ReadWrite-grogsgamut

And so there was a debate.

Did it change anything? Of course not.

Who won? I’ll give it to Tony. He scored some points on the “waste” of the stimulus (demonstrating what I have long said that Rudd and Co were USELESS at selling the performance of the stimulus – it kept us out of a recession and yet people have swallowed the debt and deficit line). And he wasn’t completely hated. So well done – I guess he did learn from the Health Debate.

The women controlling the worms did hate him; but the blokes didn’t really love Julia either – especially when she talked about defeating Rudd (perhaps the thought of a women defeating a male just hurt  their egos a bit, because in my experience those who have expressed most reservations with the dumping of Rudd has been women).

Overall the worm was probably on average spent more time in the positive zone higher for Abbott than for Julia, but interestingly her final address was viewed more positively than Abbott’s.

But does anyone care? No of course not. It won’t change a vote. The election is not for 4 weeks. By then you really think anyone will remember anything said tonight? I can’t remember what either of them said 4 weeks ago, and I’;m a political junkie. 99% of the population are not. By the time Masterchef finishes it’ll all be forgotten. 

And this debate was easily the worst I can recall (well at least going back to Ray Martin asking Paul Keating and John Howard what was the price of a carton of milk).

The issues that got a look in – asylum seekers, immigration, the rolling of Kevin Rudd, climate change, Afghanistan and then (just for something weird) the stimulus.

Health? Education? Infrastructure? The economy? Nup

And the questions were pretty lame as well. Julia Gillard was asked if she had been advised of an exact date by which it will be too late to act on climate change. Seriously. I thought it was common knowledge that 1:30pm 24 May 2018 was the due date for action.

Seriously, these were the three best journos in the country?

Chris Uhlmann’s question on what Julia had said behind closed doors to Kevin Rudd was one appropriate for the 7:30 Report but not for a debate about policy for the next three years. He showed a complete lack of understanding of the occasion, and like an annoying umpire in a footy game, thought the debate was all about him.

Maybe he was just pissed that Speers got to moderate it and not him.

Mark Riley on Channel 7 said there were no losers which meant Tony Abbott won. I do like a good bit of solipsism with my political analysis.

For me? I’m watching Masterchef with the rest of the country, unable to believe that Callum doesn’t know the middle pot contains Hollandaise sauce.

It will be interesting to see how the debate rates. In 2007 it was highly anticipated, and highly watched. If anyone but the most politically interested survived till the end, I’d be much surprised. I even found it a struggle.

Off the back of a truck, I have, on the hush hush and deeply off the record, come into possession of the first draft of Julia Gillard’s speech on climate change that she was gave at the University of Queensland. She chose not to give it when she realised we don’t live in the world of make believe. But oh well it’s nice to dream. (It’s also 800 words shorter than the final version she gave, and we all know less is more!)

Speech: Julia Gillard, "Moving forward together on Climate Change"

Julia Gillard

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

Thank you for coming here today and thank you for that welcome.

I speak here today on the final of the three important policy areas I first mentioned on the day I became Prime Minister – that of climate change. I know that many in the community have been waiting for this day; waiting to know how I propose we move forward on this most important of issues. I thank them for their patience.

Before outlining my policy I need to explain why we are here in 2010 still talking about what to do about climate change.

We are here because the Labor Government failed to explain fully to the Australian people the necessity for a price on carbon, failed to explain fully the working of an Emissions Trading Scheme, failed to negotiate fully with all sides of politics, and failed to acknowledge the changes in community sentiment on climate change.

We all know that the Labor and Liberal parties went to the 2007 election with a policy for an Emissions Trading Scheme. We won the election and then in 2009 after many months of hard work we presented the Parliament of Australia with legislation to introduce an Emissions Trading System. The Liberal Party and the Greens voted against it.

Later in that year after more negotiations with the Liberal Party we reached an agreement. The legislation was due to be passed, when Tony Abbott, backed by those within the Liberal Party who view climate change as a fairy story, who view climate change as a left wing conspiracy, defeated Malcolm Turnbull by one vote in a leadership challenge.

That same day the Liberal and National Parties in the Senate voted with the Greens to defeat the legislation again.

It would be easy to blame the Liberal Party. It would be easy to blame the Greens. It would be easy to blame senators Fielding and Xenaphon. But Government means taking responsibility. It was our legislation and so it was our failure.

There will be many in the media who will lick their lips and be ready to quote me criticising the performance of the past three years, as though I am admitting defeat. To them I say they are mistaken. The race is not yet run; the final bell is not yet rung. Our performance of the past three years resulted in us taking a number of body blows, but we are not down. And we shall not lose the fight.

It has been said in the past that climate change is the single greatest moral issue of our time. I do not disagree, but I believe we need to put the problem of climate change in its proper context.

The single most successful law in the economic world is the law of supply and demand. The profit motive has driven economic prosperity since the beginning of time. The law that in a free market the right price for a good or service will be achieved through supply and demand has driven our economy in a way that those who pursued Communism in the 20^th Century could only look on in awe and disbelief.

But markets are not without failure. And when they fail the Government must step in and correct the failure, or it stands condemned for pandering to special interest groups and big business.

We have seen this happen in the recent Global Financial Crisis. Investors were denied the full information about the risks of what they were buying in the convoluted and pernicious financial derivatives market. This was a market failure that when uncorrected by Governments – governments all too eager to let big business have its way.

The result is the United States of America having 10 percent unemployment, countries in Europe teetering on the edge of financial ruin and Australia avoiding recession only by the skin of its teeth. We here in this country were fortunate that Labor and Liberal Governments in the past had ensured the rules that govern financial markets were solid and prudent.

But when we come to climate change we do not find such prudency or assuredness. 

Because climate change is the single largest market failure in the history of the world.

It is a failure because when we drive our car, switch on our lights, read our newspapers, eat our food we do not pay for the carbon burned to produce them. We have never paid for it.

When the industrial revolution began in the 18^th and 19^th Century and coal fired steam engines churned out the wealth of nations, the peoples of Europe, America and Australia did not think that by doing so they would be changing the climate of the planet. How could they know? They did not know of the electron, of electricity, of nuclear power. We cannot blame them – they truly knew not what they did.

But we do.

We know that 2009 has been ranked the fifth warmest year on record globally and finished off the hottest decade in recorded history.
We know that each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the last.

We know that due to climate change, the number of droughts could increase by up to 40 per cent in eastern Australia, and up to 80 per cent in south-western Australia within the next six decades.

We know that without action irrigated agricultural production in the Murray-Darling Basin is projected to fall by over 90 per cent by 2100.

And we know, without any reasonable doubt that the temperatures are largely driven by pollution created by carbon emissions.

There will always be those who doubt everything. No issue ever receives unanimous support. There are still those who believe that cigarettes do not cause cancer – interestingly many of those who believe thus also are those loudest in denying climate change is manmade.

We could wait until 100 percent of every scientist or holder of a Bachelor Degree agrees with the science. But if we did we would all be long dead, and long dead too would be our planet.

But climate change is not a scientific issue; it will not be solved by science like it is some infection that merely requires some penicillin. Yes there are steps that can be done, but without treating climate change as an economic issue we are still acting as though we are in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. And to do so would be as impossible to contemplate as would you taking your sick child to the doctor, only to be told there were no antibiotics, no medicine, and no surgery.

We do not allow our doctors to be ignorant of the twentieth and twenty first century medicine and we should not allow our economy to operate ignorant of the impact of climate change.

The failure in the climate change market is due to time and size.

We do not see the impact on the climate of driving our car to work. We do not notice an increase in temperature every time we switch on a light. We do not even feel any change when we drive past a coal fired power station. And because we do not, and because we will not physically feel any real change from the entire world’s use of carbon based energy until sometime in the future, we do not pay for those consequences now.

Perhaps the best example of a similar market failure is the market for tobacco. For many years in the twentieth century tobacco was extraordinarily cheap. Even up until the late 1980s the price of cigarettes was such that there was little financial impact from buying a single pack. Yes if you added all the packs you bought over the course of a year it would be a large amount, but a single pack in itself was almost a throwaway purchase.

The reason for the market failure of tobacco was again size and time. While it is true that every cigarette is doing you harm, you do not die from having one cigarette. Nobody has ever smoked their first cigarette and then died from cancer the next day as a consequence.

And while lung cancer can strike those who are young, for a large number of the smoking population it will strike when they are in their 50s or 60s. It is still far too young, but when you start smoking at the age of 18, 60 years old seems so far away that it doesn’t even count. No one buys a packet of cigarettes when they are 18 and worries about what may happen in 40 years time.

The price of tobacco did not take into account that buying them and consuming them will eventually kill you. The price of tobacco only took into account the fact that having one cigarette in itself will not kill you today.

The government has raised the price of cigarettes through tobacco levies not to raise money – though I know many will think it so. No, it has been raised because the Government wants people to stop smoking.

By forcing the market to set a higher price for tobacco we are forcing the market to in effect take into account that you personally will pay a high price for smoking throughout your life. The Government levy attempts to put a price on the carcinogenic nature of cigarettes. Many will argue the price is still too low, some will argue it is too high. But only the foolhardy will argue such a price should not be set.

The Government levy corrects the market, because the market will never recognise the costs of something that is not seen for many years and which cannot be attributed to a single purchase.

And the laws of supply and demand have worked spectacularly well. Through increasing the price of tobacco and other anti-smoking measures, smoking in this country has been reduced to levels once thought impossible.

When many of these measures were introduced the thought that the price of cigarettes would be so high, and that it would be banned in so many areas would have been almost impossible to contemplate. There certainly would have been no consensus.

But for those of you who are old enough and who can remember when you could smoke in cinemas or restaurants or aeroplanes or your work office you would now all agree that we could never return to such a world.

The market and the Government working together have reduced the level of smoking.

Market failure was corrected but the laws of supply and demand were not ignored.

And so too must be the case with climate change.

Because we do not see the effect of one single carbon emission on the climate, the market will never set a price for that consequence. But our use of carbon emitting energy will destroy the planet as sure as smoking cigarettes will destroy an individual’s lungs.

So what should the Government do?

There are those who say that with carbon emissions as with cigarettes, the economy needs to go cold turkey. We need to quit immediately.

This is not and never will be an option.

An economy going cold turkey on carbon would be a horrible thing to contemplate. Massive jobs would be lost, productivity would be slashed and lives would be ruined.

The economy needs to borrow from the anti-smoking brigade and in effect acquire a carbon emissions-patch.

This can be done through incentives and regulation to produce more efficient carbon based energy. We can invest into research on carbon capture and storage, clean coal technology. And we can massively increase our investment into renewable energy supply.

Today I can announce that if re-elected my Government will introduce new regulations which will ensure that all new power stations will have to meet best practice standards for their carbon emissions.

New coal fired power stations would also have to be carbon capture and storage ready, capable of being retrofitted to capture and store the pollution caused by burning coal.

The new standards will be determined by Government following a process of consultation open to all the key stakeholders, including technical experts, energy market institutions, industry and environmental groups.

This means that we would never allow a highly inefficient and dirty power station to be built again in Australia.

These new standards will also apply to existing projects. If you want to produce carbon emissions you will be free to do so, but we cannot exist in a world that uses technology of the twentieth century technology to burn a nineteenth century fuel.

The Government will negotiate with energy companies to ensure such changes can be made with the least impact on jobs, however just as we would not allow a building riddled with asbestos to remain, we cannot allow the dirtiest types of power stations to remain indefinitely.

I can also announce that we will continue our efforts to promote the use of renewable energy.

The Government has already made significant commitments to this agenda.

Martin Ferguson is delivering a range of policies that will genuinely accelerate the development of renewable energy options for Australia. We have invested $5.1 billion through the Clean Energy Initiative. Investments in clean coal, wind, geothermal and biofuels, to name a few.

The $1.5 billion Solar Flagships Program is supporting the development of very large scale solar generation plants, right here in Australia. Interest in the program has been strong, with 52 projects applying for Stage One. We have already announced a shortlist of eight projects with sites across Australia. If re-elected we will announce the two successful applicants for Round One funding in the first half of next year.

Together with our investment in the Australian Solar Institute, the Solar Flagships program will develop Australia’s potential to become a world leader in powering our homes and businesses through solar energy. 

We have also delivered on our promise to increase the Renewable Energy Target, increasing it by at least four times so that 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020.

This will help drive nearly $19 billion of investment in clean renewable energy. And it will reduce carbon pollution by around 39 million tons by 2020.  That’s the equivalent of taking almost 10 million cars off the road.

But I will go further.

We need more steps to accelerate the development of renewable energy and its availability for businesses and consumers.
Today I announce that, if elected, the Australian Government will contribute up to $1 billion over 10 years to the investment needed to connect our electricity grid to new sources of renewable energy.

From solar power in north Queensland to geothermal in South Australia and wind and wave technologies in Western Australia.
I want the whole country, from the north-east coast to the south-west, involved in creating these renewable solutions for our future.

If elected I will also meet with all state premiers to develop a national gross feed-in tariff for large-scale solar plants and urgent and necessary step to encourage renewable energy supply.

I also acknowledge that many people feel overwhelmed by all the information on climate change. They don’t know who or what to believe. They want to trust the United Nations reports but they are inundated by news reports and opinion pieces which do everything in their power to cause people to doubt the science.

Because of the need to restore the trust in the science, my Government will create an independent, properly credentialed source of information and expert advice – a Climate Change Commission – to explain the science of climate change and to report on progress in international action.

The work of the Climate Change Commission will inform all Government action on climate change and provide a trustworthy resource for the public and for business.

These are all worthy and necessary policies.

But alone they are meaningless.

Without one important step they are as likely to succeed as were the economies of the Soviet Union or North Korea.

We must use the laws of supply and demand.

We must have a price on carbon.

I say again: we must have a price on carbon.

There are those who will try to use such a statement to arouse fear of you losing your job, or fear of your ability to pay for basic services. They will use fear to try and win an election.

But if there is one truth about governing, it is that a party which attempts to win government through fear will be too fearful to govern.

It will be a party too afraid to make the tough decision, too afraid to do what is right.

That will not be my Government.

There are also those who say they are straight talkers. But we know from long experience that those who generally say such things are not talking straight, but are actually doing all they can to make sure you don’t notice how crooked they truly are.

But let me today give you an example of some real straight talking. Let me say something which any number of focus groups and advisors would tell me not to say. Let me say something of which there are those who believe it will lose me the election. Let me say something which those who would seek to scare their way into Government will want to use against me again and again.

I say this to you knowing that what I am to tell you is the most obvious thing in the world, but which has for too long been avoided by all in Government: avoided out of fear.

Ladies and gentlemen, I say to you that if we put a price on carbon the cost of electricity, the cost of energy, in short the daily cost of life will increase.

The prices of all things will rise. This is unavoidable.

Why do I tell you this? I tell you it because the Australian people are not fools and I will not treat you as such.

It is supply and demand – the same economic laws which have brought the western world prosperity unparalleled throughout human history.

By setting a price on carbon we will be finally allowing the market to work as it should – one that will use the profit motive to find more efficient ways of producing energy that involved carbon such as coal and to find more efficient way of producing energy from renewable resources.

Now I know all of you will be still hearing the sound in your ears of mentioning higher costs of living.

I say to you that you will not be left behind. I said before that we need a carbon-emissions patch; that we cannot go cold turkey. This applies to consumers as well as to producers.

I guarantee to the Australian people that every single dollar of revenue raised through placing a price on carbon will be directed back to the Australian people to compensate the impacts of the increases in costs of living. Every single dollar raised.

The introduction of a carbon price will not add one dollar to the Budget’s bottom line. We are doing it not to increase revenue but to reduce carbon emissions.

The compensation provided will allow consumers to cope while the producers catch up. It will take time for more efficient coal fired power stations to come into full operation, it will take time for renewable energy power to be fully connected to the electricity grid. And I do not expect the consumers to pay. The increase in price will encourage consumers to seek less costly energy sources, and also to be more mindful of energy use, but through compensation the price on carbon will not reduce your standard of living.

But how do we set a price on carbon. Should we use a carbon tax, an emissions trading system or a combination of the two – first a tax and then a trading system?

A consensus on the most effective way forward, and also the most effective way to compensate consumers, remains to be found. It is a difficult path ahead. And I do not propose to have all the answers.

In the 1980s when confronted with the worst recession in 50 years, Bob Hawke upon taking office called for an Economic Summit to seek a way forward. It changed the way economic problems were managed in this country. The fruits of that summit eventually led to the end of pattern bargaining, rolling strikes, more flexible enterprise level industrial relations laws, and a massive increase in productivity and participation.

That Economic Summit planted the seeds that would produce the most amazing thirty years of economic growth this nation has ever seen. It helped transform the nation’s economy, and thus the nation itself.

The issue of climate change needs a similar response.

And so today I announce that if re-elected within three months I would convene a Carbon Price Summit involving representatives from all major companies and state governments.

The purpose of the conference will not be to discuss if climate change is real. It will not be a scientific summit; it will be an economic one informed by the science.

The issue to be discussed will be how best to set a price on carbon that will lead to the necessary reduction in carbon emissions but which also ensures our economy remains vibrant, strong and dynamic.

The timeframe I am setting for the introduction of legislation for a carbon price will be the beginning of 2013. The legislation will be introduced in the next term of Government.

Businesses need certainty; they need and have been calling for a carbon price to allow them to make the investment decisions now that will drive their profits for the next thirty years.

I will ask the summit to reach a consensus – and we shall all have to give ground. I will not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, but I will ensure that the result is good – good for jobs, good for the economy and good for the environment.

There will be those who will complain that we should not move ahead of the rest of the world. To them I say we are not. The rest of the world is already moving forward. Already Europe and many states within America and Canada are working within carbon price mechanisms. India and China are investing heavily in renewable energy and moving toward putting prices on carbon emissions. If we fail to act now, we and our economy will be left behind.

I will not allow that to happen.

I will ask those who come to the climate change summit to come with open but sharp minds. The challenge ahead is not for the indolent or feeble minded. The future of our nation does not allow for those who would have callous disregard for the future either economically or environmentally.

It will not be easy.

Forty years ago President John F Kennedy using words to inspire a generation said of the effort to go to the moon that we do it not because it is easy but because it is hard.

We will do this not because it is hard, but because it is right.

We must do this. And we must do this together.

I ask each of you to come with me on this goal. I cannot do it without you.

There are those who would wish to put off the task till a later date. There are those who would wish to pass it on to someone else. To those people, I say we cannot; we must not.

We must seize the moment, or the moment will seize us.

We can still act to prevent irreparable damage to our climate and to our way of life. But the time is fast approaching when no amount of incentives, good will, hopes and prayers will do anything to turn back the effects of global warming.

Many a wife or child has sat crying next to the bed of a loved husband or father dying of lung cancer after hearing the doctor use the words “inoperable”. And in between the cries of anguish and heartbreak are those thoughts of why didn’t we do something when we had a chance?

We still have a small chance to act on climate change. Let us not allow it to pass us by – let us take the opportunity to act together.

If we do, future generations will look back with awe that we were able to do these things. And we who were here will feel rightly proud that when asked to choose between easy inaction and difficult but necessary action, we chose the difficult path.

We chose it because we knew in our hearts and in our heads that it was the right way. It was truly the way forward.

Thank you.

And so the first week of the election campaign ends in keeping with the vibe of the previous 6 days with disappointing policy all round

We had Tony Abbott over in Western Australia saying something about border protection – apparently he’s all into biosecurity. This is good I guess, given the sterling work done by the Howard Government keeping the equine flu virus out of the country… But really, who cares? Abbott is almost irrelevant in this election – both sides are just going through the motions. No one seriously thinks the Libs will win, and both sides know this – so Libs are just saying any old thing knowing they’ll never have to implement it, and all the ALP is doing is making sure they don’t do anything that will somehow frighten people into voting for a guy they don’t want to vote for.

Which brings us to Brisbane where Julia Gillard was doing all she could to shore up her climate change credentials. Which it seems was not much.

Her speech started off well:

Climate change is a pivotal issue for Australia.  It is fundamental to the question I have put to our people.  The question about whether our country moves forward or back.  A lot of people have been anticipating this day.  I thank them for their patience.

Yep we have been waiting. Will it be worth it?

As our economy has grown over the last century, much of that growth has relied on the use of high-polluting energy sources. 

We know now that if we continue to rely only on those sources, the problems they cause will grow.  The consequences of inaction are ultimately threatening for our planet.  We also know that we can do something about it. 

Oh yes we can! I’m with you Julia. Take me, I’m yours!

And so I adopt this perspective.

That we must show leadership and chart the way forward.

That the price of inaction is too high a price for our country to pay. The price of inaction is a price ultimately that our country will not be able to afford.
Because the price of inaction is price rises, job losses and innovations lost.

You’re right, it is too high a price to pay! And yes there are many jobs from renewable energy! Let’s go get ‘em Julia!

Conversely, step by step action, deliberate and considered steps, bring opportunities that could make our country even greater. A confident Australia can meet this challenge and emerge even stronger.

Oh dammit Julia, you had me at conversely! “A confident Australia”! “Meeting challenges”. “Stronger”!! Yes, yes yes!!

Now, for those who dispute the science I respect your views and your participation in the debate. I also respectfully disagree. Global temperatures are rising.

2009 has been ranked the fifth warmest year on record globally and finished off the hottest decade in recorded history.

The temperatures are largely driven by pollution created by carbon emissions. Climate change has a particular environmental and economic impact on Australia. 2009 was the second hottest year in Australia and ended our hottest decade.  Each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the last.

Take that Nick Minchin, you climate denials you!. Take that Andrew Bolt – take your stupid graphs and stick them were the solar flares truly do not shine

I am in heaven right now. I especially liked this part: “we must show leadership and chart the way forward”. Ok, take us there Julia, take us all!

Reducing this pollution is part of the wider challenge of making Australia’s economy sustainable.

Australia has faced big challenges before.  And we can do it again.

Again, yes we can! Can I get a chant going??

And it is not an Australian thing to do just to leave a problem like this to our kids to deal with. So what is required to meet this challenge?

The science tells us that we need to limit the growth of carbon pollution in our atmosphere to 450 ppm if we are going to have a chance of limiting global temperature growth to two degrees or less.

That in turn helps to explain the commitment that the Australian Government has made, to cut our pollution levels by at least five per cent by 2020 compared to our pollution levels in 2000.

That is a big step, and further steps will be needed in time.  In taking those steps, we must work towards a new model of economic growth.

Meeting the challenge means no less than a transition, over time, to a cleaner economy in which we are not dependent on polluting sources of energy for our economic growth.

This will require massive investment and hard work.

OK, there will be a bit of dispute over the 450ppm bit, but otherwise all good. “Big steps”, “new model of economic growth”, “a cleaner economy”. This is all what we want to hear. It has been worth the wait!

We need community consensus and above all else this requires a reasonable explanation...not a strategy that relies only on political consensus, the very type of consensus Tony Abbott destroyed to support his own narrow political ambition.

And so we must start with this: we must acknowledge that Australians have real concerns about making changes that are this big and they need more information. 

Umm, yeah ok… but you do realise that in your speech you’ve just given us some damn good information and reason for making change?

They are concerned about the impact on jobs and the impact on the prices of goods and services that they rely on, especially electricity. It is not wrong to be concerned. 

Uh oh, I don’t like where this is going…

In the wake of that decision, and of the Copenhagen Conference in December, I accept that we should have made our position clearer to the Australian community.

We have not abandoned our commitment to take action on climate change. But if we learn the lessons I have outlined then we need a different approach. We need national consensus on this vital, long term issue of national interest. We need consensus among political parties.

But we need consensus in the community even more. And it is vital to be clear what I mean by that community consensus.

I do not mean that government can take no action until every member of the community is fully convinced.

Pivotal reforms like this are often controversial when they are first introduced.  Medicare, or Medibank as it was then known, was controversial and initially opposed by the parliamentary opposition.

But the policy was responding to a deeply felt recognition in the community that a new way was needed to meet the health needs of Australians. 

That support grew stronger as people saw the policy and its implementation.  As it grew, the opposition parties came to the conclusion that bipartisan support was the only reasonable position. 

Umm. Julia… what are you doing? You’re losing me here. You say you need consensus to take action, but then you give the example of Medicare which you actually point out did not have consensus when it was introduced, but only gained it after it had been put in place. So if Medicare is your example you shouldn’t be waiting for consensus at all…

I will prosecute, as Prime Minister, the case for action to reduce pollution and build a more sustainable Australia for future generations.

I will make the case in public and in parliament.  I will lead the debate and lead the advocacy for our approach in the community.

My Government will create an independent, properly credentialed source of information and expert advice – a Climate Change Commission – to explain the science of climate change and to report on progress in international action.

A climate change commission? So tell me again what is the Department of Climate Change doing?

I will honour my commitment to building a consensus that is informed by the facts, tested by robust debate and concluded through common sense and open-mindedness.

And my Government will support a rigorous process to work through the issues and test the level of consensus. There will be ongoing national debate and vigorous parliamentary debate.

This should not just be a debate between experts.

An ongoing parliamentary debate ? Well certainly no need to worry about it being between experts there. Luckily it won’t get any worse than this… Oh dear:

And so today I announce that if we are re-elected, I will develop a dedicated process – a Citizens’ Assembly – to examine over 12 months the evidence on climate change, the case for action and the possible consequences of introducing a market-based approach to limiting and reducing carbon emissions.

These methods have been used in a number of countries, and in some Australian communities, to work through complex long term issues. 

I envisage that those involved would be genuinely representative of the wider Australian public.  They would be voluntary participants, but selected through the census/electoral roll by an independent authority.

Their work would be supported with evidence, analysis and access to the views and positions of a wide range of advocates. At the same time the Citizens’ Assembly is at work, I will work with State and Local Governments, business and community groups to maximise information and discussion in the community overall.

The role of this Citizens’ Assembly will not be to become the final arbiter or judge of consensus, but to provide an indicator to the nation of the progress of community consensus and the issues that will need to be addressed in making the transition I have described today to a successful, lower pollution economy.

Put simply, I believe in the skills, capacity, decency and plain common sense of Australians.  I therefore believe that through dedicated discussion a representative group of Australians drawn from all age groups, parts of the country and walks of life, will help us move forward.

So we have a group of citizens whose role is to be a big focus group and they “will not be to become the final arbiter or judge of consensus”, but then you gives us this kick in the teeth:

And if I am wrong, and that group of Australians is not persuaded of the case for change then that should be a clear warning bell that our community has not been persuaded as deeply as required about the need for transformational change.

So they actually will be the final arbiter or judge of consensus?!

And then you went on to announce some new rules for power stations, some $1b to be invested over the next 10 years to connect renewable energy to the electrician grid. All very good, and all nice and wonderful… but what the hell????

Oh Julia. This is pathetic. You make John Howard look like a dope-smoking, hemp-shirt wearing, dreadlock-haired hippy.

Here’s some more explanation of the Citizen’s Assembly:

A 150-strong Citizens’ Assembly will be appointed to examine the evidence on climate change, the case for action and a market based approach to reducing pollution.

Sorry Julia, but the entire population wants to examine this evidence – you need to persuade all of us, not a 150 person focus group.

A Gillard Labor Government will build community support for action on climate change through a 12 month process that directly involves this representative group of ordinary Australians.

Bugger the group Julia! You want to build consensus? Build it with the whole damn population!

Their role will be to provide an indicator to the nation of the progress of community consensus.

You know Julia, there are polling companies that can give you a good indication of the progress of community consensus.

Oh geez, this is a terrible policy. And there is only one reason why she would have proposed it – the ALP is pretty sure that there are absolutely no seats to be lost from not taking serious action on climate change. (And I suspect they’re right).

I have no problems with the need for consensus thing – to an extent. The graph on the left shows the answers in America in 2009 to the question: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". Clearly the more you know about the issue the more sure you are – and the general public does need more information and needs to have the issue “sold” to them. But this is not the way to do it.

And if we’re going to wait for America, I say we’ll be waiting until we’re all under water, because the Gallup poll below shows how Americans view the claims about climate changes.

So yes, the public has been lost – and we can blame the media, the scientists, the political parties ,the green lobby groups. We can blame them all (and I’ll write later on this failure). It’s just a pity public opinion doesn’t stop the warming from happening…

To say I’m disappointed in an understatement. I don’t particularly care that her new rules on power stations will let in a whole stack of ones already being proposed (gutless though it is). But this big focus group thing is just stupid. There is absolutely no way voters will stand for a group of 150 people being the arbiter of whether of what the electorate thinks. And how much pressure will these 150 people be under? The media will be all over them. How will she decide if they have reached a consensus? A vote? Does it have to be a two-thirds majority?

If you want to build consensus (which I think does need to happen) then this is the wrong way to do it.

Just dumb Julia. I don’t care that it won’t matter. I don’t care that you will win the election easily. The Libs are are led by a fool most people wouldn’t trust to be able to buy all the things on their weekly shopping list if they gave it to him. The opposition are so un-electable even Kevin Rudd would have beaten them! The ALP are paying $1.28 to win. To put that in perspective Australia are only $1.60 to win the Ashes this summer.

I do care that you think this is the way to go about things. I do care that you can say the great things you did in the first half of your speech, and yet still come up with the content of the second half.

When I first heard a snippet about this policy last night, I assumed you were going to do a Bob Hawke and have a Climate Change summit much like his Economic Summit – you know the top business leaders where you would say, right we’re going to put a price on carbon, how should we do it. Where you would say, “Listen – this is going to happen, you either get in the room and help or we move forward without you”.

But no (Ok I never thought you were going to say that, but it was a nice dream). Instead you have come up with an official focus group.

Do you know how bad this policy is Julia? It is so bad that Nick Minchin is criticising you for delaying action. Nick fucking Minchin. Nick Minchin: a person whose imbecility on this subject is almost without compare. A guy who seriously thinks climate change is a left wing conspiracy! Just think how bat-shit dumb you have to be to think that! And yet he is attacking you for delaying! He is saying the Liberal Party are the ones who will be doing direct action now!

I mean, bloody hell.

You’re just lucky that your speech was interrupted by some idiot protestors, because that ensured that any coverage of the speech in the 6pm news would focus on the idiot protestors and not your policy. And those “swinging voters” in western Sydney you seem so concerned about would see that you’re being abused by left wing hippy idiots, and they’ll feel safe  in thinking that you’re doing the right thing by Mr and Mrs Middle Australia.

But for mine Julia, this was your worst day, and you’ll get my vote because the Libs are putrid and Abbott as PM would be a national embarrassment.

But geez. Lift your game. Stop worrying about wining the election and go out and win the people.

Today both Julia and Tony had a day off the campaign to attend the funeral of Private Bewes, who died in Afghanistan.

In lieu of any real election news today, the opposition and the media got itself into a lather about Julia Gillard’s sustainable population argument. They all got up in arms about the fact that she has refused to put a number on the level of population or the level of immigration that would be required. Here’s Peter Hartcher getting all excited about his own prose at the SMH:

Julia Gillard says she wants a population policy, but it's sounding more like a population placebo.

Her opening position is that she does not want a ''big Australia''. She tells us that ''hurtling towards a big Australia is not only undesirable. It is irresponsible.

''If you elect me on August 21, our country will take the path to a sustainable population. I will focus on preserving the quality of life of our Australian sanctuary.''

OK. So what is a sustainable population?

The Prime Minister doesn't want to tell us. She doesn't want to debate the overall size of the population: ''I don't think we should be nominating a number.'' She seems to want to host a debate rather than supply an answer: ''I urge you all to contribute to the national population strategy we are developing.''

All right. Which parts of population policy does she want us to discuss? The birthrate?

No. Gillard says that it is a matter of individual choice how many children we might want to have. No debate there.

So it must be about immigration, right? But no. ''This isn't about immigration,'' she said yesterday.

She doesn't want to debate that, either.

So if it's not about birthrates, and it's not about immigration, perhaps Gillard knows of some other, secret source of population in the fifth dimension.
…
It's a broad-spectrum placebo that she can pop into your mouth if you open it to ask a question about asylum seekers or immigration or housing or congestion. This allows her to sound concerned, sympathetic, but avoid anything hard, like a real policy.

So suck on that.

Wow! He writes a whole article on the issue, and only at the end mentions housing or congestion.

Crikey as well was getting in on the act:

When challenged on immigration yesterday, Julia Gillard ducked for cover. Unwilling to even admit the logical consequence of her concerns about sustainable population, that she would have to reduce immigration, she offered a distraction about "issues about water about soil about city planning about infrastructure and services."

Christopher Pyne, as is his want, took thee issue to its illogical conclusion:

“If it's not about immigration, what is it about? Is she seriously suggesting that we are going to have a one-child policy in Australia to reduce the population, or is she planning on handing around condoms to make people reduce our population naturally?"

Yes, he did say it. Just move on; try and forget you read it.

You see when the media and opposition talk about Gillard’s sustainable population policy all they care about is “population”. They completely ignore the “sustainable”. And if they really want to criticise her they suggest it is all a dog whistle about asylum seekers and immigration.

Yet here she was yesterday when asked about asylum seekers:

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, another boat this morning, another policy failure?

PRIME MINISTER:  Another boat was intercepted this morning so a boat has arrived.  I’ve been advised of that.  What this means, of course, is when I’ve spoken to the Australian community about strengthening border protection and how we are dealing with asylum seekers, I’ve been very clear – there’s no quick fix here.  There’s no quick fix.  We have a long-term solution through developing a regional framework and a regional processing centre.  It will take hard work and patience and determination to deliver that long-term solution which would take away the very product that people smugglers sell and I would say too, when you drill into this, I believe Tony Abbott agrees with much of the long-term solution and plans that I have put forward.  We continue to be in dialogue with East Timor about a regional processing centre but I’ve been clear to the Australian community, there’s no quick fix here. 

Not one mention of population. And in the same press conference she was asked about sustainable population she made no mention of asylum seekers:

JOURNALIST:  You’ve talked up the congestion of western Sydney, western Melbourne etc.  Can you guarantee that a Gillard Government in the next term will bring in Commonwealth measures that will limit population growth in these areas?

PRIME MINISTER:  Our Sustainable Australia strategy is about getting the best of advice from the expert panels that my Minister, Tony Burke, has established.  It’s about getting the best of advice about how we can have a sustainable Australia and I’ve said to the people of western Sydney, and I said it to them yesterday and I also say to the people in Brisbane, in Melbourne, people who are living with growth pressures, that I don’t believe we should just keep hurtling along without stopping, taking a breath and getting the policies right. 

The policies for a sustainable Australia and yes, they are about infrastructure, they’re about environmental issues, they’re about services like first-class schools, access to a doctor, access to a nurse when you need one and, in pursuit of sustainability, it’s one of the reasons why the cutback announced by Mr Abbott yesterday is so damaging.  I mean, I want to invest in infrastructure in communities that are growing because there are jobs there.  They’re growing because mining’s growing.  They need workers.  They need people to come and live in places like Karratha, places like Gladstone – that brings pressure of growth, pressure on infrastructure.  I want to invest in that infrastructure.  Tony Abbott wants to rip that $400 million away.  It’s bad news for Western Australia and bad news.

But then you see, journalists are cleverer than you or me – they know what she really means. They know when she is talking about sustainable population she really just trying to calm people in western Sydney from not getting worried about those filthy immigrants and boat people.

Please. People in Western Sydney by and large when they hear “population growth” like people everywhere else in Australia are not thinking immigration – they’re thinking road congestion, they’re wondering about decent public transport and decent hospitals to cope with the growth, they’re thinking about new schools for all the kids, they’re wondering if it means their commute time will be longer, they’re worried if the influx of people will worsen the housing shortage and increase housing prices, or rent prices, and then there’s the problem of water.

In short they’re thinking about the sustainable part of the phrase – because that’s what they’re worried about right now. Of course to Hartcher these things are all just “fifth dimension” stuff. And to Crikey it is being fellow travellers with Dick Smith and being in favour of a “little Australia”

The media’s obsession with immigration numbers and a population target is like judging the best cook on Masterchef by the size of the meals – there is a lot more to a meal than the size, just as there is actually a  lot more to sustainable population than the size of that population. Tony Burke made this point nicely in an interview with Derryn Hinch yesterday:

HINCH: Well yeah, but we're entitled to know something. I mean, you know, Bill Hayden once said 50 million; well that's out the window now. Kevin Rudd said - and he's in favour of Big Australia - 36 million. Some people said 40 million. Now you were the minister under Kevin Rudd. You must have looked at some figures? What's a number? Is it 25, 30, 35?

BURKE: And this is the balance and I just don't want to get into the situation of just offering a glib figure. If we had a population Derryn of only 10 million people, but they all lived where your listeners are in Melbourne, we'd have a massive sustainability problem. And this is where there are parts of Australia that want growth - that can handle growth - where we've never properly quantified in those local areas how much bigger they can go.  And there are other areas that are absolutely stretched to the limit.  Whether it be through water infrastructure, be it through the pressure on traffic, really a whole lot of issues, or just that urban sprawl's reached the limits of where you'd want to start saying we just don't want to clear this next parcel of land.

HINCH: Yeah, I wonder though, I wonder though if this is a bit of a euphemism here.  You've got like - I mean Julia Gillard's a migrant, Tony Abbott's a migrant, Derryn Hinch is a migrant as I've said in my introduction.  I wonder when you talk about sustainable Australia, is this just sort of a code, because some people would say - I'd probably look at it myself and say this could be seen as an euphemism for just F-off, we're full.

BURKE: If that were the case then I wouldn't be arguing what I do argue about those areas that need growth.  There are significant projects.  The biggest example of this are in the mining industry, with significant projects where you'll find areas that really do want to grow they have the jobs available but don't, for example, have the housing supply for the workforce to live there.

The actual population number by itself is actually meaningless – and it would be stupid for any Minister to say one because basically no one knows what is that number. If we added no more infrastructure of services or facilities, then the sustainable population might be 25 million. But if we do build some infrastructure, facilities and add some services – especially in regional areas – then it might be 35 million (or more).

An analogy of how the media is acting on this issue is if the Government were to announce they were going to design and build a safe automobile and all the media and opposition wanted to know was what the top speed the car would be able to do.

The press conference would be like this:

PM: Today I am announcing that the Government will be developing a safe car that will be provided to all Australians.

JOURNALIST: So how fast will it be able to go?

PM: Well I can’t give you that number because there are a number of factors that will determine what is a safe top speed.

For example we will have to weigh up such safety measures as ABS brakes, airbags for driver and passengers, electronic stability control, the size and weight of the car, how many people will it seat, will it be a station wagon or a two seater.

Then there are cost issues such as whether or not it be cost effective to have an intelligent speed adaptation system, should it be 4WD or 2WD, whether or not it will have an anti-whiplash system.

Is it a car to be targeted for rural or city driving? We will also have to consider fuel efficiency and whether it will be automatic or manual drive. And then of course design and aerodynamics will also influence that number. All these things will be considered before we come up with the safest car that is also within the means of the Australian Government to build and which will be most suited for the needs of the Australian public.

JOURNALIST: Uh huh. So… how fast will it go?

And when the PM doesn’t give a figure the media are all over her saying she is designing a car but doesn’t want to say how fast it will go for fear of losing the rev-head vote, or conversely the Sunday-driver vote.

And if pressed and she says: “Well, for example, if we only had the most basic type of brakes, no air bags and we built it to seat 6 people then quite possibly it might only be able to have a safe top speed of 100km/h”.

BREAKING NEWS: GOVERNMENT’S CAR WILL ONLY BE ABLE TO GO 100 KM/H!

It’s the same with the sustainable population. If Gillard or Burke said, “Well if we don’t improve our infrastructure or services we’ll likely only be able to sustain a population of 25 million”. You can bet the headlines will scream “GILLARD SAYS 25 MILLION IS FULL HOUSE”, “IMMIGRATION TO BE SLASHED”, “EMPLOYER GROUPS CRITICISE PM’S 25 MILLION TARGET”, “EXPERTS SAY ONE CHILD POLICY WILL BE NEEDED TO ACHIEVE TARGET”

Conversely if she said that if we were to improve our infrastructure, regional services, and water systems then 40 million might be possible by 2050, well then you know the Daily Tel would be running the next minute with:

“PM SETS 40 MILLION TARGET!”, “GET READY – 20 MILLION PEOPLE ARE COMING YOUR WAY!”, “PM’s TARGET WILL MEAN HIGHER TAXES!”

She won’t set a target because the media doesn't give a damn about the whole argument – they give a damn about scaring the punters or criticising her for dog whistling. TheY criticise her for not stating a number and then as soon as she does they’ll kill her with it – just like they did Rudd and his “Big Australia line”.

The media have been pretty scathing of this election campaign thus far – citing its lack of real meaty policy. And I do agree with them. Many have also bemoaned the decline of a reformist economic policy stance – and I agree with them. Julia for example at that press conference was asked a good question:

JOURNALIST: On sustainability, one of the proposals which has been put forward that actually stands a chance of actually doing something in this area is a congestion tax.  I think even Ken Henry may have recommended that.  Do you rule out, or would you consider a congestion tax in your next term?

PRIME MINISTER:  The Treasurer, Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan, made it clear when the Henry Tax Review was first released publicly that we’ve got no plans, not on the radar to introduce congestion taxes and, indeed, even using those very words, these are taxes that would be introduced at a State level, if at all.

Of course she ruled it out. Had she not, Abbott would have been all over it as another “great big new tax”. And the media would have gone along for the ride.

She only has to look at how the population debate has been handled by the media thus far to know there won’t be any maturity during an election campaign on any practical measures that might be introduced to pay for a sustainable population. And if she has any second thoughts, she only need look at the coverage of the RSPT. Anyone really think that was balanced or mature? The media wants policy so they can beat politicians over the head with it, and then they’ll criticise the politicians for not being able to sell the message properly.

Be bold they say, so we can bring you down!

A while ago I did a Prisoner’s Dilemma of votes on the issue of asylum seekers, well I could also do one on the issue of media. On any economic/political issue a media outlet could play it intelligent and mature and balanced, or it could go the fear and sensationalist route and increase its readership.

The temptation to go that route will always be too great – even for what were once called “broadsheets”. Just think of the Libs bullshit and racist asylum seeker map – did anyone in the media (aside from blogs and Crikey) call them out on it? If there was I must have missed it.

In a democracy, it is said, that the voters get the Government they deserve. Personally I think we get the Government the media deserves.

Once the ALP wins this election the pressure will be on Burke and Gillard to come up with some real-meaty policies to back up their rhetoric – and yes they will need to. But were I advising the ALP at the moment, I’d tell them to keep doing what they’re doing. The times do not suit boldness. Not when there’s fear to create.

Get used to a boring campaign.

Today was Tony Abbott’s best day of the campaign thus far. Ok that’s not saying a lot, but you know – small steps. I note the caveat that I write this before he appears on Hey Hey It’s Saturday as a judge on Red Face. For that I only say for his sake I hope his office has been able to vet the acts.

Abbott appeared at Faith Lutheran College to announce his new education spending measures. He was mobbed by the primary school students which will look good on the TV news. Sure the SMH reported the reaction of a couple of the students:

"I touched him," one of the exultant students screamed.

"I don't even know who he is," screamed another.

But let us not worry about those small things.

The policy he unveiled was to increase the education tax rebate and to allow it to include such things as school fees. I’ll get to the merits of the policy soon, but first it was nice to see that the policy document contained a list comparing the things covered by the ALP’s rebate and by the new Liberal Party policy:

Labor’s Eligible Expenses

• Laptops
• Home computers and associated costs
• Home internet connection
• Printers
• Education software
• School text books
• School stationary
• Uniforms

A few very sharp journos quickly noticed that stationery was misspelt as “stationary”. Ah well these things happen. It’s not like it was a document stressing the importance of education or anything… umm err.

And I am fully aware that now having made fun of the Libs for having a spelling error in their document that I will now unavoidably make a mistake as well. I accept that and just to ensure there is won I will put it in this sentence.

And now to the policy. Here it is:

A COALITION government would deliver parents up to $800 a child in tax rebates to help cover the cost of school expenses, including fees and uniforms, a move that supporters of public education say is designed to undermine state schools.

Oh wait, no that was the announcement made by John Howard in the 2007 election. Sorry. Actually Abbott’s rebate is better than Howard’s. Abbott’s is means tested – meaning only families eligible for Family Tax Benefit A can claim the rebate. Howard’s policy – utterly dumb thing that it was – was not means tested at all.

The rate at which Family Tax Benefit cuts out is below:

No. of children	No. of children 18–24 years
0–17 years	Nil	1	2	3
Nil		$100,290	$110,060	$120,791
1	$98,769	$108,539	$119,270	$130,001
2	$107,018	$117,749	$128,480	$139,211
3	$116,229	$126,960	$137,691	$148,422

So you can see if you have 2 kids of school age the husband and wife must earn below a total of $107k a year to be able to access the benefit. Given average weekly earnings are around $1,290 (or around $67,000 per annum), you can see that if both parents work full time you’re probably going to over that amount. And that of course is a good thing – it is meant to be for lower income earners. The last thing we need is more bloody Howard middle-class welfare.

Here’s the list of things extra you would be able to claim (if eligible) under the Lib’s policy:

Government and non-government school fees

Special education costs for children with disabilities, like dyslexia

Camps and excursions

Extra-curricular school activities, such as music, sports, dance and drama lessons

Tutoring costs

Musical instruments

Sporting fees & equipment

School photos

Now I have to say I have no real problem with most of these. But there is one that I do, and it’s the big one – the one at the top. Why taxpayers should subsidise people’s choice to send their kid to a private school is beyond me (leaving aside for the moment that the Government already provides stacks of funding to Private schools). It’s a typical move though by Abbott – the only thing he hates more than public health is public education. In Abbott’s dream world everyone would be on publically subsidised private health insurance and pay subsidised private education fees, and the public health and education system would be left to the utterly poor.

God help us should Abbott ever come out with an education policy that would target the public system to, you know, make it better.

And the problem with subsidising private school fees is that schools will just raise the fees (obviously).

Back in 2007, here was the reaction to Howard's policy by the private school system:

LEADING private school principals have branded Prime Minister John Howard's education tax rebate plan short-sighted, and accused both the major parties of squandering education money to buy votes.
…
The criticism came as education dominated election campaigning yesterday, with Mr Howard seizing on remarks by an ALP candidate to claim a Rudd government would revive plans to cut funding from a "hit list" of wealthy private schools. As the major parties argued, Melbourne Grammar principal Paul Sheahan accused both Labor and the Coalition of wasting large amounts of taxpayers' money in pursuit of votes.

Mr Sheahan said that rather than offering tax cuts and rebates, the nation's political leaders should promise to spend billions improving classrooms and buildings in poorer non-government schools and across the public education system.

Hmm.. spend billions on classroom, and buildings… gee if only we could have had a Government that would do that.

Abbott’s announcement was also rather odd in terms of the politics. Here was shadow Education Minister Christopher Pyne:

The obvious flaw in Labor's policy is that it only applies to stationery, computer expenses and uniforms. With those of us with children, sometimes numerous children, I have four. I have three that play the violin, two that do the piano, two with special needs.

Anyone here really caring about Pyne’s struggles to pay school fees? Anyone worried about Pyne’s kids violin lessons? Now call me a snob, but how many parents of kids in the Family Tax Benefit A have kids playing the violin? Maybe there are heaps – and maybe more should be, but I have to say Pyne’s “I’m one of you” shtick struck me as a tad odd. It was a bit like Abbott after the 2007 election complaining about his mortgage repayments.

If you are targeting lower income people you don’t patronize them by saying, yeah I find it tough too – those violin lesson really stretch the budget…

But it was a good announcement, and it looked like being a good day … ok there was the small matter of the principal of the school raving about the stimulus money:

… as the cameras moved away, Anthony Mueller, the school principal of the college was generous in his praise of Julia Gillard's $16 billion BER.

Mr Mueller said they were going to end up with a "fantastic" new arts facility thanks to the scheme, even though they had to shift a sports area to build it because of funding conditions. "(We're) very happy with (the BER).... schools have been able to put facilities up that they would only have dreamed of," he said.

"Our schools have been fairly efficient in getting the jobs done, and all the projects completed."

Oh well, at least the costings of the policy were all fine…

Uh oh. Later in the day Simon Crean came out to announce that the Libs’ policy that they had said would cost an extra $760 million over the next 4 years, would actually cost an extra $1.4 billion.

Crean’s reasoning is pretty good actually – as the rebate has been widened, many more parents will take it up, and many more will claim more than they do under the current system. Under the current system you need to buy a text book or computer or stationery etc and you need to keep the receipts and them claim it. Many would not be bothered unless they bought something big like a computer – which most would not do each year (would you really keep the receipts for every pencil you bought?). But if you can just claim school fees or the cost of a school camp? Well that’s easy to claim, and given that private school fees will all be well above the $1000 per year that you are able to claim, you can quickly see that more people and more rebate is going to be claimed under the Libs’ policy.

Meaning – blowout in costs.

Channel Nine news led with that aspect of the story.

Bugger. And the day was going so well.

***

Over on the ALP side of things, Julia was also going hard on the education side. She was pledging:

$25 million to give around 50,000 school students hoping to do an apprenticeship the chance to do some work experience.

The main topic of the early morning though was whether or not the Libs in promising yesterday to remove the provision for the Government to reimburse the cost to unions of conducting elections through the AEC meant they were actually going to have to change the Fair Work Act – the very same Act Abbott had pledged to never, ever change (fool that he is). The issue is that in the Fair Work Act there is a provision that says these costs will be reimbursed. It turns out though you can change the Electoral Act and that will render the provision in the Fair Work Act redundant.

That is, this is a change to the Fair Work Act through the backdoor. You can bet the ALP will make more of this – and suggest more could be done this way during the next 4 weeks. Especially when the Liberal Party themselves are quoting a law expert, Dr Andrew Lynch saying:

“If the legislation is changed in the Electoral Act then that will override whatever provision deals with this issue in the Fair Work Act, and sure that’s not technically a change to the Fair Work Act, but it does bring about an alteration”.

You’re always looking dodgy when you have to use “technically”. And something which brings about an alteration is now no longer a change? Interesting…

Julia then went on to make a speech at the NSW Nurses Association Annual Conference. Her speech made a very good point about Abbott’s inability to hold to any pledge. She quoted his Budget Reply speech – rightly pointing out that it is essentially the most important speech an Opposition Leader makes in Parliament each year. In that speech (only 2 months ago) he said this about IR:

We all know that the former government’s workplace reforms went too far but they also helped to create more than two million new jobs, lift real wages by 20 per cent and more than double net household wealth between 1996 and 2007. The coalition will seek to take the unfair dismissal monkey off the back of small businesses, which are more like families than institutions. We will make Labor’s transitional employment agreements less transitional and Labor’s individual flexibility agreements more flexible because we have faith in Australian workers who are not as easily pushed around and exploited as the ACTU’s dishonest ad campaign is already making out.

That was his policy then – he wrote it down. It was was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark. And now he doesn’t believe any of it. None of it. Not a jot.

I’m not sure when Tony Abbott will next be on the 7:30 Report, but were I Kerry O’Brien, I’d be quoting that passage to him. And then I’d ask, “Mr Abbott, just what do you believe?”

Julia speech however was (according to news.ltd and Sky news) ambushed by Kevin Rudd 750 kilometres away in Brisbane giving a speech at a local primary school in his electorate.

This event, which he had let the media know prior to that he would not be taking question, was a huge distraction for Julia because he made a speech about the benefits of the stimulus and then didn’t answer any questions! It was such a distraction for Sky News that they crossed live from Julia’s speech to Rudd’s. And yep Rudd’s speech was dynamite for Julia. He praised the school’s stimulus spending. What a bastard!!! You can see what he’s doing can’t you? And then not answering any questions?! My God what a cad! He’s doing all he can to undermine her. All those unspoken threats and criticisms!!!

Seriously – on Sky news John Hewson, Cheryl Kernot and Kieren Gilbert were getting themselves in a huge lather just thinking about what could possibly be going on with this scene of a local MP giving a speech at a school. The subtext was amazing! Especially as his speech was on at the exact time as was Julia’s (let’s ignore the fact that Julia was about 10 minutes late – you just know Rudd anticipated that!)

Yep this was an “upstaging”. Why? Because the 13 people watching Sky news at that time would have seen Sky News switch from Julia’s speech to his. Everyone else on the planet? Well they were oblivious.

The media will soon tire of this story – especially as Rudd will obviously not say anything to pour fuel on the fire. And there’s only so long you can go on talking about his not saying anything meaning something, before it is obvious even to Sky News that it means nothing.

***

On the inflation and interest rate front, Glenn Stevens yesterday made a very interesting speech:

"There is virtually no net public debt in the country at all in contrast to much of the developed world. The most recent figures out of Canberra was a peak of five or six per cent of GDP. So far from that being the highest in history, it is closer to the lowest."

So much for the Libs’ economic credentials. However, coming off the back of the minutes of the previous RBA meeting, the market has got a bit jittery about the chance of a rate rise next month. The market has moved significantly in the last two days:

Trading Day	No Change	Increase to 4.75%
12-Jul	82%	18%
13-Jul	84%	16%
14-Jul	80%	20%
15-Jul	82%	18%
16-Jul	84%	16%
19-Jul	87%	13%
20-Jul	78%	22%
21-Jul	76%	24%

The shift yesterday was due to the Minutes – and the market always plays it safe on such things, and any suggestion of a rate rise from the Governor will have the speculators racing in to bet on that outcome. Today it settled down a bit, but were I Wayne Swan and Julia Gillard I would be keeping a close watch on them, and have their lines nicely prepared for next Wednesday.