I found these answers to Leigh Sales’ questions by Rob Oakeshott on Lateline very interesting:
LEIGH SALES: Okay, on asylum seekers, particularly those who come by boat, what’s your view on offshore processing?
ROB OAKESHOTT: I’ve been very loud in my electorate that we are the moat people. The very fact people have to come here by boat says we’ve got a huge strategic advantage in dealing with this.
They’ve normally come through three or four countries where those countries don’t even know that people have passed through their borders. So I think we can manage this and manage it in a strategic sense. Our offshore processing is about $470 million a year of taxpayers’ money.
I’m not fussed about Nauru, Christmas Island, East Timor but I would ask that at least we consider onshore processing under UN conventions and 90 day rules. I’m sure we could find a mayor or a council in the North or Northwest of Australia who would be very interested in the 350 jobs that we’re currently exporting to Christmas Island because we are driven by some sort of fear of dealing with this issue on the mainland.
And they’re 350 well paying jobs. They’re Defence. They’re ASIO. They’re Customs.
So you know, I think we need to put fear in the back pocket, deal with it strategically, deal with it on a regional basis, stick to UNHCR guidelines and targets and really step up and deal with the issue on the mainland as much as trying to farm the problem out to some regional neighbour.
LEIGH SALES: And very briefly, climate change. You want an ETS back on the agenda?
ROB OAKESHOTT: Yeah. Look, I think if we are serious about the job we do, there were people who dedicated their lives to the science who said there’s a problem. The response was to get eminent economist Ross Garnaut to write up a report about how we turn the science into an economic model and the whole thing went to mush after that.
I’d ask this Parliament to at least consider going back to the Garnaut Report, and see whether we can lay a platform for delivering on and fulfilling our duty of finishing the process that’s gone from the science to the economics. Let’s get it through the politics and let’s deliver something for this nation.
Now all we need is another 150+ people in parliament and there might be a good outcome on climate and asylum seekers.
What a refreshing change from the xenophobic and climate change denialism/timidity from both major parties!
Meant to say another 150+ like minded people in parliament.
Finally, someone talking sense.
Oakeshott is intellectually a mile in front on these debates. Can we make him PM?
Yes, I am impressed with an intelligent politician who has sane, humane, job creating policies for Australians.
The country is in safe hands with him in the cross benches
Tony Windsor was impressive on Q and A
Sarah Hanson-Young was all process driven, compromising dialog – a modus operandi I abhor
I agree, Lefty. If we must have an ex-National in parliament, we could do a lot worse than Rob Oakeshott or Tony Windsor. In fact, he makes a lot more sense than most of the ALP members. You do get a sense that he has thought about matters carefully before speaking and that he is honest about wanting to do the right thing, as best he understands it.
If JG has any smarts at all, she will deal him strongly in before the machine folks from Sussex St try to deal him out. On her own, she probably can’t deal with the machine, but with Windsor, Bandt and Oakeshott (and possibly Wilkie) in, she has some leverage.
Frankly Fran – Iw as a big TPV advocate a while back – and its a timely reminder to lefties as well as Tories that regional conservatives are very different on these questions: they look at their dying towns and quite fancy some immigrants, even a detention (though it coukd be called reception) centre.
Nuance, folks. Regional australians have been actually quite progressive on these issues for a while.
cf. Culture war in the cities.
I hate to bring it back to the realm of base politics, but the upshot of this is Oakeshott appears to want, amongst other things:
High-standard telecommunications for his regional electorate
An ETS based on a clear-headed assessment of the science and the economics
Labor campaigned on the first, and would almost certainly acquiesce to the second – particularly after the electoral lesson they’ve copped on the topic.
The Coalition doesn’t have a great track record on the first, to say the least. The second is absolute anathema to the people that put Tony Abbott in charge, and contrary to their election policy.
yeah i like those thoughts of his. i am surprised by his thought bubbles that i am hearing on news radio, ie Rudd as FM in an Abbott govt, or Turnbull in a Gillard govt. he would have seen first hand the vitriol directed at Katter and Windsor by the nats. none of the majors cope very well with their members working for the other side.
That’s really not very hard.
Oakeshott and Windsor both favour the mining tax as well, which Abbott wants to rescind. They both favour action on water, which would divide the coalition. They supported the stimulus which the coalition opposed.
I can’t find it now but I seem to recall Oakeshott supporting a conscience vote on gay marriage … He is supportive of more humane treatment of refugees. So is Windsor.
In short, on the major issues dividing the parties, he is if anything, to the liberal left of the ALP.
That might be so Robert @9, but can Julia rewrite the script that conducts the parliamentary process like a big brother contest and assure to get rid of these party hacks that treat us in the region like pins in a bowling alley. That is what the independents are after.
FRAN – totally agree. If Oakeshott can say this sort of stuff, why the hell can’t Gillard????
I think we all know the answer to that question, Mike.
Last night we heard a voice of sanity
Concerned about what’s right, not winning votes
Someone prepared to show humanity
To those who flee to us in leaky boats.
As he deplored our ‘moat’ mentality,
Prepared to say we’re needlessly deranged
I felt a lightening, a clarity,
As if both air and sea around had changed.
I must admit, I was quite impressed that he it willing to drive a sensible and thought out line through a couple of complex issues. I saw Oakeshott on Today this morning too, and he was quite sane and rational against a rash of silly questions.
You really do have to wonder why the major parties think this doublespeak/spin stuff is the way to go, if a guy like Oakeshott can get in with a huge margin by just thinking about the problem and coming to a reasonable conclusion.
PinkyOz
It’s gonna be very interesting when Windsor and Oakeshott want something big done on climate change and Julia tries to throw an anchor overboard. Think she’s really gonna have to do something. In fact, it gives her a great opportunity to show she’s more than an opportunist. Fingers crossed.
When climate scientists go to Canberra, some very interesting people listen. I can’t name names until public comments make parliamentarians’ attitudes clear, but we were asked some pretty searching questions by rural members who also expressed their frustrations at the policy impasse.
There are people in all parties and independents who do want to move forward asap.
This is looking better by the day. If negotiations for government can continue by fleshing out important policy directions as may be indicated by Oakeshott’s comments, then they can take as long as they like.
PinkyOz, he’s one independent from a rural electorate, so of course he can afford to speak plainly. He only has to worry about offending a small group of voters in one electorate. The major parties who have to deal with the real Australia can’t afford to be that controversial. The margin seat voters have different concerns and most Australians want the boats to be stopped, global warming to be accellerated and the debt to be paid off.
And I have a high-quality second hand bridge for sale, one careful lady owner, immaculate condition…
PinkyOz – very good point. But I bet the hacks of the NSW right think Oakeshott is just some sort of hayseed. They just don’t get it.
He suggested a war cabinet, so it’s possible his grasp on reality is tenuous.
The more I hear from the independents the happier I am. Especially from Oakeshott. I only hope that the ALP is willing to go to the media and say “a price on carbon is a price we’re willing to pay to govern” or some equivalent. I dream of Gillard saying “we were elected in 2007 with a mandate to address climate change and in collaboration with the independents we have decided to implement that mandate.
Sorry, every time I hear “mandate” I think of The Eye’s song.
MOZ – If an independent from a rural electorate like Oakeshott can push progressive policies, what can’t be done if politicians treat the electorate like adults?
MOZ – if she doesn’t do something big about climate change, I bet she won’t survive to the next election. Labor has to restore its credibility with the electorate. That is the only way.
John @22, have you watched 4 corner last night? Sounds bigger than any war so far, at least in financial terms.
Anyone who imagines that Gillard is anything other than an opportunist is kidding themselves. ALP members, back benchers and cabinet members have been bullied into silence by Gillard and “strategy leaders” (ie, the spineless/faceless men of the blue collar unions) into not saying anything even remotely humane or decent about refugees for fear of offending or upsetting xenophobes and the panick stricken who reside in key marginals.
That approach is par excellence the mark of an opportunist. And if that doesn’t convince you then remind yourselves of the response from the East Timorese to the “Timor solution”.
The charge of opportunism applies equally to Rudd who claimed to have been inspired by a radical priest but who turned to water on refugees when confronted with the need for positive moral leadership against a background of frenzied media driven racist kant, venom and hatred.
One interview with Oakeshott and sanity starts to prevail. That’s how to deal with opportunist bullies: confront them, speak the truth and don’t back down.
Is it too much to hope that this situation might force the media to become more responsible?
It was interesting to see Tony Windsor give the media a huge serve on Q&A last night. Unfortunately, and predictably nobody on the panel or Tony Jones took the issue up.
Media Watch was also interesting last night.
Apologies for posting here but I couldn’t find a relevant round table or open thread and I can’t see a tool for starting a new thread.
Oakeshot has now proposed a unity government a Labor/Liberal coalition. I find this deeply alarming it would signal the rise of the one-party state in Australia with no effective opposition to keep government in check. There is certainly no mandate for this idea.
Do we want a government where civil unrest, military coups or assassination are the only way to change government?
Look, conclusion number 1 from all this is that the ALPs basic strategy of engagemetn with the electorate has failed – and needs to be rethought.
Persoanlly, I reckon its not worth bothering with, they’re too rooted – a faster solution would be for the ALP to bite the bullett and support some sort of mixed member electoral reform, let others priovide the values and backbone they lack, and take advantage of the new equation:
ALP+ Greens is a national centre-left majority.
Umm Swinging lefty, the Swiss have a unity government since the year dot, never came across any of these nasty things you were mentioning when I was living there.
Moz @ 20
It distresses me that democracy in Australia seems to have degenerated to unprincipled pandering to a bunch of debt-phobic, xenophobic ostriches in Western Sydney and Queensland.
swinging lefty, I think most of us have confidence that an Australian unity government would look more like cats in a sack than Stalinist Russia. They’d need to radically overhaul the whole system of government to stop a collection of opposition parties forming within minutes.
I think what he’s actually looking for is agreement from all parties on broad policies and trying to phrase “every vote a conscience vote” in a way that the media can understand it.
Jenny@32: I think one result of this election is the realisation that the group you’re referring to does not actually exist. Or not in enough numbers to matter. Hence my remarks about the bridge.
There will never be a ‘unity’ govt. between Labor and Liberal. They hate each other more than they hate being in opposition.
If there’s one thing that Abbott and Gillard would agree on, it’s that they’d prefer another election to a Grand Coalition.
The idea simply wouldn’t fly.
@32
Hey, hey, hey. I campaigned for a Brisbane marginal seat the whole campaign, door-knocking, ringing people up, handing out HTV’s on Saturday, and I never heard anything about boat people. It was equal shares between anger at what happened to Kevin Rudd, and a ‘they’re all liars’ sentiment along with a fair bit of apathy.
The ALP needs to grow a pair, if you ask me. If they took a stance on things it really would have helped on Saturday.
Howard used to make good mileage of being a total wind-dniffing opportunist while alwys doing a good “:core values” schtick routine.
With a few minor exceptions (which proably kept them in from outright loss, like NBN) ALP just looked like bum-sniffing dogs trailing after focus groups.
You make your own consituency in this game.
Moz@34
I hope you’re right, although I’m still perplexed as to what other groups could possibly have voted for Abbott. But regardless, I don’t think I’m wrong about the pandering.
LeftyE said:
Deep Sigh… a pair of what? (rhetorical)
One day, we will stop using this turn of phrase or variations on the theme. It just seems so out of step with the tenor of this place. It’s also biologically absurd and a category error. The ALP is not a biological organism, and those without the right DNA can’t grow them.
Um, grow a pair of nurturing tits perhaps?
adrian @28, the trivialising media’s furiously hoping enough of its colour-n-movement election coverage will patch over the holes of circulation/audience declines – so sensible mr windsor (or oakeshot) by comparison just don’t rate for coverage when there’s hope for a latham/madmonk/leaks meltdown… unlikely to read windsor’s issues in the daily twitter traffic.
like who’d want to talk about policy, or even how minority governments/slight coalitions work just fine in places like germany, holland, etc?
the oz newspaper has already ramped up the ‘mayhem etc’ yarns …yet the stock market’s not responded in kind
Robert Merkel wrote:
Well, bullshit.
The ALP might have the NBN as a policy but that’s more of a coincidence that any particular regard for the regions.
The ETS: they’ve shown NO indication that they are even likely to consider a price on carbon since the pathetic, watered down version failed to fly.
At this point in time, it’s so hard to determine the difference between the ALP and the Coalition that it simply wouldn’t matter who was PM. Either way, Oakeshott will only get what he wants accidently.
Oakeshott was pretty impressive (if a bit naive) as were Windsor and Turnbull on Q&A. All three were a mile ahead of the risk-averse “on message” politics we’ve seen from Gillard and Abbott for the past five weeks.
How about a Grand Coalition of Labor, Greens, Windsor, Oakeshott and moderate Libs like Turnbull?
The deepest hatreds are reserved for members of your own party, (or in the rural independents case, your former party) so anything’s possible.
Minority Governments are a serious pain in the ass. And whoever forms this one will have 1 hell of a job getting legislation through both houses. The other thing to remember is this. It is very easy to be an independent MP. You whinge like hell when the government has to make hard decisions about things that affect your electorate and you ask for everything for your local electorate from new schools to roads to hospitals etc without the constraint of saying where the money is going to come from. And as someone made the point earlier, they have got a smaller pocket of people to impress to win their seat, without worrying about what the majority of Australians think. For e.g Why didnt any of the major parties run on a policy of onshore processing? Because they knew the voters wouldnt accept it.
I’ve put up a new roundtable for general hung-parliament speculation etc.
“Um, grow a pair of nurturing tits perhaps?”
Thats precisely what I meant. I do tire of the androcentric, masculinist presumptions around here
‘For e.g Why didnt any of the major parties run on a policy of onshore processing? Because they knew the voters wouldnt accept it.’
How did they know? Did any of them actually initiate the conversation with the electorate, did they try to convince anyone with the facts?
Of course not, so it’s one giant cop-out sympotomatic of the failure of both parties to claim that people won’t accept it. Of course they won’t accept it if you pander to the fear and lies generated by your oponents.
I didn’t see it, and I don’t doubt you, but The Greens are having to tread a delicate path right now. There is a nascent meme that they will single-handedly destroy this country with the balance of power and they must feel the need to counter that with the notion that they can be level-headed and handle the balance of power responsibly.
I’m not sure that’s necessarily a great strategy in the long term and it probably is being done to slow down any potential scare campaigns, but it goes some way to explaining where Hanson-Young and possibly other Green parliamentarians are coming from at the moment.
It ought to be noted that what Oakeshott is talking about now was front-and-centre Greens policy going into this election, so they barely need to reiterate it.
Ute man @ 44, Gillard has repeatedly and consistently said we need a price on carbon.
She’s said that she personally will lead the debate to get us there.
Don’t you listen?
BTW in the Fin Review on Saturday, inside the back page in the middle of an article we were told that business wants a price on carbon ASAP, so they know what they are dealing with and can get on with it.
It should have been on the front page, in the headline, a week or two earlier.
“Ute man @ 44, Gillard has repeatedly and consistently said we need a price on carbon.
She’s said that she personally will lead the debate to get us there.”
Aren’t we getting to the stage, with this issue above all others where we need to judge politicians by what they do, not what they say they might do in the distant future.
It’s a bit muuch for you to accuse Ute Man of not listening, when all you get from listening is empty platitudes.
adrian wrote:
Exactly. If the ALP was serious about it, we’ve have a price on carbon now. The party has deliberately backed away from the ex-Howard ETS scheme and shown such contempt for the people who voted for them it brings serious doubt into the motivations of the ALP with respect to climate change where it might conflict with the trade union imperative for the protection of industrialised jobs in the mining industry.
Anyone who thinks that Gillard is going to do anything about a carbon tax should read Paddy Manning in the Herald on Saturday and take a cold shower. She wants to “lead” the debate. She doesn’t actually want to do anything.
Her problem though is that if she does nothing she’ll be a careerist without a career.
Ute Man:
No more, no less. The ALP, as one respondent pointed out here on LP recently, is not necessarily seen by its own members as a party that makes policy on behalf of all citizens so much as a party of the working class. And of particular fractions of that class, moreover, as the pro-mining position is illustrating.
She’s said that she personally will lead the debate to get us there.
Brian your faith is touching, but you of all people should know the time for debate is long past. Calls of consensus and Citizens assembly are equivocal time-wasters.
Wtf does the average citizen know about climate change, and why should we be listening to them when we’ve ignored climate scientists who actually know what they’re talking about for a decade or more? If people aren’t on-board by now, they’re not going to get onboard until the reef starts dying, aka way, way too late. Liberals decided to die on this hill, and that means that around 50% of the population won’t come along on this journey no matter what gets said, or how.
I must say Sam that a number of people in my circle of acquaintances and family that are symapthetic to The Greens in general aren’t that impressed with SH-Y.
The most common remark was that she is too soft and too airheaded. She may well be a streetfighter, but she comes across as much too softly spkken and as not across policy ideas.
Last night she allowed Turnbull to make her look silly by repeating what was admittedly an unconvincing Green objection to the CPRS uttered by Senator Brown (whom I respect a lot) — that we Greens wanted to make the polluters pay rather than the public. turnbull quite rightly made the point that there is no free carbon lunch here. A price on carbon will ultimately be passed on to the public in one form or another.
The points she should have made were that
a) all models except for B-A-U involve a price on carbon. A carbon tax or an ETS is simply more explicit than direct action and attaches the burden most closely to the largest beneficiaries of carbon emissions
b) it’s possible to reimburse people with cash or benefits in kind with the sums raised from the price on carbon, meaning that people can choose between using the money to avoid CO2-emitting conduct or continuing to emit and giving up the money. In either case, business has an incentive to try to lower emissions to gain a competitive edge.
In this scenario, the polluters will have to make rational choices about where to draw the line between b-a-u and clean and green and how to recover the cost of retooling from their end users on a viable timeline.
She doesn’t come across as someone who is really able to communicate policy effectively.
akn wrote:
I see this as a relatively recent development – call it a side effect of slice-n-dice wedge politics. This certainly didn’t seem to be the case with the Whitlam/Hawke/Keating governments who had least had a nodding understanding that the goals of a wider left were important for keeping their industrial program going. Climate change has turned out to be a major wedge for the left, not the right.
I’m pessimistic about any consistent line emerging from the three elected independents and Mr Cook, WA (O’Connor) who wants the new mine tax scuttled. I am presuming that Andrew Wilkie will fall short in Dennison and that no party will have a lead. The independents are perhaps principled but the fact that they are yet to establish any agreed basic platform despite years being in Parliament spells trouble. For example Katter favours turning major Nth Queensland rivers inland. Will Cook have a similar view in WA and be able to seduce a favourable response from either Lib or Labor. Similarly I can’t see any tough pro-science decisions emerging from the Murray Darling Basin Authority who’s unreleased report might threaten some rural centres who will look to the independents for power. No Green balance of power in the Senate until July 2011 is also a problem. Only Gillard’s negotiation skills are a possible plus in this equation but the ideological warriors in both majors will stymie any Oakeshott idealism.
Yes, that appears to be correct Ute Man. The following, which was linked here the other day, shows how class alliances with capital work at the pointy end when it comes to environmental policy: Labor’s climate enemies within (Paddy Manning, SMH). The ongoing difficulty is that the working classes will continue to form contingent alliances with capital to secure their own material and political advantage all the while accusing Greens and environmentalists who want equity of ecological security of being middle class ecofascists.
And the smart reply to that is that it matters a lot which members of the public pay, and how much.
At the moment, a variety of public companies (which are mostly owned by super funds, who manage funds disproportionately for the well-off), and foreign multinationals, will get a large chunk of free permits.
As such, something more akin to the Garnaut Report approach is a fairer approach.
It also has the benefit of not encouraging perverse investment decisions.
“The independents are perhaps principled but the fact that they are yet to establish any agreed basic platform despite years being in Parliament spells trouble”
Seems unrealistic, to me anyway, to have expected them to have done this previously as with a party holding majority in HoR there was no need to. They are independents not members of a minority party.
Pablo@58: The independents are perhaps principled but the fact that they are yet to establish any agreed basic platform despite years being in Parliament spells trouble.
That’s because they’re not a party. They haven’t ever had to thrash out a common position, and doing so would not have gained them anything. Now things have changed – it’s looking as though together they can hold the balance of power but separately they can’t do anything useful. So they have a strong incentive to develop a common position. I expect they’ll do so, but why would they announce it until all the votes are counted? I’d be a little surprised if they even started serious negotiations until then, except perhaps within their group of three (or four if they decide to include Bandt).
One thing that hasn’t been flagged is that with Bandt they can easily support a “right to dissent” within their group, allowing legislation to pass while one of their group stands aside or even opposes it. It’s a very NZ model but I think it would work, allowing the different MP’s to use their conscience when they need to (or play to their base, depending on how cynical you are), while guaranteeing passage of (most) govt legislation.
Moz @ 62. Sure it wouldn’t be in their interest as independents to publicise an ‘agreed public platform’ as I suggested, but you would think that as three ex-NP members they might have established a charter of some sort, even if it was an antithesis of everything NP. That way you wouldn’t have them now stuck in the headlights trying to nut out something they all hold in common.
Grow a pair . . . ? Of frontal lobes perhaps
@pablo, why should they have taken precious time away from campaigning in their own electorates to nut out common policies just on the possibility that they might be in this position?
They don’t need to have common policies on every issue in any case. They need to decide whether they are going to support one or neither of the two major parties on the floor of the House on matters of Supply – that’s the only absolute. Each of them has the right, and arguably the obligation as Independent representatives of single electorates, to toe their own lines on everything else and bargain individually for what they each want in order to give “the confidence of the House” to one of the two possible PMs.
Agreed, Fran @ 56, that S H-Y’s overgrown schoolgirl coyness is often annoying and not appropriate to the spokesperson for a national political party. Last night, however, she was up against a renowned former barrister,
whose unabashed boasting of being a man of principle, prepared to sacrifice his political career for his beliefs was breathtaking.
When he so famously said, I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am. he said nothing about being willing to support and follow a leader who thinks climate change science is crap. Which he so clearly was last night as he praised Abbott’s performance and claimed to like him.
As he sat there, smiling, suave, smug and self-congratulatory claiming that extra one percent or so of swing over the ten percent already credited to him by Jones, I wondered if he would acknowledge the strong flow of preferences he would have gained from Greens and others like S H-Y. Of course, he didn’t. He’d see that as his own personal popularity rating.
His no free carbon lunch here reference was so redolent of a phrase common to that right to rule attitude we’ve heard too often expressed by our ‘betters’ I felt like vomiting on that lovely leather jacket he was wearing with such panache.
as an aside, I was interested by the site of Katter on lateline talking about the only way the three independents could succeed was by working together. I rather doubt he has the same sympathy when workers in his electorate try to do the same, and certainly when he was a National he wouldn’t have been signing up for that sort of collectivist politics. Interesting how views change when your back’s to the wall…
Also, it’s a little rich to be judging Sarah Hanson-Young on her first outing from a new parliament. Precious few people here would behave up to scratch at the level the Greens suddenly find themselves having to operate at. GIve them a bit of time!
@55 patrickg you said “Wtf does the average citizen know about climate change, and why should we be listening to them when we’ve ignored climate scientists who actually know what they’re talking about for a decade or more?”
It seems that you don’t have the slightest notion of what a Citizen’s Assembly is all about. Actually, a chill went through me when I heard Julia Gillard utter that promise back in July as it sounded like some form of Stalinist re-education camp. When I read up on the concept I felt that it was an approach that could cut through the adversarial culture of our discourse about policy.
Julia Gillard’s announcement was not a policy, as it was so lazily dubbed, but a constructive proposal to help break the Abbott led impasse on climate policy. It also has the potential if used judiciously to allow politicians to get their message out without being filtered and distorted by the MSM.
The Political Sword did an excellent explanation of the theory & practice of the Citizen’s Assembly entitled, “In Support of Julia Gillard’s Citizen’s Assembly on Climate Change” http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/post/2010/07/28/In-support-of-Julia-Gillarde28099s-Citizens-Assembly-on-Climate.aspx
The SMH published another excellent article on 26 July 2010 by Dr Carolyn Hendriks, Senior Lecturer, Crawford School of Economics & Government, ANU. Regrettably the SMH link is broken but there is a list of Dr Hendriks publications at http://www.crawford.anu.edu.au/staff/chendriks.php)
Even if Julia Gillard’s offer to lead a debate on climate change is too little, too late, in the overall scheme of the election results, at least it offers a different modus operandi. Clearly, Rudd had not been able to take the people or the Parliament with him and the CPRS died in a ditch.
Tony Abbott at today’s press conference was talking about “kinder, gentler policy”. A bit of dissonance there given that he has been such a head-kicker and has opposed and criticised and demonised for the sake of it.
Julia Gillard’s Citizen’s Assembly proposal is consistent with the calls for a more inclusive form of governance and meaningful engagement with the polity that is one of the strong messages coming out of the election.
Tony Abbott’s glib response that “We already have a citizen’s assembly of 150 people and it’s called the Parliament” ignores the unfortunate reality of the impotence that descends on Parliament when you have an Opposition Leader like him who opposes for the sake of doing so.
Let’s think about this and other forms of deliberative democracy before just jumping on the band-wagon and dismissing it out of hand.
Tigtog’s rational explanation @65 of the pure role of an independent makes me even more pessimistic that these three will be able to navigate between/for one or other of the major suitors.
On the contrary, Tosca, I am a big fan of what some call deliberative polling – which is essentially what the Assembly is. Informing the public to make an informed choice is one of the better parts of democracy, imho.
However, in light of Rudd govt’s 2020 convention, his numerous – ignored – reviews, working groups etc. It’s a bridge too far for me to take it as an article of faith that Gillard was either a) serious about doing it (or doing it seriously) or b) serious about doing anything with it once it was done.
The track record on the Labor govt’s consultation processes is mixed at best. They’re happy to ignore calls for climate action when it’s been patently obvious the community has wanted it for years, why would I expect a citizen’s assembly to change that?
Unity Government “very radical” idea – were has Mr. Abbott lived his life on planet Bot – There appear to be numerous successful Unity Governments in existence today.
As for the comment a unity government will throw accountability out of the window this is absurd for where is the accountability anyway if the Westminster opposition cannot stop any Westminster Government doing what it wants to do.
As Alfred Deakin pointed out in regards the Westminster opposition in England early last century – wasted lives – and as such I will point out so are the vote’s citizens cast to put them there in the first place.
So in reality what Mr. Abbott is saying in his style of Government 50% of the Australian citizens can get lost as far as their aspirations for the future are concerned.
@pablo, I don’t see why you should be pessimistic simply because there won’t be a single suite of policies agreeable to all 3 (or maybe 4). As I said, and I’m now going to emphasise it – there doesn’t have to be. A stable government will be formed as long as they agree to caucus with one of the two majors on matters of Supply. Keeping the machinery ticking over is what makes a stable government, not success with its innovative/reformative legislative agenda. Obviously, any government is keen for success with their legislative agenda because of their eye on their legacy, but getting changes to our laws passed is not what makes a government stable.
These Indies want things. The only way that they get them is with a stable government. They want a stable government even more than you do.
You almost entirely miss the point here Tosca.
There can be few people in this place more enthusiastic than I about deliberative voting. I have persistently advocated sortition plus deliberative voting to select candidates for parliament (along with direct democracy).
But this proposal was wrong all over the place because it
a) demanded unacceptably long delay
AND
b) warranted it on the basis of a want of consensus on the matter, when the consensus has long been plain.
Nor was there any prospect that MPs would have felt bound by the terms of the CA as it has no status at all. The fact that it arose as a JG thought bubble simply underlined what a frivolous sop it was.
Now, if she had suggested such a thing in relation to something about which there is (arguably) something less than a consensus — the Federal state structure, the mining tax, laws on recreational drugs, the Afghan occupation, asylum seekers, gay marriage — then I’d say fair enough. In those circumstances that would be committing to some new set of still controversial policies rather than one which has simply been unreasonably delayed.
But not this. I’m for dumping the idea entirely and in the immortal words from Holy Grail — Get on with it!
Actually, as some one who has ben fiercely critical on LP of Sarah Hanson Young on Q & A in the past, I was quite impressed with her last night. I thought she held her own very well.
‘Clearly, Rudd had not been able to take the people or the Parliament with him…’
Nobody in politics needed to take the people anywhere. We are already there and have been for years, waiting for them to stop pandering to their narrow support groups and jockeying for petty tactical advantage and start looking after the national interest.
And since Abbott is constitutionally incapable of taking climate change seriously, Rudd should have called a double dissolution election to try to resolve the issue.
This is a time for Labor to offer LEADERSHIP, which means articulating the national consensus that already exists and translating it into effective action. Not bleating about ‘belief in climate change’ and setting up great new bureaucracies where the Plimers and Moncktons and the rest of the perpetual delusionist roadshow can get up and do their schtick one more time.
“If an independent from a rural electorate like Oakeshott can push progressive policies, what can’t be done if politicians treat the electorate like adults?”
The problem with party voting discipline is that it makes it very easy for the fossil fuel lobbyists. They only have to have the top people in the party in their pocket and everyone else has to follow. Which is exactly what’s been happening since Howard let them in the door.
I’d like to see the ‘conscience vote’ used far more often on the important issues like Climate Change – in both parties.
Tigtog a@ 72.
Yep.
@4 that was my first thought.
Farming vs mining – food security – is finally emerging (beyond LP, Green and regional circles) as an issue and like Lefty E said again in @8, Oakeshott gets it. It dovetails nicely with climate change as yields drop and fertile farms are displaced by fossil fuels. (Aside: I’ve just located a copy of Gasland to watch, after recently watching ‘Coal Country’ about Mountain Top Removal).
Ute Man said:
Since it’s Wilkie and Labor stalls at 72, I think all this is a bit moot. My guess is that the three Amigos will go with the COALition to cut out the Greens in the Reps and make sure they have a monopoly on leverage.
Gillard has consistently said that we need a price on carbon. If she hasn’t learnt that her climate policy was a problem then she’s thick. If she doesn’t spruce up her act she’s toast.
I don’t think she’s lying. Nor do I think she’s thick. The only other alternative is that she’s impotent, that she couldn’t deliver if she wanted to.
On that I don’t know and I’d humbly submit that no-one else does either. Yes, I’ve read akn’s linked article @ 59.
To be honest it really gives me the shits when people express certainty about stuff they can’t be certain of.
Brian wrote:
Good lord what an interesting choice of words Brian, “impotent” AND “deliver”
The process of elimination you lay out (no, not thick. no, not lying) really only leads to a very narrow conclusion: the choices of not able or not willing. You can be generous and give the ALP “not able” but really, the simpler explanation is “not willing”.
…Guy Pearse puts the case for “not willing”
Ming the Mining companies
Brian said:
They might choose to stay silent of course, but that would be dumb.
Fran, thanks. I thought one spelling and typed another.
Ute man, the primary meaning of “impotent” is powerless, lacking in strength in my dictionary. With “deliver” you have to go to the third meaning before you come to giving birth.
I’m using language as the dictionary specifies. If you wish to mock, I could make some comments about that, but I won’t.
I still think I’ve covered the options. If Gillard’s unwilling, she’s lying.
The Pearse article says:
That’s pretty accurate, I think, as is his notion that the targets are inadequate, on the evidence of what has been done so far. I’ve said plenty elsewhere about how Gillard’s strategy can be interpreted as an attempt to side-step the opposition within and without. Her story is that we need bipartisanship for such a big change.
If it’s a confected story to avoid doing anything it’s worthy of contempt. So far there is only circumstantial evidence of that as a possibility.
This thread is really about something else.
@82 Thanks Ute Man.
The thread is indeed about something else, but just want to cast a vote for Brian here.
I do not see how it is a lay down misere for Gillard to implement a price on carbon – either 6 weeks ago nor in the next three years. (Moot point anyway, as noted, if Abbott becomes PM.)
And repeating that the “Australian public” has long been desirous of a price on carbon does not make it so. Desperately need evidence of that. Did not see it on Saturday.
Tony Windsor ran a mile when questioned directly (on Q&A) about a carbon tax, btw. He’s not the saviour.
Brian, your response to akn, 59, and the Paddy Manning article puzzles me, for one.
My view is, it’s largely accurate, as is akn’s reading of it.
Labor has been purged by the factions of people capable of the educated intellectual capacity and moral fibre to see these claques for what they are.
Who has gone lately?
Tanner, George, Quick, Hurley, Duncan Kerr..
Who has stayed?
Arbib, Farrell, Bitar, Brumby ( who sools his special branch onto anti forestry groups ).
Gillard’s only remaining purpose, as to our community, is to stay around long enough until a Greens led senate can block the worst of Abbott-mania.
Were Australians less apathetic and better informed by our media, they would look to the example of Cameron in Britain: what a shocker!
At the beginning of the election campaign, Gillard said that the government would not be imposing a carbon tax. She said she would leave the carbon price up to the market. I pointed out at the time that the market cannot set a price on carbon. If the market were to create a carbon price, it would be zero. Only the government can set a carbon price, as a tax or a cap (which is effectively a tax). So Gillard’s policy is to have no carbon price, and she doesn’t want a carbon price because that would give a jump-start to a renewables (especially solar thermal) industry, and the coal industry does not want any competition.
We need a price on carbon that is sufficient to give a jump-start to a viable renewables industry.
paul W, the Paddy Manning article is worrying for sure and I don’t know a lot about the relationship with unions and the ALP. But unions as puppeteers is a bit overdone, I think. I’d need more evidence before I accepted that Penny Wong was a plant to make sure that things didn’t get done.
Taylor and Uren in Shitstorm recorded from memory Wong, Albanese, Tanner, Garrett and Combet pushing for action. Taylor and Uren say the decision to deal with the COALition rather than the Greens and spare parts in the Senate was political. That fits with other stuff I know. Which means that the CPRS was always going to be brown and become browner. They really expected the LNP to sign off on it, hence there was no need to explain it to the public. When that fell over and Copenhagen stuffed up they were left with explaining the unexplainable.
Gillard’s idea of taking a longer run at it and renewing the mandate is not without logic. It was just a really bad idea. She had made enough bad judgement calls for it to be worry.
But if she runs a good cabinet meeting, delegates appropriately, she could be a good PM. I do think she has good intentions. I’d recommend you have another look at Mark’s post on Gillardism.
On talent remaining there is some good talent coming through. The ministers I worry about are Kim Carr, Jenny Macklin and, yep, Gillard.
Ferguson seems competent to me. A pity about his denialism. I also worry about how Rudd would go as a minister.
I can mostly agree with Pearse’s article, except for two things. First, the Green vote is one message. There is another in the fact that all states except Qld and WA returned over 50% Labor members. In Qld it looks like 8 out of 30 in WA 3 out of 15.
I don’t know what to make of that but I’m fairly sure the main story is not the Greens and climate change.
Also I don’t buy the ‘coal miners changed the PM’ schtick without real evidence.
BTW the Labor front bench is streets ahead of the gaggle on the other side.
Brian, I think the word “formations” is fair enough.
In Tassie we had a crude amalgam of tories, labor, big business, Murdoch and civil servants get at the Tasmanian timber resurces and ecosystem, culminating in the ugly interference of Lennon on behalf of these interests, against science and economics, not just the Greens.
By the mid nineties, the time was ripe for Howard to interfere, as he did, by upholding the reactionary wing of labor, as to forestry both in Tassie and Vic, thru the rotten regional forestry agreementspartly to ensure that the formation did not become too powerful and because he wanted a stake in whatever was going down himself. Think of his chief toady in Tasmania; the execrable Eric Abetz
No doubt about it, circumstances drove industries like forestry and labor into each others arms as a means for survival and probably graft eventually. Labor can’t rely on traditional capital for funding, so sought out arrangements involving industry unions in industries like forestry and I can understand why.
But when a state like Queensland grinds to a halt, or now the entire country, because the governing individuals are too beholden to certain interests, we have to conclude that the tail now wags the dog, against the interests of the rest of us.