EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

Don't cry for Osama bin Laden

 

An illustration by Jon Kudelka. Source: The Australian

JUSTICE and the law are not always congruent and in the haze of war the law of self-preservation is likely to prevail

The Australian understands those who would have preferred for Osama bin Laden to be captured and forced to account for his crimes. It is true that we must demonstrate a strong commitment to standards of justice rather than descend towards the barbarity of those who attack our values. Yet much of the legalistic condemnation of bin Laden's death smacks of pointless moral posturing.

Only those in the Abbottabad compound, amid the darkness, gunfire and fear, can know exactly how it unfolded. But it is hardly surprising that, without an immediate and obvious surrender, bin Laden was shot. Who among us would take the time, delay the trigger, and thereby risk their own life or jeopardise this vital mission? The discussion of alternative responses from the comfort of our lounge rooms is absurd. The frankness of US authorities in revealing bin Laden was not armed underscores the accountability of their system and should silence all but the loopiest conspiracy theorists.

Besides, there are pragmatic reasons why we are all better off without bin Laden surviving to create an international propaganda circus that would have endangered even more lives. We could have expected howls of protest over incarceration at Guantanamo Bay as the human rights lawyers demanded nothing less than an American civil trial. But bin Laden's imprisonment would also have provided an ongoing rallying cry for terrorists in Afghanistan and further afield, possibly leading to the loss of more soldiers' lives. And fears would have been raised around the world about his fanatical supporters attacking or taking hostage Americans, Australians or any westerners, to keep the terror alive. In the pragmatic ways of the world, not the abstract realm of attention-seeking human rights lawyers, it is a good and just thing that bin Laden is dead.

As for the spontaneous American celebrations, denounced on the ABC as bloodlust, many of us would shy away from such spectacles. But who would begrudge a people who lost almost 3000 innocents, targeted in their homeland for the "crime" of being free, throwing off their blanket of fear and launching a victory dance at vengeance realised and a tyranny ended?

Sovereign wealth fund or bust

GETTING slightly ahead of his Treasurer, Financial Services Minister Bill Shorten has declared that questions about a sovereign wealth fund and what shape it should take are worthy of debate.

Strangely, he then goes on to say such a conversation is premature. On the contrary, The Australian believes the sooner we analyse this initiative the better because, as Mr Shorten recognises, it would require "complex regulatory" discussions.

Repairing the budget and retiring debt are certainly the primary fiscal tasks confronting the Gillard government but the long-term challenge of managing the resources boom looms large. Wayne Swan has been all too eager to talk up the challenges of the two-speed economy and provide a jaundiced post-mortem on how the previous government failed to squirrel away enough of the previous resources boom. His duty then must be to present a plan to ensure the current mining boom is properly managed for the benefit of later generations.

Mr Swan's only answer until now, supported by Mr Shorten, is to focus on channelling future revenue windfalls into compulsory superannuation, so that more individuals are self-sufficient in retirement and the national savings pool is increased. This is a commendable plan, but only up to a point. The boom will generate at least an extra $30 billion in revenue for the coming financial year and private investment to expand our mining output will top $100bn next year. In other words, the rivers of gold are set to build into something of a flood. There could be no better time to devise a sensible plan to manage the economic consequences.

One of the key purposes of a new sovereign wealth fund, as outlined by opposition frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull, would be to act as a fiscal stabiliser against our increasing reliance on commodity prices. Rather than banking the extra revenues for distant generations, we would be creating reserves to draw on when resources demand or prices fall, dragging down revenue. There would be an element of intergenerational saving but the primary purpose would be the fiscal stabilisation. Private superannuation cannot fulfil this role through a resources boom-and-bust cycle. Such a wealth fund stands out as a crucial economic reform worthy of examination by both sides of politics, lest we ever regret squandering the opportunities of mining boom Mark II. 

Tackling the other deficit: carbon policy credibility

FORGET Tony Abbott's alleged four-letter assessment of climate change for a moment, Prime Minister.

It is the 48-point paradox in yesterday's Newspoll findings that should really trouble you. It found that 78 per cent of voters believe in climate change and most attribute it to human activity. But Ms Gillard's policy response, a carbon tax, is supported by just 30 per cent. The 48 per cent discrepancy is a measure of the credibility gap Ms Gillard has to bridge between now and the next election. Make no mistake; voters have a sound understanding of what is at stake. They do not want the government to jeopardise their prosperity by going out on a limb. But the fact that the science of climate change is so well accepted indicates most would not support climate action.

Voters are clearly angry with the government for its plan to introduce the tax on July 1 next year after Julia Gillard pledged not to do so during last year's election campaign. Voters appear to appreciate what the government's adviser on climate change, Ross Garnaut, said in 2008 -- that Australia, which produces 1.5 per cent of the world's greenhouse emissions, must not get too far ahead of the rest of the world.

The Australian favours a market mechanism as an efficient strategy to alter energy consumption patterns and cut emissions, but there is no compunction for Australia to launch such a strategy before the world's biggest economies and our major trading partners commit to similar action. The Gillard government would be prudent to review the timing of its scheme following the warnings of mining giants BHP and Rio Tinto. Both companies point out that acting before China and the US, the world's largest polluters, would damage Australia's international competitiveness by saddling heavy trade-exposed industries with a "dead weight", which industry groups and trade unions agree will cost jobs and limit prosperity.

The degree of concern about climate change reflected in the Newspoll, coupled with voters' reluctance to support a carbon tax from next year, opens the way for politicians on both sides to explore other viable options, such as the capture and long-term storage of carbon in soil and forests. Sequestration is part of Mr Abbott's "direct action" climate change policy and could also work well with the government's emissions trading scheme, because it is well suited to Australia's vast land mass.

Professor Garnaut sensibly favours land sequestration being linked to carbon pricing. Such a link was absent from the Rudd government's ETS model, but in private senior Labor figures have acknowledged the potential of such an approach. Encouragingly, Professor Garnaut has also pointed out that up to 14 per cent of the carbon permits scheme could be used for agricultural offsets, creating the equivalent of a new wool industry for Australia's agricultural sector.

Ms Gillard purports not to be interested in the political cycle, but she erred in announcing the tax without any detail, leaving the public wondering how much it would cost and giving the opposition a political gift. Much as they oppose the government's carbon tax, the electorate would welcome more effective climate change policies.