In my view, the only thing that Julia Gillard has going for her these days is the leadership of the Liberal Party ......

For Tony Abbott, the definition of an acceptable levy is apparently one imposed by the Coalition.

In government, the Liberals and Nationals tried to impose six levies in 12 years.

They announced a sugar levy in 2003 to assist farmers, a levy on plane tickets in 2001 to pay Ansett workers' entitlements, a milk levy in 2000 to assist dairy farmers, a levy for the East Timor military action in 1999 (ultimately not called on) and a levy for a guns buyback in 1996 through an increase in the Medicare surcharge.

That's quite a list. But not the full list. From opposition last year, Mr Abbott proposed a $2.7 billion levy on business to pay for the Liberals' expensive paid parental leave scheme.

Australia faces a repair bill for the worst natural disaster in its history. The Gillard government has responded quickly with $3.8 billion in spending cuts and a moderate, one-off tax levy to provide the federal contribution to rebuild the devastated flood-affected areas.

The levy is progressive, and similar to the Howard East Timor levy in applying to middle and higher-income earners. It is a measured, appropriate and economically affordable response to a national tragedy.

Mr Abbott's negative response has been hollow and hypocritical, as we have come to expect from him. Failing to recognise the scale of the tragedy, and the need for prompt action, he continues to play politics about the floods, engaging in posturing and point-scoring in the face of a disaster.

Mr Abbott said last week in a television interview that the levy was ''the opposite of mateship''.  Does this mean that the Howard government's levies for sugar, Ansett, milk, East Timor and guns were also ''the opposite of mateship''?

This sort of petty slogan is no way to approach the difficult business of managing our national economy and does nothing to help the many Australians suffering the effects of this massive natural disaster.

Mr Abbott said last weekend that the flood levy proposal must have prompted the independent MPs into ''a lot of soul searching at the moment''.

But as our country contemplates its toughest hour and the effects of yet another extreme weather event in the shape of Cyclone Yasi, Mr Abbott would do well to rethink his own approach to this crisis. Instead of wrecking, he ought to get behind the genuine efforts to rebuild essential infrastructure and get flood-affected regions back on their feet.

Abbott Is Misguided In Opposition To Flood Levy

meanwhile, the other half of the Liberal comedy team, Peter Costello, pursues his version of the dishonest sledge .....

Australians always rise to the occasion in a crisis. During the Queensland floods bystanders risked their lives to save people swept away by raging waters Neighbour helped neighbour to move precious belongings to higher ground. In the aftermath, Thousands gathered on Brisbane streets to sweep away mud and rubbish. And people opened their hearts and wallets for those who were affected.

As usual, the federal government was unable to rise to the inspiring level of its citizens. It used the occasion to announce a new tax and dump several promises it should never have made such as ''cash for clunkers'' - a bizarre scheme to buy old cars and destroy them in the name of reducing greenhouse emissions.

The tax will raise a little under $2 billion. The government boasts that only the rich will pay, since it cuts in at $50,000, with a higher rate for those earning more than $100,000.

The Queensland Premier's Public Appeal (open to rich and poor) raised about $200 million. The federal government has now demonstrated how that money was not needed. It can raise billions with the stroke of a legislative pen. It is proposing a $2 billion tax increase. It could easily have made it $2.2 billion and covered all the donations.

This demonstrates how the government can, and will, swamp private philanthropy. If tax is the answer to all our disasters, then there is no need for fund-raising. Charities such the Red Cross can all be funded by tax revenue.

This is exactly the premise of the welfare state - the state manages welfare. As it grows bigger and bigger on its tax-and-spend powers, the room for philanthropy - for generosity and for voluntary activity - shrinks. Soon professionals manage all these things and replace motivated individuals who care and want to contribute but who lack the professional qualifications. The state supersedes the volunteer.

Some say the government needs the tax to pay for reconstruction. So let us put this in perspective. Next financial year the budget is forecast to be $12 billion in deficit. Would it make a difference if there was no tax and it was $13 billion or $14 billion in deficit? Not for a moment. After all, the government is currently running a $40 billion deficit. It doesn't need the tax to rebuild. It could finance rebuilding just as it is financing the national broadband network or the wasteful school hall construction program - out of its borrowing.

It's just that a flood is a better justification for a new tax. The ''national broadband network levy'' or the ''Julia Gillard memorial school hall tax'' wouldn't have the same appeal. Yet a lot more has been spent on those projects than will ever be spent on flood reconstruction. As Rahm Emanuel, former chief-of-staff to the US President, Barack Obama, said: ''Never let a serious crisis go to waste.'' And flood is a serious crisis when you want to raise taxes.

The government will pull forward as much spending as possible into next financial year, which is when it will receive the proceeds of the flood tax. Moving expenditure forward will, it hopes, help to get the budget back into balance for the following year - 2012-13 - when the next election is due.

At the height of the February 2009 bushfires in Victoria, which killed 173 people, the state's chief commissioner of police went out to dinner When it wanted to appoint a new commissioner, the state government moved her to head the bushfire reconstruction. It was so cynical that eventually public opinion forced her out. But the public showed great sufferance through the tragedy of those fires and the mistakes that contributed to it - like the failure to backburn forest fuel and planning regulations that inhibited firebreaks.

In Queensland, a judicial inquiry will examine how a flood mitigation dam was allowed to get so full that it had to release unusual amounts of water at the height of the flood. It is hoped it will look at whether planning regulations were right to allow building on flood-prone areas.

What always amazes me is how stoic people are in the face of tragedy - even when the tragedy could have been avoided or mitigated.

Some political leaders show a lot less class, like the Greens leader, Bob Brown, when they appear at the scene of loss to advance their pet theories and wage war on their enemies as he did on the mining industry.

There are others who are prepared to spend billions on pet projects that drive the budget into deep deficit, and then pretend it is a flood that makes a new tax necessary.

It is truly amazing that victims can show such grace while government can show such cynicism.

Peter Costello: Flood Levy A Slap In Face For Those Who Dug Deep