EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

Labor's Green alliance to colour taxation debate

INCREMENTALLY, a more detailed picture is emerging about the pivotal climate change policy debate shaping national politics.

The Prime Minister has revealed that a combination of tax cuts, increases in family payments and boosts to pensions will ensure that seven million households, or 90 per cent of Australians, will receive some compensation for the carbon tax. While Julia Gillard will need to provide much more detail, such as dollar figures and rates, she at least faces no ambiguity about the source of her funds -- they will be raised by the carbon tax itself.

Tony Abbott, on the other hand, has pledged to rescind any carbon tax, yet now also promises tax cuts. He will have to propose sufficient budget cuts to fund more than $3 billion over four years for the Coalition's direct action carbon abatement plan, plus some broad tax cuts, likely to be substantially more expensive. Mr Abbott has already rejected Ms Gillard's offer of Treasury resources to detail his funding plans.

The political calculations, of course, have been made. Mr Abbott will be happy to wear the taunts about his absent costings from now until the election, content that his promise of tax cuts dents Labor's attack that he will be scrapping the government's package. But this newspaper believes he should go further. The Coalition should detail its tax cuts and the proposed savings measures. If it is good enough to flag tax cuts at this stage of the electoral cycle, it is good enough also to quantify them and identify the savings measures to pay for them.

In broad brush, this argument will shape much of the political debate between now and the next polling day. It is a discussion not just about climate change and what is best for the environment, but increasingly about economic management and who is best equipped to restore the budget. Ms Gillard will need to explain why she believes her carbon tax does not put us ahead of the international emissions reduction game and place Australian jobs at risk. Mr Abbott will need to justify his less efficient carbon abatement program and detail significant spending cuts to pay for it, along with his tax cuts.

But the Prime Minister is not well served by having the Greens make her economic arguments for her. When Bob Brown attacked the Coalition's plan yesterday it was a reminder that Labor's formal partner in government is a high-taxing, big-government party. Senator Brown was brutally frank about his desire to see the carbon tax eventually force the closure of coalmines. Ms Gillard must consider the implications of a formal alliance with a party that openly seeks to shut down the nation's largest export industry. Taxpayers deserve to know what role Senator Brown is playing in major economic decisions.

With the Greens assuming the balance of power in the Senate next week, the portents are ominous. As if destroying our main export industry isn't odd enough, Senator Brown has announced a bizarre assortment of 70 portfolios to be shared among the 10 Greens. The leader takes responsibility for foreign policy but there are separate spokespeople for Burma, Tibet, West Papua and East Timor. Whaling and Antarctica will form another portfolio -- one of the seven held by Senator Brown, another of which, it must be noted, is Treasury.

Troops home by election day

THAT the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan announced by Barack Obama is a considerable gamble is clear from the publicly expressed disquiet, extraordinary in itself, articulated by his two most senior military advisers.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, has said the cuts incur more risk than he was originally prepared to accept. More force for more time would be the safer option, he says. General David Petraeus, the top commander in Afghanistan, has disclosed the drawdown is more aggressive than he recommended and has warned it increases the risk the military will not achieve its goals. But he has conceded, as Commander-in-Chief, Mr Obama has to take account of considerations beyond the purely military.

By any yardstick, those are hardly ringing endorsements of the decision to pull out 10,000 troops by the end of this year and 23,000 more by September next year, conveniently in time for the presidential election. Nor is a statement by retiring Defence Secretary Robert Gates who, recalling events 20 years ago when the US ended its support for the mujahideen after they forced the Soviets out of Afghanistan, noted that Washington walked away satisfied it had secured US national interests. 9/11 showed just what a tragic miscalculation that was.

Mr Obama insists he has ordered the drawdown from a position of strength after the surge in troop numbers and intensified drone attacks achieved major successes, most notably in killing Osama bin Laden. Given Admiral Mullen's and General Petraeus's views, however, it is hard to believe other than Mr Obama has now embarked on a political rather than a military strategy, seeking to maintain the arbitrary deadline he set for himself when he authorised the surge, and trying to gain political advantage ahead of the election. Certainly, Mr Obama has done no favours to his NATO and other allies, including Australia. Senator John McCain has warned the cuts are likely to have a domino effect, with leaders of coalition countries having a hard time arguing their troops should stay while the Americans are going. To her credit, Prime Minister Julia Gillard has insisted there will be no decrease in Australia's troop levels, pointing out our 1500 Diggers still have work to complete ahead of the scheduled 2014 handover.

Coalition countries less resolute than Australia may find it harder to hold the line and in that lies the real danger of Mr Obama's announcement. After the drawdown, 68,000 US troops will remain until 2014. But the likelihood is the Taliban, just when they have shown signs of a willingness to talk, won't see Mr Obama's announcement as one coming from a position of strength but, rather, one that exposes his political weakness and vulnerability. There is much unfinished business in Afghanistan. Even 2014, given the gross corruption and incompetence of the Karzai government in Kabul, looks an extremely optimistic date. And what about Pakistan with its huge arsenal of nuclear warheads, which remains, as it has always been, the real target of al-Qaida, and would be a sitting duck if the terrorists were again to establish themselves in Afghanistan?

It's always tempting for political leaders in search of votes to take the course of political expediency. Mr Obama, despite the unpopularity of the war in Afghanistan, should avoid doing that. There's far too much at stake.

Making slurs and casting votes

CLAIMS of treachery might be common in politics, but they are not often made publicly by senior figures talking about their own party.

When departing Liberal senator and right faction boss Nick Minchin levelled that charge at the Liberal Party's four vice-presidents last week, it was a surgically targetted counter-attack. Senator Minchin was supporting incumbent party president Alan Stockdale and deplored the public support for challenger Peter Reith. By rebutting the vice-presidents' campaign, Senator Minchin probably saved Mr Stockdale, who won the ballot by a single vote on Saturday, giving Senator Minchin a significant factional victory in his last days as a senator. Given the Coalition's determination to form government sooner rather than later, this window on their internal ructions was concerning. After apparently encouraging Mr Reith to run, Tony Abbott voted for Mr Stockdale. So, having sought change, the Opposition Leader backed away from it at the last. Presumably he figured the status quo would create fewer waves. He best hope so. Because, for all Mr Abbott's disciplined work, the Coalition has hard yards ahead. If it wants to be perceived as a government-in-waiting there should be no time for substandard organisational arrangements or internal factional brawls.