceptional circumstances, so its not as if the magistrate took the decision lightly. This also meant that granting bail had a negative impact, as the conditions of Australian prisons are comparably better than that of immigration detention centers.

The remarkable intrusion into the case by the Howard government was a little scary to behold. First of all it is a direct interference with the independence of the judiciary. Clearly, if Haneef was really considered a security threat, then his visa should have been cancelled as soon as he was arrested, rather than as soon as he was granted bail. This would have had the added effect of separating him from his legal team, and severely weakening his case. This also had international ramifications, as Haneef’s ‘terrorist links’(the basis for cancelling his visa), are not actually guilty of anything. The government is passing judgment on a case currently before the UK courts, and labeling Haneef a terrorist because he knows his cousins. (When does family become a terrorist organisation?)

The case eventually collapsed completely on Friday 27^th, as the DPP said there was not enough evidence to prosecute, and even revealed that some evidence presented before court was false. After this news was revealed, the Immigration Minister let Haneef into residential detention, and sought legal advise on his decision to revoke the visa in the first place. Why was Haneef now so little of a threat to the community that he could be in residential detention rather than in a detention center? Clearly the evidence Andrews had seen had not changed, only the political circumstances in which he made the decision.

Haneef left Australia on Sunday, and apparently arrives in India early today. He will continue to fight his visa cancellation.

The political issue that Team Howard probably saw as so hopeful turned into a complete shemozzle. The public opinion that allowed the illegal detention of David Hicks for numerous years has hopefully (finally!) turned against the arbitrary detentions and misuse of executive power that allowed it. It seems that Andrews, the AFP and the DPP are taking the heat for it too. Where was Howard in all of this? Clearly a decision to revoke a visa in such a high profile case would not take place without extensive consultation with the PM. Yet apparently, Howard knew nothing…