A miracle if anything is achieved!

Why is there all this talk about the election in 2013 when we've just had a bloody election and the Labor Party has just recently installed Julia Gillard as its leader? And really, who cares what Julia or any other politician said prior to the election - most politicians tell us what we want to hear in order to solicit votes,  what ultimately matters is what they do whilst in power. It seems to me that if our government is concerned about global warming and the impact of carbon dioxide on our environment then shouldn't they all be working together to achieve an outcome that's positive for Australia and the rest of the world instead of bickering between themselves about ways to undertake it. The difference I discern at the present moment between what Gillard is proposing and Abbot's take, is that Gillard/Labor propose to tax big business, who  after all are the main culprits when it comes to carbon emissions, and although taxing them would mean a trickle down affect on consumers, she would ensure that householders would not suffer due to obvious rises in electricity, gas and other utilities. Surely the tax payers should expect more from Ministers, paid on average about $130,000.00 per year, who spend much of question time insulting each other and point scoring instead of getting on with the job of governing. And, on the point of salaries and pensions, why does the Australian taxpayer have to fund ex-Prime Ministers life-styles, sometimes as in the case of deposed PM Kevin Rudd, to the tune of  $600,000 per year for the rest of his life? Many politicians (or their partners) are well off before the enter 'public life', so my question is 'Where is the public service aspect of their position' and why are they being cared for so well after they leave politics when many in our community are not? Wouldn't that money be better spent on those less fortunate?

Whilst I'm getting things off my chest, I watched the The Miracle Baby of Haiti on ABC last night about a British surgeon, David Nott who saved the life of Landina Seignon, a Haitian child  found trapped in the rubble of a hospital two days after the earthquake there in January 2010. Landina was in the burns unit of the hospital  because her mother had left her children alone with one small candle burning, which caused a fire. There is no electricity in the slum area of Haiti. Nott arranged to have the three month old operated upon in a British hospital and then solicited help from a charity group to look after the child, including a family who were regular short term care-givers for children from under-privileged backgrounds.
Five months later and after DNA blood tests they located the child's mother caring for her other three children in the slum area of Haiti, one of the poorest countries in the Western hemisphere. Nott was concerned whether, after all the good treatment given to the child, who had most of  her right arm amputated and ongoing medical issues, should be returned to her mother who lived in such dire circumstances. It appeared that the vested interest of Nott and those who had cared for Landina  was more important than the needs of her mother. Nott  wanted assurances that she was 'responsible' and midst tears she explained that she was already a mother and had worked and cared for her children without a man in her life.  Thousands of children perished in the Haitian earthquake and thousands were orphaned. Over 250,000 people lost their lives. That one was saved is heartwarming, but I was left feeling that this was just another example of  a child 'stolen' from their family, culture and history and that in the end saving Landina does nothing for the plight of the Haitians.