2
   

Oz Election Thread #5 - Rudd's Labor (redux)

 
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jul, 2013 01:30 am
@dlowan,
He speaks well and with conviction, it's very obvious he's intelligent, and he has work ethic - and his body language is very appropriate for a leader (I think a lot of people don't notice this part)

All that doesn't necessarily mean he makes a good PM, but those are likeable qualities in a PM.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jul, 2013 08:55 pm
I'm really going to miss Rob Oakeshott

Source

Carbon, The “Political Slaughterhouse”
By Rob OakeshottJuly 17, 2013

Despite what the media tell you, Australia is not engaged in a tax debate on carbon emissions trading. We never were. Comprehensive tax reform is a separate, urgent debate, one that both major parties continue to sidestep. Instead, we have this crazy manufactured tax debate on carbon, where leading scientists and economists get neatly sidestepped, along with national challenges that really demand our urgent attention.

So where did carbon pricing drift off the reservation? Back in 2001, it was the Liberal/National Coalition government Treasurer Peter Costello trying – and failing – to get an emissions trading scheme (ETS) through Cabinet. Six years later, both then Prime Minister John Howard and the Labor leader Kevin Rudd took an emissions trading scheme to the 2007 election. In 2009, Prime Minister Rudd and the then-leader of the Liberal/National parties, Malcolm Turnbull, very nearly agreed on a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (ETS) model in 2009.

So all was nice and bipartisan – until the tight Parliament of 2010. At the time, neither the science nor the economics of an ETS were in question by political leadership. Yet an ETS stumbled at the final hurdle three times, thanks to tactical political plays.

I was one of the independent members of the House of Representatives whose support would help form the government after the 2010 election. Following the hung parliament outcome, there were a fair few negotiations. In my first phone-call with potential Prime Minister Tony Abbott after the result, I was told in so many words that if I supported an ETS (or the NBN) then I should “go with the other mob”.

(Interestingly, all other Liberal/National Party policies were up for a pragmatic conversation.)

So, the DNA of an Abbott-led government was made clear on day one of negotiations: no ETS would be delivered by a Liberal/National government.

Abbott knew I had campaigned at two local elections on the topic, repeatedly arguing that science and economics pointed to an ETS as the best model for Australia. It was a difficult start to negotiations with Tony Abbott.

So in throwing my support behind Labor to deliver an ETS, I was aware that the scheme would not be a bipartisan product. Indeed it was a brutal exercise, ramming an emissions trading scheme framework through the House of Representatives and Senate, and cleaning up the edges once the framework was in; our best scientists and economists were left to win the debate in the public square.

It was my view that logic would ultimately beat politics, once the framework was in.

Not so fast. We got the ETS through, but in doing so, the whole political conversation got stuck on two unexpected words – “carbon tax”.
And this is where, with hindsight, we failed. In particular, I worry that we failed what I consider the environmental challenge of our time for Australia – biodiversity loss. Today we see cuts to the funding for biodiversity programs to pay for the Labor government’s proposed changes to this thing called a “carbon tax”.

Biodiversity loss is Australia’s greatest environmental challenge by a country mile. But any initiatives to address biodiversity challenges see politicians running that same country mile – because they will not look past the crazy carbon showdown.

A National Biobanking Scheme would greatly encourage private sector investment in biodiversity, but yet again, eyes glaze over in the current carbon climate.

Biomass should be unlocked, in an agnostic way, to allow it to contribute more than 10 per cent of our energy security mix into the future – just as it has been in other countries. But, no, we’re stuck in a carbon fight.

The forestry industry should be engaged on the diverse economic role a tree can play in staying in the ground as well as being extracted – but instead carbon tax wars confuse the issue.

Community engagement on the science of koalas, for instance, is easier than greenhouse gases.

Australia should step forward, and on a large scale. The country should develop, protect and enhance a National Biodiversity Corridor network, where linked corridors of national significance are really seriously, and somewhat urgently, progressed. Again, the carbon fight instead has everyone treading lightly on any big environmental play.

The frustration is, we’re stuck in a political contest over something that should be but one in a suite of measures we should be taking in the multi-trillion dollar ecosystem service and landscape management space.

An ETS is not the centre of the universe. It was always a secondary, not primary tool to enhance and achieve better protections for biodiversity in Australia, and to deal with the challenges and opportunities emerging together in the nexus between landscape, energy and food.

We are stuck in a fight over this secondary tool, and it is putting a full stop on any progress on other measures.

Ecosystem services is a real industry in the trillions of dollars. Globally, we will have to feed twice as many people, on half the arable land, with half the environmental damage, and half the water use. This is an economic opportunity for Australia, as well as a global question for this century.

Yet do we have a Minister for Ecosystem Services, or Landscape Management? No, we don’t. Indeed, public policy in Australia has a very poor understanding of this meeting point between the environment and economy – and I do think this is why carbon pricing is proving so politically toxic.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but if I were dropped back into 2010 and had this opportunity again, I would make biodiversity loss the top of the pyramid of what we were trying to address, instead of prioritising the science of what Abbott now famously writes off as an “invisible” gas.

Community engagement on the science of koalas, for instance, is easier than greenhouse gases.

If we had put biodiversity first, securing the broader suite of tools required to address these challenges would have been easier, and the much-needed bipartisanship more certain.

And, ironically, we probably would have been able to negotiate an ETS on the way – probably as a sensible agreed measure, rather than this political slaughterhouse. In the end, it’s not science that is in dispute. And it’s not the economics that is in dispute. It’s all just politics.

THE “invisible termination” of an “invisible tax” is written and authorised by Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott, vying for the country’s leadership ahead of an uncertain election date in a new political landscape. It’s all about campaigning; not governing.

Because remember, Australia’s so-called carbon price was never a tax. The Clean Energy legislation, which passed the House of Representatives and the Senate in late 2011, included 18 Bills. Apart from reductions in fuel tax subsidies for non-heavy transport and cars, there was only one other tax measure, and it was a good one – the tripling of the tax-free threshold from $6,000 to $18,200. The tax break from 1 July 2012 was the largest increase in the tax free threshold ever – and arguably the single biggest leap towards a smarter and fairer tax system that we have seen in decades.

Otherwise there is no mention of a tax anywhere in any of the other 17 Bills that are now law.

The absurdity of the current debate is that Tony Abbott is today talking about a “floating tax” in an effort to label the entire market – not just the three-year fixed-price period – a tax. The logical extension of that argument is that we don’t have a share market, but a share market tax.

This relentless rhetoric overwhelms reality. Politics needs a fix, which is why now Kevin Rudd is banking on removing the “non-floating tax”, the fixed-price period, as his solution.

In the land of Reality, do we really have taxes called floating or non-floating taxes? Of course we don’t. The bullshit knows no bounds, and Australians are being played for fools.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 01:12 am
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/12545_609099149120563_783604400_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 01:26 am
It seems Rudd has outmanouvered the Libs big time (big time because the Libs make such a big fuss about boat people)

I'm curious though if this would require a change of law (like the attempted Malaysian solution did) or whether it can be done just through policy & agreements - the article doesn't mention it.

Article at NineMSN
Quote:
No boat people will be resettled in Australia: Rudd

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has announced he will take a hardline on asylum seekers, vowing no one who comes to Australia by boat will be resettled here.

"From now on, any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as a refugee," Mr Rudd, who was flanked by his PNG counterpart Peter O'Neill, told reporters in Brisbane this afternoon.

Asylum seekers arriving at Christmas Island will be sent to Australia's Manus Island processing centre and elsewhere in Papua New Guinea for assessment of their refugee status.

"If they are found to be genuine refugees, they will be resettled in Papua New Guinea," Mr Rudd said
Bootlace
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Jul, 2013 07:59 pm
Multiculturalism is not the great success it's made out to be.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/A3YQANdvvbY

0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Jul, 2013 10:02 pm
http://images.canberratimes.com.au/2013/07/17/4578088/JD-gal-pope-20130717191201356238.jpg
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Jul, 2013 10:26 pm
@vikorr,
Quote:
"If they are found to be genuine refugees, they will be resettled in Papua New Guinea," Mr Rudd said


When did Papua New Guinea become part of Aussieland?

Were Rudd's ancestors boat people or criminals?
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Jul, 2013 10:59 pm
@JTT,
Funnily enough - it used to be a territory of Australia (formally British controlled). They gained independence in 1975

And because all those born in PNG prior to independence were Australian citizens, the Australian Govt legislated to basically remove that citizenship - I don't recall the exact facts regarding how they did that.

There are a decent number of people from PNG living in North Queensland, and some in other parts of Australia.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jul, 2013 12:54 am
@JTT,
Quote:
When did Papua New Guinea become part of Aussieland?


Technically I believe it was around 1945 they were made an Australian protectorate, it ended in 1975 with independence.

All the criminals were boat people. Convicts shipments stopped in the mid 19th century, before passenger flights started Wink
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jul, 2013 04:42 am

Anyone who’s ever set foot on a boat to be executed under new Labor policy
JULY 20, 2013 1:00 PM

Under fresh leadership, the Rudd Government has announced new policy today whereby any person who has been on a boat at any point will be hunted down and murdered. In an attempt to win back votes from the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister revealed the most anti-boats agenda he could come up with. “I think we can all agree that people who come here on boats are across the board awful,” Rudd proclaimed to the press gallery, “but what about people who have been on a boat at some time or another? These are also lesser people who have no business here in this country.”

While the newly appointed PM agreed the program sounded drastic, he insisted it was in the interests of the Australian public. “Australians don’t like boats,” Rudd explained, “boats make Australians uncomfortable, and as leader it’s my responsibility to service this vague distrust with extreme, overbearing and unethical policy decisions. I know a lot of you are probably thinking “Kevin. Mate. It’s too much to systematically execute everybody who’s ever been on a boat. My friends have been on boats. It’s not right.” To those people, all I can say is sorry, but thousands of people’s lives is just the price you have to pay for a vague, unsubstantiated sense of security, and that’s the priority right now.”

http://www.thestringerdaily.com/anyone-whos-ever-set-foot-on-a-boat-to-be-executed-under-new-labor-policy/
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 12:10 am
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/uploads/image/fionakatauskas/36764.jpg
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 12:11 am
A Unique Look at the Boat People ‘Problem’ in Australia

Nothing but numbers:
http://theantibogan.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/a-unique-look-at-the-boat-people-problem-in-australia/
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 12:18 am
http://cdn0.mumbrella.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Screen-Shot-2013-07-22-at-3.11.27-PM-468x592.png
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 12:38 am
@hingehead,
I guess it's our gun lobby?
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 04:49 pm
@dlowan,
Not sure what you mean Ms Wabbit.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 04:50 pm
@dlowan,
On second thoughts maybe I do - refugee policy in Oz is like gun ownership in the US?
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jul, 2013 10:35 pm
@hingehead,
The need to pander to gun ownership fanatics.

I doubt the numbers who support cruel boat asylum seeker policies would do so if not constantly propagandised by the fanatics into thinking its a scary crisis.

But given that they are and do, governments feel forced to pander to them.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 12:48 am
@dlowan,
I got sampled by getup today on how I felt about the new refugee policy.

Do you think the policy will work?

Well, depending on what it's meant to do, probably.

Loved the tweet that suggested that Abbott would have to invade PNG to top Rudd.

Race to the bottom indeed.

Meanwhile Rudd alp slipped a couple of points in newspoll and still no mention of an election date.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 10:45 pm
Voting for Kevin Rudd makes me sick, but here's why I'll do it anyway
The choice for ethical Australians presents not as between good and bad, but between bad and worse. There are two ways forward through this moral molasses

Whole piece at the Guardian
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Jul, 2013 05:33 am
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Beached As Bro - Discussion by dadpad
Oz election thread #3 - Rudd's Labour - Discussion by msolga
Australian music - Discussion by Wilso
Oz Election Thread #6 - Abbott's LNP - Discussion by hingehead
AUstralian Philosophers - Discussion by dadpad
Australia voting system - Discussion by fbaezer
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/11/2021 at 02:51:44