Tag Archive for 'Penny Wong'

Garrett’s job shrinks again

According to ABC News:

Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett has been stripped of responsibility for the household insulation scheme and other energy efficiency programs.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has announced he is establishing a separate, stand-alone department for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

The department will be headed by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, but her assistant minister, Greg Combet, will be given direct responsibility for winding up the insulation program and rolling out its replacement.

Discuss away.

Climate change and the coasts

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has given a speech in Adelaide at the first forum designed to address the impact of climate change on Australia’s coasts. This is part of a broader programme of adaptation planning, and this particular meeting follows last year’s report on Climate Change Risks to Australia’s Coasts and the establishment of a Coasts and Climate Change Council headed by Tim Flannery.

That Council has recently released its prelimary conclusions.

Wong’s speech is significant for a number of reasons, including the fact that she rebuts the denialist criticisms of the IPCC in detail. As Gary Sauer-Thompson observes:

…development around the Australian coast assumes that sea level and storm events would function as they have in the past and our housing estates, business sites and public utilities have been designed as if the coastline and tidal levels would not change. Such assumptions are no longer valid. The Australian, of course, is not convinced.

Elsewhere: Deltoid [Brian]

Department of Climate Change analysis of Coalition policy

… The text can be accessed here [link to pdf].

Breaking the CPRS deadlock

Almost two weeks ago, I suggested that something positive might come of The Greens’ suggestion that Ross Garnaut’s interim measure on carbon emissions should be the circuit breaker for the CPRS impasse.

In the intervening period, I’ve been surprised that so little attention has been paid to the negotiations between Senator Penny Wong and Senator Christine Milne on behalf of The Greens, which began last week. I’ve sought to emphasise that there are possibilities of Senate passage via a Liberal floor crosser (perhaps Judith Troeth, who is retiring) and Nick Xenophon. In any event, I’ve argued that there are political benefits for Labor in staking out a new position which could demonstrate the desire for immediate action, and perhaps take a different bill to a double dissolution.

Perhaps it’s inevitable that the media would ignore these developments, but I’ve also been surprised at the attitude of a number of commenters on several threads, which seems to assume that Labor’s posture is somehow frozen in stone.

So, in light of all this, I was very interested indeed to hear Bob Brown give a very articulate and well argued interview to Tony Jones on Lateline tonight where he discussed these negotiations, and revealed that he had also been talking to other non-Government Senators.

Why Rudd needs the CPRS to be passed

It’s become something of a race to the finish between the Liberal leadership spill and the CPRS’ passage through the Senate. I haven’t seen much discussion out there of the implications of a defeat for the ETS bill. Those who are assuming that Rudd wins either way might want to think again. If the anti-Turnbull forces succeed in derailing the CPRS in the Senate, Rudd could indeed call a double dissolution election. As I understand it, he would have to go to it on the basis of the unamended bill. Or present the amended bill another time early in the new year. At this stage, if the CPRS – as amended by the Wong/Macfarlane negotiations gets through – he has the best of both worlds. He can square the circle between claiming to be on the right side of the climate change policy equation and satisfying big business and whispering to voters in coal seats that the timelines have been pushed out, and compensation increased. So he gets both green (if not Green) and brown votes… While pointing to Liberal insanity.

The politics becomes more challenging if the Libs change leaders, particularly to Joe Hockey, and the CPRS bill is defeated. The Libs will then run on “job destroying new tax”, and while Hockey would have to explain why he was for an ETS one day and against it the next, they’re likely to play down the denialism and go with the supposed economic arguments.

Interesting times.

D-Day for the Liberals? (And the government’s CPRS giveaway)

The Coalition are continuing their marathon climate change/leadership party room meeting after question time today. Clearly, agreement couldn’t be reached within the scheduled four hours. That’s significant in itself.

In developments so far, Andrew Robb has jumped ship, reports Bernard Keane at The Stump.

The government has made its offer on the Coalition amendments. Peter Martin has the text of Rudd’s press release. Writing in New Matilda, Ben Eltham characterises the deal thus:

Billions more taxpayer dollars will be sacrificed on the altar of making the emissions trading scheme palatable for big polluters.

It’s impossible to see this ‘bipartisan’ deal as anything other than a huge transfer from the household sector to the polluters, and one which, at least in the short term, will do nothing much to reduce emissions. The argument in favour is that it should be supported to lock in business and parts of the Coalition, in the hope that it can be improved over time. The argument against ‘pass now, improve later’ is put by Senator Christine Milne at GreensBlog.

In today’s Crikey, Bernard Keane described the CPRS as the worst ever policy process this country has seen. It’s a textbook example, as well, of how politics can completely derail the ostensible intent of a piece of legislation, except insofar as it continues to provide the government with a talking point or two on the actual issue (and that’s not much of an exception!)… So all eyes in the commentariat will now doubt be on the implications for the Liberal leadership. Ludicrous outcomes such as a Kevin Andrews ascension are probably outside the realms of likelihood, but then who knows with this mob?

The issue has certainly crystallised almost all the ructions within the Liberals and between the Nats and moderate Liberals. Continued resentment of defeat, the counter-productive relationship with the media, the tendency to tear down any leader who won’t play the right wing game in all its purity and nuttiness, self-delusion about electoral politics. It’s all there. And none of it is remotely rational in a political sense, or any other.

More to come later…

UPDATE [Ben Eltham]: Sky News is reporting that Wilson Tuckey has moved a leadership spill motion …

Update [Mark]: Tuckey’s leadership spill suggestion failed. Perhaps he shouldn’t rely on The Australian for an assessment of numbers within the Liberal party room.

Update [Mark]: The farce continues, as Coalition members get angsty over whether the meeting should adjourn for a dinner break.

Update [Mark]: I suspect what’s going on now is they’re trying to work out what spin to put on an outcome which is completely chaotic, because both sides disagree as to what happened. If Turnbull, as leader, says that the meeting has decided to accept the deal, it seems to me that all they can do if they don’t agree is to take up Kevin Andrews’ kind offer and make him leader. Or Andrew Robb. Or Tony Abbott or someone. But all the blather about legitimacy surely is just hot air, unless they’re prepared to actually dispense with Turnbull.

Update: Turnbull is giving a press conference, pointing to his strong leadership, and claiming that he’s saved jobs. The Twitter buzz might be as good as place as any to follow what’s going on.

Update: SBS makes about as much sense as anyone could out of the result of the meeting.

Update: What Turnbull should do now.

Road to Nowhere II

You really have to feel a bit sorry for Malcolm Turnbull. Any chance he had of representing himself as leading a party enlightened on the policy response to climate change is gone completely, no matter what happens in tomorrow’s party room debate on the amendments negotiated between Ian Macfarlane and Penny Wong.

Tonight’s Lateline had the New South Wales National Senator, John Williams, orating about “global control” and declaiming “carbon is not a pollutant”. Then we saw Kevin Andrews, of all people, in effect refusing to rule out a leadership bid. Very hard to say which is more insane…

Earlier on LP: Previous post and discussion on the politics of the Liberals’ divisions over the CPRS.

Update: D-Day developments covered here.

Road to nowhere

In the wake of his avowal of climate change denialism on Four Corners, Nick Minchin has spent the second last week of the Parliamentary year stoking the fires of Coalition opposition to the CPRS. Tony Abbott, previously a ’skeptic’ who argued that the opposition should nevertheless support the legislation to remove a political headache for the Liberals, has now turned tail, claiming “the politics have changed”.

In some quarters of the Coalition, the news that Copenhagen is unlikely to see a legally binding deal agreed has been seized on to claim that there is less political risk in voting against the legislation. Key here are the amendments Ian Macfarlane is negotiating with Penny Wong. If the shadow cabinet recommends acceptance of an amended bill, the legislation will likely pass despite masses of Liberal Senators and all the Nationals voting against it. So the Liberal right has been raising the bar for the negotiation process to ‘all or nothing’ – a position the government is hardly likely to adopt.

The open rumblings have now been spun to imply that opposition unity needs to be secured at all costs, and that it would be disastrous if the Nationals walked away from the Coalition entirely over the CPRS. (But would it?)

What are the implications of all this?

Continue reading ‘Road to nowhere’

Penny Wong the climate science sceptic

Dr Richard Denniss from The Australia Institute writing in today’s Crikey [reproduced with permission]:

Like most parliamentarians, Penny Wong, the Minister for Climate Change, is a climate sceptic. Of course she prefers to use that term to describe those who ignore the overwhelming science about the causes of climate change, but yet she ignores those same scientists when it comes to deciding what to do about climate change.

The science says that we need to reduce emissions by about 40% by 2020 if we want even a 50% chance of avoiding dangerous climate change. Wong has ignored that advice in setting the targets for her so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) and in developing Australia’s negotiating position for the upcoming talks at Copenhagen.

Imagine the following situation. You observe increasingly worrying changes in your body’s behaviour so you consult a doctor. The doctor diagnoses a serious illness, but assures you that with a long dose of drugs with some nasty side effects, you have a 90% chance of pulling through. You seek a second opinion, which confirms the diagnosis and the prescribed course of treatment. Both doctors remind you that there is some chance that their diagnosis might be wrong and that there is no guarantee that the cure will work. What would you do?

Those with an interest in evidence-based medicine would most likely take the pills, wear the side effects and hope for the best.

But the sceptics have got two options: ignore the diagnosis or ignore the prescription. When it comes to climate change, Wong is clearly the second kind of sceptic.

Continue reading ‘Penny Wong the climate science sceptic’

The Greens’ CPRS amendments

I haven’t had a chance to look at the amendments The Greens are putting forward to the emissions trading scheme bills. But Ben Eltham has, and his verdict has been published at New Matilda:

As the climate change debate rumbles on towards a possible denouement in Copenhagen, it’s comforting that at least one of Australia’s political parties is taking the issue seriously.

You can read the whole article here.

Corporatism, Rudd style

Lots could be said about the politics of the CPRS backdown, and no doubt lots of people are saying lots. Good for The Greens? An issue for a double dissolution? Issue management a la KRudd? Greg Combet positioning himself as a fixer who can persuade the industry lobbyists Penny Wong couldn’t?

But what’s the real issue, here, politically?

Norman Abjorensen puts his finger on it:

The real losers, however, are the environment and the people. A less obvious, but equally important, loser in all of this is our increasingly enfeebled democracy – once again trashed by the corporate juggernaut. This just one more example of what the American political scientist, Carl Boggs, has called the corporate colonisation of society. A deal has been struck between self-interested business elites and a supposedly representative government that has effectively capitulated: the public – and the public interest – have simply been excluded from the equation.

We must start to ask the question: whose society is it? Theirs or ours? It was Aristotle who first promoted the idea that that people were designed by nature to live and be active in the polis. The polis, as society, existed only for the sake of “the good life.”

Where is it now?

UN climate negotiations – what’s going on?

Poznan looks like a rather pleasant city to visit. That’s handy, because there’s a fair chance that Penny Wong and the rest of the Australian delegation might have some time on their hands. As The Guardian notes in this handy Q&A, the negotiations are in somewhat of a holding pattern while George W. Bush waddles off the damn stage:

So what will happen at Poznan?

Perhaps not much. Countries will be unwilling to commit to anything until they have seen how the new US administration are likely to act on climate. Insiders say that means little genuine progress on agreeing new carbon cuts can be expected until the middle of next year.

Even given that, however, the behaviour of the Australian government in the lead-up to the conference has been worrying. Continue reading ‘UN climate negotiations – what’s going on?’

In politics, don’t ask questions…

…unless you already know and like the answers you’re going to get. You’d reckon that the Opposition might have learned its lesson on that. It seems like they might need another one, given their response to the impending release of the Treasury modeling on the economic effects of the ETS:

Mr Robb says the Government must include recent global events before it finalises the scheme in its White Paper by the end of the year.

“We will be demanding that the White Paper is not released until such time as the Government has made some attempt to assess the impact of this financial meltdown around the world,” he said.

Well, the government could have done that, but Robb probably wouldn’t have liked answers when they came back.
Continue reading ‘In politics, don’t ask questions…’

Open Garnaut Review report thread

It’s out today. LP bloggers will have more during the day as it’s digested, but here’s an open thread for instant analysis and commentary. Please also feel free to link in comments to other posts or articles.

By way of preview, a number of climate scientists have released an open letter to Kevin Rudd (text here):

The Garnaut Review concluded that an emission reduction target for Australia of 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 would be an equitable contribution to the international effort required to achieving this outcome. As a group of Australia’s leading climate change scientists, we urge you to adopt this target as the minimum requirement for Australia’s contribution to an effective global climate agreement.

In Crikey yesterday, Bernard Keane contrasted the apocalyptic prophesies of doom emanating from business with the rather lame reality of the government’s proposals to date.

Nightmare stuff. Imagine how bad it would be the Government had actually proposed a serious effort to reduce our carbon emissions?

As Keane notes in another article, the release of the Treasury modelling today:

should provide a welcome corrective to much of the hysteria generated by modelling commissioned by rentseeking industry groups.

Keane also observes that Garnaut will be talking about adaptation strategies and costs in this report as well.

Note: Related post from dk.au on public opinion, polls and climate change.

Update: The report has now been released and can be downloaded from here.

Update: From Crikey, Bernard Keane on Garnaut at a glance and Clive Hamilton on politics trumping science.

Elsewhere [dk.au]: Barry Brooks is also running an open thread at his blog Climate Dilemma [ht: Peter Wood in comments]

Joshua Gans comments on Chapter 14 (TEEIIs) which he argues is “dramatically superior” to the Green Paper solution of free permits. He also renews his call for border adjustment taxes:

In my opinion, it would be better to bite the bullet and, at least for imports, assess the carbon cost of those imports and tax them. This will get the price signals right and also put pressure on trading partners to put in their own emissions trading schemes so as to avoid that tax.

Climate change and electoral politics

There’s lots more interesting stuff in this report at Australian Policy Online about two exit polls taken at the time of the 2007 federal election (and the AES), but this might be a relevant thing for Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong and the ALP to remember in the context of the emissions trading scheme and international negotiations on climate change response:

Industrial relations and global warming were key issues for the Labor voters who took part in all three polls, with two of the polls revealing that global warming was the prime concern among voters who changed their vote between the 2004 and 2007 elections.