Why Labor will lose the election

Watching the Labor party tear themselves to bits over the last 3 years has not been a pretty sight.  Alarm bells sounded for me when I listened to Kevn Rudd's election night speech in 2007 - I thought he talked too much, didn't thank enough people and was too focused on himself.

In government he did OK for a while.  The apology to stolen generations of indigenous Australians was a high point.

However the Australia 2020 Summit became just another talkfest with all the usual suspects invited.

The Rudd government's action on climate change was at first encouraging, but the climate change white paper and green paper signalled a direction towards emissions trading.

But the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, pushed hard by Penny Wong, was fatally flawed.  It included several policies that the Garnaut Report had specifically advised against, including gifting free emissions permits to polluting industries.

All this time, Kevin Rudd refused to talk to the Greens.  Instead, he stitched up a deal with Malcolm Turnbull (then leader of the opposition) to pass the CPRS.  However, when Turnbull was rolled by Abbott, this bipartisan support evaporated and it was game on.

Rudd lost his nerve though and shelved his CPRS, an action he himself had previously castigated Brendan Nelson for.  Rudd's public support dropped.  When he wobbled on the Mining Tax after a barrage from the mining industry, his support dropped further.

This wasn't why he was deposed by Labor as Prime Minister though.  He was voted out of the job by the Labor Caucus because it had become apparent he was very difficult to work with and not capable of delegating to or even trusting his ministers.  He was operating as a cell within the Labor Party, surrounded and informed by a close advisers, but disconnected from the rest of the Party and presumably a lot of the Executive arm of government too.  Rudd is now running the election campaign in a similar manner.

Julia Gillard replaced him as Prime Minister and immediately did what Rudd could not - she formed a minority government by negotiating with the 4 independents (Katter, Oakeshott, Windsor and Wilkie) and Adam Bandt from the Greens.

The Gillard government was one of the most successful in Australia's history in terms of passing legislation through Parliament and much of it was good.  Putting a price on pollution provided incentives for Australian industry to reduce carbon emissions (which happened!) and also provided funds to invest in clean renewable energy.

But Gillard sound dull and wooden to the electorate.  She made a few big mistakes too, like "ruling out a carbon tax" during the 2010 federal election, drastically reducing payments to single parents and significantly cutting funding to Universities - a measure that Gonski had not recommended and in fact opposed.

Tony Abbott relentlessly criticised and attacked Gillard and had considerable success tarnishing her government's reputation and her personal integrity.  Tony Abbott turned the Australian Parliament into the Punch and Judy show.

Gillard was also undermined by Rudd and his supporters for her entire term of office.  She may have lost the next election without this undermining, but it certainly did not help matters.   Much of this played out in public, with open shows of disloyalty by ministers like Joel Fitzgibbon and Kim Carr, who were then demoted and went to the back bench.

The Australia Democrats had a similar period of brawling in public and they were decimated in the next election.

In the end, Labor's poor polling and continued destabilisation by Rudd resulted in the Labor caucus vote him back in as Prime Minister, and Julia Gillard out.

But Rudd is not the messiah, he is just a naughty boy.

Rudd's acolytes came in from the cold and were rewarded with ministries (e.g. Kim Carr, Chris Bowen and Joel Fitzgibbon).  But many of quality people have stood down from leadership roles including Greg Combet and Craig Emerson.

Rudd has won the booby prize - an election that cannot be won - with his previous destabilisation and leaks a major contributing factor to their now inevitable loss.

Labor is now deeply divided and has lost of lot of good people.  It will be hard to see them bounce back after what is likely to be a large defeat.

Tony Abbot will repeal the carbon tax and slash funding for clean energy.  He will sack thousands of public servants so government services will suffer.  It is likely he will further reduce funding for government schools.  He will not "stop the boats", but he will continue to trash Australia's international reputation on human rights.

I think political parties have had their day.  No political party truly represents its own members, and their elected members don't even pretend to represent everyone in their electorate.  Democratic representation is a farce.  No independent candidate can match the resources or funding of party political candidates.

Things apparently have to get worse before they will get better.

Post script:
While the environment has not featured much in the election campaign so far, 61 per cent of Australians believe the Government should do more to tackle global warming.  Coalition Australians want more action on climate change, split along party lines 82% Greens, 71% Labor, 24% Coaltion.

Vote Compass: Australians want more action on climate change - ABC News

Kevin Rudd, please don't weaken Australia's policies for tackling climate change

Open letter to Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia
CC:  Mark Butler, Anthony Albanese, Penny Wong, Chris Bowen

Dear Prime Minister,

I support your government’s efforts to introduce a price on pollution and am working in my community for stronger action on climate change and a renewables-powered future.

I am concerned that your government might be about to weaken the carbon price package. The price on pollution is working, is lowering emissions, and along with other programs like the Renewable Energy Target is driving transformation of our power supply. If it ain’t broke why fix it?

If you do decide to change the scheme, please keep the following things in mind:

1. We need to increase ambition on climate change and adopt a higher pollution reduction target than our current 5% target;
2. Moving to a floating price early will have budgetary implications. I’d support cutting polluter handouts like the unnecessary billions going to brown coal generators or polluting diesel subsidies for miners. But cutting important programs like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation or the Biodiversity Fund would be inexcusable.
3. We’re still missing really important planks of climate change policy. We need a legislated National Energy Efficiency scheme, we need longer term and higher renewable energy targets; we need to reduce and ultimately phase out coal and gas exports; we need to remove fossil fuel subsidies and we need a plan for climate change adaptation. We’ve only just begun the critical journey of decarbonising our economy.
4. We need to protect Australia's remaining native forests for their natural values and to preserve the carbon they store.

I understand what’s at stake this Federal election and that there’s an important choice before Australians. That’s why I urge you to be the leader we need on climate change.

You are tasked as Members of Parliament with representing your local constituents and the Australian People.  I urge to to avoid doing deals with big business that will weaken Australia's policies on climate change and the reduction of carbon emissions.  The Carbon Price has proven to be effective.  Please do not weaken it.

External links

• Send a message to Kevin Rudd to keep moving forward on climate action, Environment Victoria

Rudd on the rampage and its all about him

Honesty in politics is a rare thing.  We don't get to hear about what happens in Cabinet, the Labor Caucus or the Liberal-National Party Room, or the Greens Party Room for that matter.

So it is refreshing that we are now hearing some honest and candidate stories from several Labor MPs and Ministers about what life was really like under Kevin Rudd when he was Prime Minister.

These include:

• Nicola Roxon, Attorney-General "said working with Mr Rudd as Prime Minister could be “a complete joke” [link]
• Craig Emerson, Minister for Trade  "There has been attack on the Prime Minister going back to the last election. There was destabilisation and leaking then; it's been going on since." "Well these things matter, don't they? I mean, whether you run an organised or a dysfunctional government." [link] [link]
• Wayne Swan, Treasurer.  "However for too long, Kevin Rudd has been putting his own self-interest ahead of the interests of the broader Labor movement and the country as a whole, and that needs to stop" "  "He sought to tear down the 2010 campaign, deliberately risking an Abbott Prime Ministership, and now he undermines the Government at every turn."  [link] [link]
• Julia Gillard, Prime Minister. "She said that while Mr Rudd had been an excellent campaigner in 2007, the government had descended into paralysis because of his “chaotic” and dysfunctional” work patterns." [link]
• Stephen Conroy, Communications Minister On poker machine reform: "Well let's be very clear about this. What's been revealed last night on television and over the weekend with Andrew Wilkie is a complete and utter fraud by Kevin Rudd." " He has been pretending that he supported the pre-commitment technology, pretending he supported reform in this area, but his key numbers man just happened to have two meetings and tell Clubs Australia that he would kill it."  [link]
• Stephen Smith, Defence Minister  "I'm articulating it to you from my perspective, and my perspective is that by the time we came to the end of Kevin's term as prime minister, the cabinet, the caucus, the overwhelming majority of the cabinet and caucus had lost confidence in the ability to work through difficult policy or political issues with him."  [link] [link]

On the other side, supporters of Kevin Rudd include:

• Kim Carr, Manufacturing Minister, who was demoted in a Cabinet reshuffle in December, says Mr Rudd is the victim of a "campaign of vilification" by senior members of the Government.  "It's my opinion that the man has a great breadth of vision and a commitment to the future of this country that stands us in good stead."  [link]
• Chris Bowen, Immigration Minister "There's no doubt there's a lot of support in the community for Mr Rudd" [link]
• Martin Ferguson, Resources Minister "Kevin Rudd is best placed to take on Tony Abbott and potentially best position us to win the next election,"   [link] [link] 
• Alan Griffin MP, "I think that should there be a change of leadership what we need to do is get over it and start working together. And that's what the people want, that's what the party wants and that's what we should be doing."  [link]
• Daryl Cheeseman, MP.  "Kevin Rudd is the most popular politician in Australia as opinion polls show. "Kevin is the right person to lead Australia. "I like Julia Gillard, I have a lot of respect for her, but that's the reality. It's important I reflect the views of my community." [link]
• Doug Cameron, Senator "We have to make sure that we stop running these character attacks on Kevin Rudd,'' ''Because it's unfair, it's unprincipled and its not deserved.'' [link]
• Maxine McKew, former MP for Bennelong, "Kevin Rudd is best placed to beat Tony Abbott," "He delivered a 23-seat majority and I think that should be noted," she said. "His appeal is broad and the breadth of his victory in 2007 shouldn't be overlooked." [link]
• Anthony Albanese "called Gillard and informed her I would be voting for Rudd and resigned as leader of the house" [link]

Kevin Rudd (and Doug Cameron) have claimed that the "faceless men" are after Rudd again, but both are  unwilling to say who they are.  So we have "faceless and nameless men" apparently running the country!

As an aside, it is interesting to note that Kim Carr and Alan Griffin were two of the "faceless men", along with Tim Gartrell, that did the preference deal with Family First that resulted in Steven Fielding being elected to the Senate in 2004 at the expense of the Greens. [link]

Some other interesting commentary has emerged, including:

• We need to talk about Kevin, "Kevin Rudd was ultimately responsible for his own downfall, writes his former speechwriter"
• Resurrection of Saint Kevin "No one does victimhood like Kevin Rudd. Forget the fact he's the bloke who calls the Prime Minister "the bitch" - or worse - behind her back, to senior figures in industry, to newspaper editors and to members of the Press Gallery" 
• Labor’s rotten core needs the leadership implosion " This is a party imploding. The word is used carefully: Labor’s internal weaknesses, its ideological drift, its lack of core values, the devolution of the factions in mechanisms for distributing patronage, its reluctance to publicly argue over important issues — the hollowing out of a once vibrant, reformist institution, is causing Labor to cave in on itself."
• Independent MP Tony Windsor "Should Mr Rudd become prime minister again, it would most likely lead to an early election.  And if Mr Rudd did try to command a majority on the floor of Parliament, he could not rely on Mr Windsor's support. "If the Labor Party suddenly want to change arrangements in the middle of the stream all bets are off," [link]

In conclusion

Julia Gillard as Prime Minister was able to from government after the 2010 federal election with support from three independent MPs and the Greens.  Her government has legislation for several import reforms such as the Clean Energy Bill (with a carbon price), the Mining Tax (albiet compromised) to name a few. 

However, she has been unable to garner much support from the Australian public with her wooden style of speaking and continued utterance of media lines.  She has also avoided direct questions about her exact role in the demotion of Kevin Rudd as PM.  Opinion polls indicate that Gillard is on track to lose the next federal election to Tony Abbott.

It has now become clear that Kevin Rudd has been actively destabilising the Gillard government over several months, so she has not been able to get "clean air" to get her message across and demonstrate leadership.

Gillard and her supporters have portrayed Kevin Rudd as a Prime Minister who was almost impossible to work with.  He lost his mojo and backflipped on important initiatives such as the Mining Tax (Resources Super Profits Tax) and his much vaunted but highly compromised Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Kevin Rudd and his supporters say that only he has the personal popularity with and support from the Australian public to beat Tony Abbott at the next election.  Polls indicate he has more support from the public than Julia Gillard (and Tony Abbott).  Rudd has also given assurances that he has "learned from his past mistakes" and is a "change person" with respect to his leadership style.

However, Rudd has also just flagged a review of the Clean Energy Bill, even though it has just been through and exhaustive process with the Multi Party Climate Change Committee and will be legislated in July this year. 

So the choice before the Labor Party is a capable PM who has Cabinet and party support, but looks like losing the next election due to her poor public profile, or perhaps winning the election and a return to Kevin Rudd's autocratic leadership.

It is also likely that Rudd will not be able to form a minority government if Labor doesn't win a majority of seats under his leadership (if he gets it).

Rudd might also spit the dummy completely and resign from his seat.  This would force a by election, and possibly then a general election.

If Rudd loses the leadership ballot, as appears likely, all indications are he will continue to destablise the government.

I don't envy them.

It looks like Tony Abbott will sail into office whatever happens now.

Rudd the wrecker will kill action on climate change and forests

Where there is smoke there is fire.

I have wondering about media reports over the last several months about "Kevin Rudd agitating to be Prime Minister again".  Initially I thought these were a beat up. There seems to nothing some sections of the media like more than political conspiracies and plots to oust political leaders.  It is s a form of virtual blood sport.

With recent reports and comments from Kevin Rudd, and now Daryl Cheeseman (MP for Corangamite) we can see there is some substance to all this speculation.

Rudd wants his old job as Prime Minister back, at any cost.  I think he also wants revenge on those who orchestrated his sacking.

He, assisted by a secret (small?) band of followers, has been systematically undermining Julia Gillard as PM. His "campaign" includes:

• Leaks at strategic times to derail the Gillard Goverment's momentum (including during the last election campaign)
• Making "Presidential" statements and assuming a high profile as Foreign Minister
• Not ruling out contesting for PM if there is a leadership ballot - even though he says he doesn't want on and there won't be one.
• Saying he has "learnt from his mistakes" and is "more humble etc" - when by his current actions clearly this is not true.

So the Labor is in a death spiral.  Gillard cannot lead effectively with all the attention on leadership intrigue. 

Look at the Gonsky report on education - a core issue for Australia.  There has been virtually no coverage of it.  Our public education system is being denied adequate funding and is being run down.  Middle and high income earners are deserting it in droves.  It appears there is more public money going to private and "independent" schools per student than there is going to public schools.  Yet this issue is hardly getting any attention.

I can only speculate on Rudd's motives.  It would seem revenge and ambition are outweighing all other considerations.  If there was a leadership spill and Rudd got to be PM again, all the bad publicity, and his past skeletons in the closet, would mean Labor would lose the election.

Those who think Rudd can be Labor's salvation have short memories. He lost his mojo just before he was deposed. There was the complete stuff up on pink batts - this should have been done by the States, not Peter Garrett. The Australia 2020 talkfest delivered virtually nothing. Then he abandoned his compromised CPRS and adopted Brendan Nelson's policy on climate change! 

Rudd was also operating as a cell within Labor (as Latham did 2004) - this was the real reason he was shafted. However, now some nervous Labor poll-watching MPs think he might win the next election. He won't as he is shitting in his own nest in public. 

The real issue is that 19C (Labor) and 20C (Liberals) institutions are not well equipped to handle the big challenges and transitions we face in 21C as we run out fossil fuel, forests, water and degrade agricultural land. Both parties have their own right and left and are floundering about what to do. Labor has stepped in the right direction under Gillard by supporting a transition to a clean energy economy but they are having trouble selling this (Rudd's antics are not helping) while the Liberals under Abbott have stepped back in time.

If Rudd was more sensible, smart and strategic he would let Gillard lose the next election (as current polls indicate she is on track to do, if you believe them) then sail back in as the "knight in shining armour" with no bad blood and a clean(er) slate.

If Rudd and his followers keep de-stabilising the government, then Gillard will lose the next election.  One of the few things John Howard said that I agree with was "division is death".   While I am not in favour of autocratic rule by an single political party, this axiom is quite true for the game as they play it.

Unfortunately, the consequence of the current Labor-Greens-Indepedant government falling is that Tony Abbott can just sit back, keep pointing out that Labor has lost the plot, is paralysed and can't be trusted, then sail into government.

Once in government he will ditch the price on carbon and just about every other reform and piece of legislation that the current government has achieved.  Abbot would also axe National Disability Insurance, plain packaging for cigarettes, the NBN, education reform, the mining tax (weak though it is).

The Gillard government might just finalise the Intergovernmental Agreement to protection another 400,000 hectares of Tasmania's government.  They might also recognise and act on the opportunity to protect the rest of Australia's native forests subject to logging and reduce Australia's emissions by a further 5%.  An Abbott government would certainly do neither.  

Game on Kevin.  Its a lose-lose scenario.

Why can't Rudd do a carbon tax?

With the Federal election likely to be called this year, probably in August, the Rudd Labor government is now in campaign mode.  Consequently, its policies and focus are directed toward positioning themselves for winning the election and not much else.

The campaign strategy discussions may have unfolded something like this:

What will be our core platform for the election?

• Let's do health, education, economic responsibility and the national broadband network
• We will lob a new health funding model on the States and bully them into submission  so we appear tough and forceful
• We can trade off avoiding the Global Financial Crisis claiming we saved Australia from financial ruin

What will be our main issues to defend for the election?

• We completely flubbed it on climate change when Copenhagen turned to custard, and we had no plan B - so lets keep blaming the Greens for not supporting the industry-friendly CPRS - and the Liberals for sidestepping our skillfully crafted wedge when Turnbull went under and Abbot took over

• We aren't doing too well on environment either, with native forests still being destroyed, the Great Barrier Reef dying, the Orange Bellied Parrot and a few other species rapidly heading towards extinction - so lets get Peter Garrett out there handing out money for a few good causes in the States. 

• The housing insulation scheme killed for people and turned it a fatal farce.  Can't remember why we gave this to the Environment Minister Garrett when he and his department know nothing about building matters or managing large scale projects. So let's take it off him and give him a bit more money to throw around.  And send him to the back bench after the next election.

• Clear the decks.  We have a few backflips to get out of the way.

• Backflip 1  (Kevin Rudd) - the need for urgent action on climate change "the great moral challenge of our time" - the CPRS (emissions trading) now on hold until 2013

• Backflip 2 (Kate Ellis)- ditch the building of 260 new childcare facilities

• Backflip 2 (Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd) - avoid scrutiny of Government advertising by the Auditor General by announcing a $38 million, taxpayer funded political advertising campaign., despite it being “a cancer on our democracy” and a clear commitment from Rudd that this would not happen., 

Then some polls were released indicating that Kevin Rudd had burnt most of his political capital in a very short space of time and his support plummeted, with opposition leader Tony Abbott seemingly now capable of winning the next election.

Let's run a scare campaign on Abbott - like Howard did on L Plates Latham.  Let's even compare Abbott to Latham.  Brief to all ministers - keep saying "Tony Abbott would win an election if one were held tomorrow".

Now we need to get back onto our core platform.  

We have an exposure on the economy - we are now seriously in debt with a large deficit.  Lets cherry pick from the Henry Tax Review something that will help us back on track to a budget surplus.  Let's go with the Resource Super Profits Tax - will lob it out there and have some biffo with the mining companies.  This will give Kevin Rudd another opportunity to demonstrate his strong leadership style, and will offset some of the fallout from gifting $8 billion via the failed CPRS to large corporations making millions out of fossil fuels.

Well, that worked, sort of.  We got the media off climate change and even backflips, but those mining companies sure have gone troppo.  Now a bit of a stoush and ritual combat is turning into another problem for us - no consultation with stakeholders (like health reform), and back benchers in marginal seats with mines getting restless.  Let's hang tough for another couple of weeks then reduce the RSPT rate a bit to shut them up.

*** End of script as at 15 June 2010 ***

This reads a bit like a script from the Hollowmen.  But then truth is stranger than fiction.

Here are a few things that should have happened:

• Negotiate with Greens and two Coalition Senators in the Senate to get a carbon tax in place - this would apply across all industries, not just mining, and the funds can be directed towards transitioning to a low carbon economy
• Remove perverse taxes that encourage fossil fuel use - such as car leases that require minimum kilometres to be driven, the diesel fuel rebate, and sundry others
• Allow tax deductions and/or salary packing for people who cycle to work
• Ditch the $2billion+ corporate welfare funding for "Clean Coal" /geo-sequestration pipe dreams that defy the basic laws of physics and direct this towards a 100% clean energy program based on concentrated solar with salt storage and wind power.
• Commence a very fast train project to link Adelaide, Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane.
• Introduce national building standards for 6 Star Rated buildings and retrofit of existing building stock (and keep Peter Garrett away from it)
• Protect native forests from logging to keep the carbon they store where it is, secure our water supplies and provide habitat for endangered species.

I am not holding my breath for any of this.  But I am astounded by the failings of our political system and our major party politicians to deliver sensible policies.

They are intent of just playing politics, striving to get into government, then just pfaffing around when they get there.

*** Script update at 15 June 2010 ***

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appeared on the 7:30 Report on Monday night.  He appeared to be in damage control mode forcing some smiles, rapidly blinking and appeared uneasy.  When questioned about the Resource Super Profits Tax, the mining industry campaign against it and the date of the next election he mentioned that the election could be delayed until March/April 2011.  

"Yeah, well we have an election due by whatever it is, March or April next year and we only have three year terms. You've got to use the time effectively. "

So it seems that the nascent election campaign in progress may be drastically rescheduled.  Then again he may go early to avoid Tony Abbott gaining more support.  

I wish he would just bring a carbon tax and get on with it.

External links

• FACTBOX-Key political risks to watch in Australia
• The end of the world as we know it
• Kevin Rudd to backflip on mining tax rate
• Labor breaks childcare centre promise

We need a carbon levy

Labor's fatally compromised emissions trading scheme has now slipped into political oblivion but climate change has not. 

Kevin Rudd is a coal-eating surrender monkey!

It is clear that we urgently need a price on carbon to provide incentives for people and industry to shift towards zero emissions energy sources.

Professor Ross Garnaut and many others now support the immediate introduction of a much simpler carbon levy which would supplement other initiatives and policies to reduce Australia's carbon emissions.

It is time for Kevin Rudd to implement a carbon levy now to give us the best chance of avoiding the looming consequences of dangerous climate change.


Link: Rudd delays carbon scheme until 2012

Japanese whaling must stop now

The Japanese are still insisting on whaling in the southern ocean adjacent to Australia's Antarctic Territory. Their excuses for this appalling slaughter of whales are nonsense.

They claim they kills whales for scientific purposes, yet there are no scientific publications of any consequence resulting. One whale maybe, but certainly not a thousand.

They claim it is a traditional activity and that they like to eat whale meat. This is a direct contradiction to the first excuse, and it is also false. The Japanese have no traditions of eating whale meat, and have only recently engaged in large marketing campaigns in Japan to get people to eat more.

The Japanese do not need to kill or eat whales. This barbaric activity must stop.

A Japanese escort ship has just rammed and sunk the Andy Gill, one of Sea Shepherd's boats attempting to prevent them whaling. This is a deliberate and hostile action that could easily have resulted in a loss of life.

The Australian Government (Peter Garrett and Kevin Rudd) must take immediate action to enforce international law regarding the protection of whales, and they must send a ship to the Southern Ocean to ensure that peace is kept and no deaths result.

As individuals we can also boycott all Japanese goods and products until they stop the whaling

Real leadership on emission reductions is required now Mr Rudd.

Kevin Rudd is a hypocrite and a political opportunist who is doing nothing to reduce Australia's emissions with a fatally compromised CPRS (ETS).

Instead he just plays politics by slamming "the opposition" and torpedoing Copenhagen negotiations for his fossil fuel Corporate mates (with his ridiculous 5% emission reduction target).

Developed nations such as Australia, the United States and European countries must demonstrate how to live a low-carbon lifestyle in a sustainable low-carbon economy replete with green jobs.

This would provide a template for developing nations such as China and India to adopt. Unfortunately, our political leaders are intent on providing corporate welfare to polluters to continue on, and are not displaying the leadership we need on this.

We don't need nuclear or more coal exports.

We need:

• real emission reductions each and every year on a trajectory to 40% reductions by 2020 and zero net emissions by 2030
• renewable and zero emissions energy now - wind, solar, wave and geothermal
• improve energy efficiency by 40% or more.

Links

• Rudd blames climate sceptics for global sabotage
• Old king coal
• Climate war gets personal for Rudd
• The climate change lobbying register (PDF)
  
  
  

Kevin Rudd plays politics with asylum seekers lives

Kevin Rudd's recent stance on refusing entry to Australia for asylum seekers from Sri Lanka is a disgusting political debacle. He is looking at the polls and positioning his actions to try and neutralize the Oppositions attacks on him and appeal to people on Australia who regard incoming asylum seekers as a bad thing.

The treatment of asylum seekers is a weak spot of Labor. Adopting a "small target me too approach" on this issue was one of the factors that cost Kim Beazley and Labor the 2004 Federal Election.

So Kevin Rudd is trying to tread a line where he is:

"Tough on people smugglers" , "Tough on border protection" and "Sending a message to asylum seekers that Australia is not an easy place to get into".

Sounds a lot like John Howard doesn't it? Rudd has now adopted Howard's position and tactics on this issue in attempt to neutralise the issue politically.

However, this has not stopped the opposition criticising him for "being too weak", "encouraging illegal immigrants" and even "allowing terrorists into Australia" (this last from Wilson Tuckey).

The glee in the oppositions approach is tangible - they know they get some political traction and support on their outrageous statements. They too are poll driven, and some of them are clearly racist and guilty of spreading misinformation on this matter.

The problems with the Government's approach on this are:

• Human rights are being breached - people and children in distress are being interned
• Forcing them to stay in Indonesia potentially puts them in a worse situation than being interned in Australia
• UN conventions on treatment of refugees that Australia is a signatory are being contravened
• The "get tough" approach is really not deterring desperate people fleeing civil wars and persecution
• The issue is wasting a lot of government time which would be better directed towards some of the real crises we face such as ensuring a safe climate future
• Border protection is not the issue - we are not being invaded or at war with these people. The impact of climate change in the near future could see a huge increase of "climate refugees" from swamped Pacific islands.

Kevin Rudd and Labor should do the right thing and just accept and process asylum seekers. People smugglers should be deterred by jail terms. Playing politics with people lives and trampling over human rights is just not acceptable.

Is Kevin Rudd really a climate pessimist?

Some curious statements by Kevin Rudd have been reported from the G8 chinwag.

On the one hand he states publicly that the world should strive to reach agreements on reducing carbon emissions at Copenhagen and the importance of this.

Then in a quieter conversation with the Danish PM (maybe off the record, but recorded?) he says he is "pessimistic about the world reaching agreement on reducing carbon emissions at Copenhagen" and that "our negotiators are hampered".

Our negotiators are hampered - by the Rudd Government's policy settings for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme - which thankfully has not yet been passed by the Senate, and hopefully won't be.

The CPRS sets an upper cap on Australia's negotiating range of 25% reductions by 2050, and has a measly and demonstrably inadequate 5% committed (minimum) target. Which is equivalent to no emission reductions.

So here are some tips for you Kevin:

• Set the negotiating range as 25% to 100% by 2050
• Set real targets for annual tangible emission reductions - which means no increases every henceforth, and no offsets
• Display leadership on this issue - not pessimism
• Focus on the thousands of green jobs associated clean energy research, development, manufacturing, installation and exports.
• Announce a twenty year transition off fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas
• Stop listening to entrenched industry interests that are polluting your government's policies and response to climate change - and start listening to the people.

It's your job to do this Kevin. You are the leader of our country.

Kevin Rudd is playing politics with our climate

So why has Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong just done spectacular backflips and both decided to delay the implementation of their flawed Carbon Pollution Reduction (Reallocation) Scheme by one year?

Why have they also increased the "negotiating range" maximum from 15% to 25% - bringing it inline with the minimum range or 25% to 40% set in Bali in 2008?

Why have they introduced a cap on the carbon price of $10.00 per tonne?

There are two answers to these questions:

1. Politics
2. Business as usual - the grubby links between government and polluting industries.

Politics

The politics is asinine. Kevin Rudd does not want to negotiate with the Greens who have stated they support emission reduction targets in the range of 25-40% that will be negotiated at Copenhagen later this year. So Kevin Rudd has designed the CPRS so the Liberal-National opposition, and Malcolm Turnbull in particular, will be forced to support it.

Turnbull has been saying it should be delayed by 1-2 years; now it has been. Turnbull supports the 5% target. Turnbull is under pressure from the skeptics in his party - such as Nick Minchin and Wilson Tuckey - to support a weak and ineffective CPRS.

Business as usual - links between government and industry

Turnbull is also under pressure from the same industry lobbyists - such as Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group, and representatives from the coal/fossil fuel lobby (the "Greenhouse Mafia") - to support a weak and infective CPRS. They will threaten the opposition with hostile advertisements in marginal seats during the next election, and probably a few more dirty tricks too.

The wash up

If Turnbull - and the Liberal National "Opposition" - cave in and vote in the Senate for the CPRS with the Rudd Government we will have a scheme locked in that won't reduce carbon emissions.

Any parliamentarian who votes for the CPRS is playing Russian Roulette with a safe climate future. Kevin Rudd has stated that 450ppm CO2 is acceptable. Sorry Kevin, I disagree.

Scientists tell us that this could result in 3 degree global temperature rise, sea level rises of over 2 metres, and more frequent severe bushfires.

What can we do?

We must maintain hope that our political leaders will act responsibly and take immediate action to reduce climate change. We need to keep telling them that they must.

We need to spread awareness in the community about how "political stitch ups" are endangering our shared future, and that of the planet, by feeding the climate emergency we are now experiencing.

I think we also need to consider how we can get action on climate change informed and driven by science rather than hijacked by short term political motives.

We can also support the Greens' campaign for effective climate change action

I have also sent Don Henry from the ACF an email telling him I am reconsidering my 20+ year membership and support of the ACF, after his totally inappropriate glowing endorsement of Rudd's CPRS backflip. Is he planning to run for a safe Labor seat like Peter Garrett did?

External links

• Has Kevin Rudd "taken a signficant step forward on climate change"?, David Spratt
• Emissions rethink could trigger early election: Greens | theage.com.au
• "Greener, browner, and a lot later", Rudd greenhouse emissions retreat pitched at Coalition, The Age
• Rudd denies ETS delay is reckless | theage.com.au
• Rudd’s ETS backdown is about controlling the debate - Crikey
• Labor spineless on emissions - Crikey
  
  

A video from the Greens

Yes, Kevin Rudd is a coal eating surrender monkey

Well, my prediction of the 10% +/- 5% emissions reduction target set by the Rudd Labor government for Australia was accurate. Sadly thought, the target is a ridiculous 5%.

Penny Wong's justification for this is "jobs".

But securing today’s 19C dirty jobs while NOT building the low pollution economy of tomorrow, or creating ANY green jobs is a shocking outcome.

And the Government will be giving $billions of our money to the worst polluters.

This is hardly a recipe for progress.

This is a joke, and its on us (the public) who are expected to pay for this nonsense. And we have no say in this - the government is hostage to industry and not representing the best interests of the Australian people.

I think we need a campaign of civil disobedience.

I am considering installing a few more panels and completely disconnecting from the grid. Labor is stuffing up the Feed In Tariff legislation at both state and national levels. No more of my money will go to coal fired power interests. And remember, buying Greenpower doesn't reduce emissions either. If you don't believe me, ask a retailer and see what they say.

I will refuse to pay for the Victorian desalination plant as we don’t use any Melbourne water - our 23,500 litres of tanks keeps us supplied.

Maybe I will also withold a proportion of my income tax that will be misdirected to the ludicrous fossil fool corporate welfare?

We need to stop carbon emissions, not reward them. The Rudd government's whitepaper is perverse.

Their own adviser, Ross Garnaut, now sidelined by the Rudd government, has strongly criticised the corporate welfare measures in the whitepaper.

Listen to all the weasel words from Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong about "per capita emissions".

It is really quite simple - are our emissions going down, and if so when?

The government's answer to this at present is "no", and "no commitment"

The so called, 5% reduction target is founded on the false pretence that Australia's greenhouse emissions did not rise from 1990 - 2000; hence the misleading claim that it makes little difference whether 1990 or 2000 is chosen as the base year. In fact Australia's real emissions rose by 18.98% in the 1990s (according to the AGO) but this fact is concealed by tricky carbon accounting introduced by the Howard government, which insisted on being the only developed country to include reduced land-clearing in its Kyoto calculations. This has become known as the "Australia Clause".

If Australia were to calculate its emissions on the same basis as all other developed countries this reduction of 5% relative to 2000 would actually be exposed as an increase in emissions of 13% relative to 1990. Kevin Rudd's top figure of a 15% reduction becomes an increase of 1%.

Links

• One little word undoes the PM's claims on greenhouse gases | theage.com.au
• Switch to solar undermined by Rudd climate plan | theage.com.au
• It's so much hot air | theage.com.au
• Garnaut turns heat on Rudd climate plan | theage.com.au
• Garnaut slams climate plan | theage.com.au
  
  
  
  
  

Will Kevin Rudd be a coal eating surrender monkey?

The Rudd Labor government is set to releases it's much awaited target for greenhouse gas emission reduction by 2020. What will will it be?

We have some some clues.

Rudd said on The 7.30 Report last week.

The second point I would say is this: is that this Government is determined absolutely to get the balance right. We understand the need for decisive action on the environment long term. If we fail to act there, the economic and environmental consequences for Australia are horrendous, as they would be globally. Secondly, we intend, also, in framing our approach to the carbon pollution reduction scheme to be entirely mindful of the difficult economic circumstances Australia and the world is facing as well. And I’m sure when this is delivered, early next week, we’ll get attacked from the left, from the right, we’ll get attacked by various radical green groups saying that we haven’t gone far enough because we haven’t closed down the coal industry by next Thursday.

So the governments PR tactics in dealing with climate change are revealed:

1. Frame the debate so that anyone who says Rudd’s weak target is weak is “a member of a radical green group trying to close down the coal industry”

Like Governor David de Kretzer, Professor Karoly, Al Gore, Malcolm Fraser, Arnold Schwartzeneggor, Barack Obama, Ban Ki-Moon, Prince Charles and Rupert Murdoch etc?

2. Make a token gesture towards renewable energy

Kevin Rudd announced today that the government would "bring forward $500m funding for renewable energy".

But he and Peter Garrett will keep the class warfare going with the cap on the solar rebate, and allow the dog’s breakfast of mostly woeful state Clayton’s feed-in tariff legislation to proliferate.

Whenever I hear the world “balance” from the government, I get a shiver down my spine.

Balance the wishes of the coal eating rent seeking surrender monkeys against the probable loss of the Great Barrier Reef, 3m sea level rises, and ice free (and 5 degree hotter) summer Arctic and no more snow in Australia?

This is not balance, this is capitulation and gross negligence.

The target? My guess is Rudd will come up with a 2020 target of a reduction of 10% (+/-5) and may even be audacious/hypocritical enough to also announce a long-term “aspirational” non-binding target of limiting greenhouse gases to 450ppm.

When we need a 40% by 2020 target, and to reduce GHG from the current 380 to 350 or lower.

Al Gore hit the nail on the head in Poland:

"We can’t negotiate the facts. We can’t negotiate the truth about the situation. And for those who are too fearful to finish, it can be done and must be done. Make sure we succeed, . . . It is wrong for this generation to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every future generation."

And overseas:

• European Union leaders in Brussels have juest set targets for EU greenhouse gas emissions reduced to 20 percent lower than 1990 levels by 2020.

• Arnold Schwarzenegger has set the following targets for California: 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, 80% below 1990 by 2050

The problem with Kevin Rudd's Labor government is that they are:

• Not listening to the Australian people who want immediate reductions in emissions

• Captive to big business and industry - delivering a weak ETS that won't reduce emissions

• Playing russian roulette with our environment (reef, Kakadu, snow, water for major cities, bushfires)

• Neglecting obvious energy efficiency opportunities that can immediately reduce emissions and save us money

• Propping up our high emissions motor industry rather then legislating for a transition to clean electric cars

• Allowing the ongoing destruction of Australia's native forests resulting in emissions of up to 1000 tonnes per hectare, rather then protecting them immediately

• Deliberately ignoring the latest science that now indicates we are in a climate emergency (Hansen, etc)

• Playing politics and looking for weak compromise solutions when we need emergency action on emission reductions to ensure a safe climate future.

• Once again consigning Australia to being a climate laggard, not a global leader.

And of course Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals are no better, and actually still even worse - they have more climate change denialists/delusionists in their ranks.

Links

• Take action - information on latest science and politics, from the Climate Emergency Network
  
• Kevin Rudd on The 7.30 Report
  
• Climate change quotes - Greenlivingpedia
• Climate change - Greenlivingpedia
  
• Gore's tough message to leaders BBC NEWS
• PM fast-tracks renewable energy investment - ABC News
• Rudd under fire for keeping solar rebate cap - ABC News
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

We need electric cars and we need them now

The Australian car industry is going the way of the American one - a headlong rush to extinction. With long term rises in oil prices inevitable, the days of large petrol and diesel powered vehicles are numbered.

Cars with electric drive trains produce 30% less carbon emissions than those powered by internal combustion engines - even taking into account the emissions from coal fired power stations to generate the electricity. They can also transition to being supplied by zero emissions electricity as supplies come on line. Plug in hybrids would be suitable for those requiring a longer range.

Blade Electric Car

Yet, no major Australian manufacturer yet makes an electric car that would be suitable for the majority of short trips made every day in the city. There are less than 300 electric vehicles on Australian roads right now. Unfortunately, the $6.2 billion allocated by the Australian government to make the automotive industry more economically and environmentally sustainable is still focused on tinkering with making internal combustion engines more efficient and hybrids that still require petrol to operate.

This is a missed opportunity. We need electric cars to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions, and we need them now.

Links

• Green cars, Greenlivingpedia
• A New Car Plan For A Greener Future, Media release, Minister - Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Kim Carr and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
• Blade Electric Vehicle - Australia's first production electric vehicle
  

100K means test on solar rebate is lunacy

Just when I thought things could not get much worse for solar power in Australia after Peter Batchelor succeeded in gutting the Victorian Feed in Tariff (which is yet to go through Parliament, word it is could be introduced around June 9), Peter Garrett and Kevin Rudd announced that the Federal solar rebate scheme would be means tested on $100,000 on household income. This is less than two minimum wages.

This will be the nail in the coffin of the solar panel industry and domestic installation in Australia.

The reasons they gave are simply not valid; the rebate scheme is simply not middle income welfare. While the rebate should not go on indefinitely, it is an important mechanism for shifting us towards emission reductions and a carbon constrained economy.

A means test of 250,000 would be more appropriate, and would encourage many to install panels.

For more information on this, and a link to an email form you can use to contact the Peter Garrett (the Enviroment Minister) go to Acfonline.org.au.

Petrol prices hit 162.9c per litre and still no action on public transport

Petrol prices have just hit a record high of $1.62 per litre in Australia, even though petrol is still cheaper in comparison to Europe ($2.25 in Italy, $2.28 in France, $2.33 in UK, $2.45 in Denmark).

As demand (mainly from China) increase and supply dwindles, this trend is set to continue quite rapidly, as I have noted previously.

Kevin Rudd said today that "unfortunately there is no silver bullet for petrol prices" on television tonight. I beg to differ. Fortunately, there are at least two silver bullets.

1.CNG conversions and refuelling infrastructure for cars, trucks and buses

While natural gas supplies are finite, it is a cleaner and cheaper fuel than petrol. We should be using it for transport now.

2. Improved public transport and more cycle paths

The impact of petrol and fuel price rises on household incomes will be reduced if people have practical alternatives to cars. Improved public transport and better cycle paths provide us with options for lower emissions and cheaper transport. Unfortunately, the federal budget provided no funding for either.

We need leadership and funding from federal and state governments for both these opportunities as we shift towards a carbon constrained economy.


Links

• Petrol pain ahead The Age
• No silver bullet for petrol, says Rudd, PerthNow
  
  
  

My submission to the Australia 2020 summit

I applied to attend the Australia 2020 summit but I was not selected. I thought it curious that Steve Bracks (ex Victorian Premier) and John Thwaites (ex Victorian Environment Minister) did get to go. Surely they have had ample time and opportunity to contribute to policy and outcomes during their terms of office?

I put a submission in just in time. You can view it here. I was a bit rushed to meet the deadline so it was not as detailed as I would have liked. I should have included a Treaty for indigenous Australians as a case in point.

I think the summit is a positive initiative, even if biased a bit towards "names and people of moderate to high profile". Just being able to make a submission was good too after years of dissembling by the Howard government.

However, the real challenge will be to put good ideas from the summit into action. If Kevin Rudd and the Labor government fails to do this then it will be a big disappointment to many who made submissions and attended.

Fingers crossed - let us hope they get their act together.

Links
Australia 2020 submissions up at Larvatus Prodeo There’s over a thousand submissions on the sustainability topic alone.

I am sorry

I am sorry for the hardship and suffering inflicted upon the stolen generation of indigenous Australians.

Kevin Rudd's speech and motion in parliament today was inspiring and long overdue. I strongly endorse his speech and approach towards both saying sorry to the stolen generation and taking real bipartisan action towards addressing the ongoing problems facing indigenous Australians.

Consultation and engagement with indigenous Australians will be key to improving key concerns facing communities such as employment, education, health, infant mortality, life expectancy and substance abuse.

We need to cease paternalistic interventions and work together towards real and lasting solutions and improvements.

We have said sorry and acknowledged the hurt and suffering of the stolen generation and those others so deeply affected by them being taken. Now it is time to move forward, set real goals and and take some real cooperative action to close the gaps between indigenous and other Australians.