Author: admin

  • Fear and loathing of Rudd was his own doing

     

    No one moved against Rudd merely because he treated colleagues with total disdain. But it ensured that when the challenge came, success could be achieved at record pace. The margin, had a ballot occurred, would have been embarrassingly large. Faction leaders didn’t make caucus members hate Rudd; no, that was all Kevin’s own work.

    Hate, by the way, was the right description. From lowly backbenchers to cabinet ministers, I have never come across such loathing towards a leader before, let alone a leader who achieved the biggest swing to Labor since World War II at the 2007 election.

    Faction leaders can never expect to be loved. They will never be thanked by those who benefit from their actions. The media love to bucket them. Faction leaders are poll driven, disloyal, brutal and not nearly as intelligent as those who comment on them. The vanquished spit their venom in their direction and the victor makes sure he, or in this case she, must distance themselves from these terrible people.

    Senator David Feeney, arguably the leader of the charge, told me three or four weeks ago that if the challenge actually happened, I would be staggered at how little support Rudd really had.

    Obviously Feeney knew more about the caucus than his then leader.

    Bob Hawke was smart enough to know that faction leaders could be useful. Factions perform one great, important function. They bring discipline to parliamentary life. When Gough Whitlam’s first treasurer took his first budget to caucus after the 1972 election, a couple of hours before it was due to be delivered, his caucus colleagues made several changes to Australia’s most important document.

    That kind of disaster simply can’t happen any more. Those dreadful disloyal faceless mindless faction leaders have made certain that the leader and the cabinet almost always get their way. On the occasion when Labor leaders are defeated in their own caucus the state of the polls is taken into account and it should be.

    If you have been in the Labor Party since your teens, if you have lived and breathed Labor all your life, if you care at all about those in this country without a quid, you don’t sit idly by and watch a Tony Abbott come to power.

    For all the trauma it causes, for all the opprobrium it will bring you, you do what you have to do to make sure your party is in with a chance of victory. But not everything in modern politics is poll driven. Yes, the polls do help politicians know what Australians want. But that knowledge should also come from getting out of Canberra and meeting as many people as they can and actually listening to them.

    And it has been virtually impossible to engage in any conversations in Australia over the past few weeks without being assailed with real invective against Rudd and his tax. That tax did him enormous harm. It proved the point that he was a law unto himself and that he would listen to no one.

    What possessed him to think that he could get away with making such a big move against such a powerful dynamo in our economy without any consultation? Despite Rudd’s claims to the contrary, no one was asked to comment on the details of this tax, even when it began to turn sour. The consultation was only about the minutiae, not the threshold and not the rate.

    Australians would want a greater share of the extraordinary profits achieved by the miners if it was explained properly to them. But they expect fairness and if there is no fair go, they won’t buy it.

    One newspaper editorialised at the weekend: “Gillard is likable, and formidable. But what is disappointing that her first utterances – on the mining tax, and yesterday on population policy – seem to be completely poll driven.”

    Inherent in this sort of arrogant analysis is the idea that if a big majority of Australians agree on something, they are probably wrong.

    While the new Prime Minister might differ with that journal or her predecessor, it doesn’t mean she is wrong and it doesn’t mean she is adopting that position because of the polls. Bob Carr has been articulating the argument against a big Australia for a decade when there really hadn’t been a poll on the issue. Maybe people such as Carr and the PM can be given the right to form an opinion of their own.

    7 comments on this story

  • Hot is cold, black is white and Australia has no fossil fuel subsidies

    Hot is cold, black is white and Australia has no fossil fuel subsidies!

    Hobart, Tuesday 29 June 2010

    It has been revealed that the Australian Government claimed at the G20
    meeting last weekend that Australia has no fossil fuel subsidies that
    would fall within the scope of the G20 agreement to phase out such
    subsidies.

    Former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, committed at the G20 leaders’ meeting
    in Pittsburgh last September to prepare implementation plans and
    timelines for phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. The Australian
    government has since worked to redefine fossil fuel subsidies so as to
    avoid any commitment to action at home.

    “Instead of denying that Australia has any inefficient fossil fuel
    subsidies, we should be investing those billions of dollars of wasted
    taxpayers’ money in climate solutions that will improve our lives,” said
    Australian Greens Deputy Leader, Senator Christine Milne.

    Although Australia has limited subsidies for exploration and production
    of fossil fuels, there remain billions of dollars of subsidies each year
    for the consumption of fossil fuels, including the fuel tax credit,
    fringe benefits tax concession for motor vehicle use and much more.

    “Within its first few days, the Gillard government signed a deal to
    export brown coal to Vietnam and then helped to undermine what had been
    a promising international agreement to phase out subsidies that
    encourage the production and use of polluting fossil fuels.

    “Who does the Australian government think it is kidding by engaging in a
    game of definitions? Take away the fuel tax credit for the miners and
    see if they think they have lost a subsidy.

    “This is not an auspicious start.

    “Australia is not among the world’s worst offenders with fossil fuel
    subsidies, but we cannot seriously claim that, just because our
    subsidies encourage use rather than production, we have no work to do.

    “If instead of paying billions of dollars each year to encourage miners,
    loggers and people with company cars to use more fuel, we invested in
    alternative fuels, electric cars, public transport and cycleways, we
    could make a big dent in our greenhouse pollution at no net cost.

    “Prime Minister Gillard should make a break with the past on climate
    action and come and talk to the Greens.

    “We have plenty of ideas that we are keen to share with her government,
    from a carbon tax to an energy efficiency target scheme. Now is the time
    to start working together to get real climate action.”

    The document that shows Australia’s claim to the G20 can be seen here:
    http://www.eenews.net/assets/2010/06/28/document_cw_03.pdf

    Tim Hollo
    Media Adviser
    Senator Christine Milne | Australian Greens Deputy Leader and Climate
    Change Spokesperson
    Suite SG-112 Parliament House, Canberra ACT | P: 02 6277 3588 | M: 0437
    587 562
    http://www.christinemilne.org.au/| www.GreensMPs.org.au
    <http://www.greensmps.org.au/>

  • Skilled migration program tightened

     

    Mr Metcalfe said Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who has shifted away from her predecessor’s embrace of a ‘big Australia’ toward ‘balanced’ sustainable population growth, had underlined the importance of skilled migration.

    Ms Gillard said on the weekend she does not want to see businesses held back because they can’t access the skilled workers they need.

    But she also doesn’t want to see areas of Australia suffering high youth unemployment because there are no jobs for local workers.

    Treasury earlier this year forecast Australia’s population to reach 35.9 million by 2050, from a current 22 million, saying immigration would be a big contributor.

    Meanwhile, opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison told the summit population growth was ‘getting out of hand’.

    ‘Population growth cannot be a lazy substitute for participation and productivity in our economy,’ he said.

    ‘It needs to be brought under control and there needs to be policies to keep the population under control.

    ‘The prime minister must now answer her own question.

    ‘How many Australians will there be under Labor’s policies, what will be the immigration intake under her policies and where will she make the cuts?’

    However, NSW Premier Kristina Keneally said there was room for growth in the nation’s most populous state, particularly in regional centres.

    But Sydney’s population was set to continue to grow no matter what.

    ‘Even if we stopped all movement into Sydney, there will still be population increases of some 70 per cent,’ Ms Keneally told reporters in Sydney.

    ‘For Sydney, we do join with the prime minister with that desire to have sustainable cities.’

    In its 2010/11 budget, the government said the size of the migration program would be maintained in the new financial year at 168,700 places.

    But the mix would change with increases to skilled migration and reductions to family migration.

    Earlier on Monday, sociologist Katharine Betts told the population summit the level of migration had little impact on the average age of the population.

    ‘Even large migrant intakes don’t make much of a difference to the average age of the population at all,’ said Dr Betts, who is associate professor of sociology at Melbourne’s Swinburne University of Technology.

    However, she also noted a recent Australian survey of social attitudes had found 72 per cent of Australians thought the country did not need more migrants.

  • Eiris review names Britain as ‘dirty man of Europe’

     

    Of those companies in the top 300 dedicated to solving or mitigating the problems of climate change, only 3% were located in Britain. Eiris’s findings come at a time when BP, one of the UK’s best-known companies, has attracted bad publicity worldwide over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

    A spokesman for Eiris said that its review was “worrying from a consumer point of view but also from an investment perspective”. He added: “It is particularly alarming for pension funds and other long-term investors as climate change rises up the political agenda.”

    The greater exposure of UK plc to risk from climate change largely stems from the number of big oil and mining companies that dominate the FTSE 100 index in London.

    Greenpeace said that the Eiris research was a “shameful” indictment of the UK, which had failed to build up a low-carbon business sector despite much political rhetoric.

    Ben Stewart, a spokesman for the environmental campaign group, said: “It seems Britain is still the dirty man of Europe. These figures will shame the succession of ministers who promised Britain would be at the forefront of developing clean tech.

    “As things stand, our economy is poorly placed to benefit from this century’s inevitable shift to low-carbon industry, while Germany looks well-positioned to gain from first-mover advantage.”

    Eiris estimates that 41% of the top 300 companies in Britain and Europe have a significant impact on global warming, either directly from their operations or through the products they manufacture.

    However, there was some good news to come out of the survey. More than 60% of companies with a high or very high impact on the environment have put in place measures under which executive remuneration is in some way linked to the company’s carbon emission reductions.

    More than half of all companies in the most polluting brackets have some kind of long-term carbon reduction targets in place, although Eiris notes that concrete action is harder to find.

    French and German companies in the top 300 are at the forefront among those providing solutions to climate change. The consultancy does, however, point out that many British businesses may be excluded from the ranking because they are smaller.

    In fact, the UK government has led initiatives to limit climate change, publishing the low carbon transition plan and introducing a carbon reduction commitment energy efficiency scheme, as well as a feed-in tariff scheme, promoting clean energy production in the home.

    In the 1980s, the UK was described by Scandinavian countries as “the dirty man of Europe” because of high emissions of sulphur dioxide from industrial power plants, which exported acid rain across the Baltic

  • BP oil spill reaches another US state

     

    Local residents are outraged authorities have not been able to stem the flow of the disaster, sparked almost 10 weeks ago when an explosion ripped through the Deepwater Horizon rig, killing 11 workers.

    “This might be the last time we are able to come to the beach,” Ocean Springs residents James Vogeney said.

    “What makes us so mad about all of this is that it could have been avoided. All of it.”

    Another resident, Mike Hollings, says he cried when he saw the oil start to wash ashore at the beach.

    “Life as I know it is over. What are we going to do if nobody cares to act fast enough,” he said.

    Wildlife officials have picked up one pelican covered in oil and one dead turtle.

    However, local residents have expressed their anger that the authorities have not yet begun an extensive clean-up of the oil.

    Mississippi state officials says they are waiting for BP contractors to start cleaning up before beginning coordinated work.

    Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality spokesman Earl Etheridge says they expect more oil to arrive before clean-up crews start their work.

    “We cannot clean up or catch the oil until BP gets here. They have all of our people,” he said.

    “We want to clean this up now. Maybe this will amp up BP’s effort, but we can’t do anything because they have all the money.”

    Later, a reporter visited seven oil-affected beaches and saw only one clean-up crew at work.

    Efforts to contain and clean up oil from the massive spill that began on April 20 are being handled jointly by federal, state and local officials and funded by BP, leading to frustration among people whose coastlines are most at risk.

    The costs for BP are rising sharply on a daily basis. On Friday local time the bill stood at $US2.35 billion.

    That works out at about $US4 million an hour on the basis that the figures were given three days apart.

    But these figures are a drop in the ocean compared to the billions of dollars wiped off its market value.

    Despite desperate efforts, BP is still not capping all of the 35,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil estimated to be spilling into the sea every day, saying it is managing to contain about 25,000 barrels daily.

    Reuters

    Tags: disasters-and-accidents, accidents, maritime-accidents, environment, environmental-management, oceans-and-reefs, environmental-impact, water-management, united-states

    First posted 7 hours 40 minutes ago

  • Keneally stands by accused MP

     

    At the time Ms Hay, one of NSW Labor’s biggest fund-raisers, blamed the mistake on an official from head office.

    Yesterday she maintained she had done nothing wrong, saying the matter had been dealt with in 2008 and that any anomalies in returns were nothing more than a ”clerical error”.

    The ALP said it was stunned that the matter had resurfaced and believed there would be no formal investigation.

    ”The election funding authority received and accepted an amended return in 2008. There has been no correspondence between the Australian Labor Party and ICAC over this matter,” an ALP spokesman said.

    An ICAC spokeswoman would not confirm yesterday whether it was investigating allegations against Ms Hay. Less than 5 per cent of all matters referred to the ICAC are brought to the stage of public investigation.

    Having received the backing of Ms Keneally, Ms Paluzzano was exposed by the ICAC last month for having allegedly rorted parliamentary expenses to assist her re-election campaign.

    Her resignation led to the recent Penrith byelection hammering for Labor, which not only exposed the extent of voter antipathy towards the state government but is also believed to have been one of the triggers for the ousting of former prime minister Kevin Rudd in favour of Julia Gillard.

    Before the 2007 election Ms Hay raised $230,000 for the ALP from 170 donors.

    Unfortunately for a string of premiers, she has also never been far from scandal.

    Ms Hay has consistently denied she took part in the infamous sex dance with parliamentary colleague Matt Brown on his desk during an office party. Despite denials from Mr Brown and Ms Hay that the incident ever took place, former premier Nathan Rees dumped her as parliamentary secretary for health last year.