The first Roy Morgan face-to-face poll in a fortnight shows Labor’s two party lead down from 61-39 to 59-41. Labor’s primary vote is down 1.5 per cent to 50 per cent, while the Coalition’s is up 3 per cent to 36.5 per cent. Possum detects a negative correlation between Morgan’s sample sizes and Coalition primary vote. I would observe that there are two clusters of sample sizes, around 900 and 1800, depending on whether the poll was from one weekend of polling or two (the latter being the case on this occasion). Perhaps the correlation tells us something about how Morgan decides whether to sit on its results for another week (conspiracy theories ahoy).
Elsewhere:
• Tune in for live coverage tomorrow night as voters in three of Tasmania’s 15 Legislative Council districts go to the polls. Independent Ivan Dean, who was approached by John Howard to run in Bass at the 2004 federal election, faces a strong challenge from independent competitors in Windermere, which covers outer Launceston and the eastern side of the Tamar Valley. The retirement of independent Norma Jamieson has produced a tight four-horse race in the Devonport seat of Mersey, the field including Jamieson’s daughter Carolynn. Bartlett government Treasurer Michael Aird is unlikely to be troubled in his bid to keep Derwent (outer Hobart and Derwent Valley) as one of four upper house seats held by Labor. In the regrettably unlikely event that you wish to discuss this, please do so on the dedicated thread. Further reading from Peter Tucker at Tasmanian Politics. Further coverage tomorrow from Antony Green.
• Gary Clark, husband of former MP Jackie Kelly, has been found guilty for his role in the Lindsay pamphlet scandal. This was for the benign-sounding charge of “distributing unauthorised electoral material”, which carries a fine of $750. Former Liberal powerbroker Jeff Egan was acquitted, the court accepting his explanation that he was not aware of the content of the pamphlets. Not content with that, Egan has launched a private prosecution (presumably because his complaints have failed to interest the authorities) for assault against the Labor “possé” who caught the Liberal trio in their act, which includes Senator Steve Hutchins.
• Michelle Grattan of The Age reports that Josh Freydenberg has provided a formidable pair of referees in his application for the Liberals’ Kooyong preselection: John Howard and Andrew Peacock (the latter of whom held the seat from 1966 to 1994, in between Bob Menzies and Petro Georgiou).
• The Warrnambool Standard reports that Sarah Henderson, former host of The 7:30 Report and daughter of former state MP Ann Henderson, has entered the crowded field for the preselection in Corangamite. Others mentioned include former Kennett government minister Ian Smith; Graham Harris, head of the Liberals’ Corangamite electorate council; Victorian Farmers Federation president Simon Ramsay; “Internet expert and former Howard government adviser” Rod Nockles; Simon Price, unsuccessful Colac Otway Shire Council candidate and former electorate officer to Stewart McArthur; and Michael King, “Geelong businessman and owner of Kings Australia funeral services”.
• Peter Brent of Mumble comments on the audacity of Liberal Senator Michael Ronaldson expressing concern about the electoral roll in an excellent piece for Inside Story.
• After being reduced to the deadly third position on the Liberal ticket, conservative Tasmanian Senator Guy Barnett reportedly has his eyes on Bass, which Labor’s Jodie Campbell won from Michael Ferguson in 2007.
• If you thought Possum’s booth maps was dope, wait till you see Nathan Lambert’s Google Earth files.
567 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 » Show All
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25425382-29277,00.html
Yo ho ho
Yes all that plus:
5. Major emitters get 95% permits for 5 years (till 2016)
So before 2016 the only effect will be for energy suppliers to make one last great price gouge out of we domestic consumers, because they won’t actually change anything. Meanwhile if we install any solar panels they get to pollute more.
GP 330 is correct IMO.
Last week Milne was on PM Agenda sticking to their demands for 40% cuts?
Socrates. As I have said before, I’m not the ALP, and nothing I say here should be taken as reflecting ALP policy. Nor should questions for the ALP or the Rudd government be directed to me.
I’m not aware that “the objective of Labor is to not lose any jobs in the coal industry.” A long-term shift to a low-carbon economy must entail job losses in coal mining in Australia as elsewhere. Obviously no government wants to cause job losses anywhere in the middle of a global recession. The aluminium industry does not employ a huge number of people but it earns nearly $6bn a year in exports. It can’t just be shut down. “ETS schemes that are only designed to save votes and the CFMEU” is a stupid statement as I’m sure you know. If Rudd wanted to take the easy course he would do nothing at all, using the GFC as a pretext. There are many more votes to lose than to gain for Labor in this.
I believe this issue has been addressed in today’s statement. Details in our next bulletin.
The next election will not be fought on the 2007 election issues. Also, you’re assuming a large proportion of voters had a sophisticated knowledge of the Coalition’s climate change policy and that they based/changed their vote accordingly. I doubt this is the case. I’d imagine the perception back then was that Howard wanted to do nothing on climate change.
Now, to me, it would make little political sense for the Opposition to fully support such a major policy. I’d imagine whatever the Government comes up with they’ll attempt to create something to scare the masses and then pose themselves as the saviours.
Vera – I gave up reading Grattan a few months ago. The Age has changed and so has she Even her sessions with Fran Kelly on RN reflect more of Malcolm Turnbull’s line than previously. Perhaps she is trying to keep her job altho I did wonder if Kev had upset her in some way.
Can’t see Turnbull not agreeing to the CPRs changes. He seems to be getting a lot of business people offside lately. If they are happy with their consultations with the Govt then Turnbull needs to be a bit careful. He can’t put up all the money for the next election surely.
I blame the Greens. They should’ve backed the original policy the day it was released. This would’ve placed enormous pressure on Xenophon and Fielding.
I’ll wait with interest to see if all the bloggers say about this after we get the details. I will especially be interested to see the views of those who provided high-level sophistry to explain why Rudd’s first ETS was right and that Socrates and I were wrong about individual effort being ignored in ETS Mark 1.
BH, I listen to Grattan on RN most mornings, and that is just nonsense. She is a model of fairness and balance, to the point of tedium sometimes. I’m supposed to be the Labor partisan hack around here, but some people here just seem incapable of accepting that it’s the media’s job to scrutinise the government. Journalists who give Rudd a hard time are doing their job. (I don’t include News Ltd commentators in that, of course).
Somehow I doubt the Greens support base would’ve been too happy.
Dio – what is the reaction to the ‘bag ban’ in SA. Are the stores still allowed to charge for plastic or are they banned completely.
When we were there last year our rellies didn’t seem to mind not getting plastic bags in Coles. In fact, they were racing in to get just a couple of items and carrying them out in their hands.
The Greens have now suddenly shifted from 40% to 25%. They have realised what a huge mistake they made by giving the impression that they would never compromise on 40%, forcing Rudd to give ground to pass the CPRS in any form. Now they want to come to the party but it’s too late.
Andrew and BH, yep we got a bland old media here, all copying each other saying the same things. Getting hard to see any difference between ABC Online and Newltd?
Adam
If the changes mean the contributions from private individuals voluntarily reducing their emissions are taken into account then I will be much more pleased, though the 95% free permits for 5 years still sticks in the craw. I can accept the logic of starting slow and ramping up, but not letting the worst offenders off scott-free.
Nope Adam – she has changed. I have admired her for years but there is a definite difference.
Altho I admit there are mornings when she does correct Fran on her misguided interpretations of what is happening. I think Fran Kelly takes her opinions directly from the front pages of news ltd. and on my darn 8c a day, too.
Too right Vera – I feel sorry for the rubbish our kids will be fed when the responsible journos have gone.
Kev & Co wil have to eat crow about changing the date – the headlines will all be that the Libs were right.
Sure, but it means a massive increase in carbon prices after that period.
This is a mistake. The longer we delay getting the system working, the harder the changes will have to be in 5 years time. It means the price of carbon will be kept ridiculously low for a long time, which will then mean massive increases after that period, instead of letting the market set the price.
Except the Libs were advocating their ‘delay’ before the GFC came about
…and not for that reason
Three Wong press releases
A NEW TARGET FOR REDUCING AUSTRALIA’S CARBON POLLUTION
The Rudd Government has today committed to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution by 25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 if the world agrees to an ambitious global deal to stabilise levels of CO2 equivalent at 450 parts per million or lower by mid century.
This new commitment follows extensive consultation with environment advocates on the best way to maximise Australia’s contribution to an ambitious outcome in international negotiations at Copenhagen this December.
If the world achieves this agreement, Australia will meet this 25 per cent target by harnessing the CPRS, the expanded Renewable Energy Target, and with substantial investment in clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency and strategic investment in carbon capture and storage.
Up to 5 percentage points of this target could be met by purchasing international credits, such as avoided deforestation credits, using CPRS revenue no earlier than 2015.
In the White Paper, the Rudd Government emphasised clearly that an ambitious agreement to stabilise levels of CO2 equivalent at 450 parts per million or lower by mid century would be squarely in Australia’s national interest.
At that time, we committed Australia to playing its full and fair part in an agreement, but assessed prospects for such an ambitious deal in the near term were challenging.
Since then, international developments have improved prospects.
The Obama administration has already injected a great deal of confidence in the process through its unambiguous commitment to play a leading role in global efforts to limit climate change.
President Obama has reinforced his election commitments to mid and long term carbon pollution reduction goals and to introduce an emissions trading system similar to the CPRS.
His Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate is helping drive progress in UN negotiations for a global agreement.
The United Kingdom has also recently announced a strengthening of its 2020 target for reducing carbon pollution.
Nevertheless, achieving an ambitious global agreement will still be very tough.
It will require a significant further shift in negotiating dynamics so that all advanced and major developing economies take serious action to restrain and then reduce emissions.
The Government will retain its White Paper target range of:
• an unconditional commitment to reduce carbon pollution by 5 per cent by 2020; and
• a commitment to reduce carbon pollution by 15 per cent by 2020 if there is an agreement where major developing economies commit to substantially restrain emissions and advanced economies take on commitments comparable to Australia’s.
A Ratification Review will be established in addition to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) Process to assess whether the terms of any global agreement meet the conditions set out for Australia to adopt the 25 per cent target.
Should the world achieve this ambitious agreement, the Government would seek a new election mandate for increased 2050 targets.
Crucially, this new target reinforces the need to secure passage of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme this year.
Australia cannot responsibly sign up to targets without a means to deliver them.
The attached documents set out the conditionality for Australia’s targets and the terms of the Ratification Review.
CANBERRA
4 MAY 2009
CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME: SUPPORT IN MANAGING THE IMPACT OF THE GLOBAL RECESSION
The Rudd Government will delay the start of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme by one year to help Australian companies manage the impacts of the global recession.
Australian businesses are currently dealing with the worst global recession since the great depression.
In this environment the Government has decided to act to further support jobs and assist businesses during these difficult economic times:
• A one year fixed price phase will apply between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2012. During the fixed price phase, each carbon pollution permit will cost $10. From 1 July 2012, businesses covered by the scheme will need to purchase permits at the prevailing market price.
• A new Global Recession Buffer will be provided as part of the assistance package for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries.
• Eligible businesses will receive funding to undertake energy efficiency measures in 2009-10 as part of a $200 million tranche of the Climate Change Action Fund.
CPRS start deferred to 2011 and permit price fixed at $10 for one year
To allow the Australian economy more time to recover from the impacts of the global recession, the CPRS will commence on 1 July 2011 with a one-year fixed price phase.
During the fixed-price phase, an unlimited number of permits will be issued to liable companies at a price of $10 per tonne.
Fixed-price permits from the first year will not be able to be banked for use in later periods.
The expanded Renewable Energy Target will be in place as planned from 2010 to drive investment in Australia’s vast renewable energy resources.
To encourage carbon pollution reductions before the scheme starts, reforestation will be eligible to voluntarily generate permits for carbon stored from 1 July 2010, creating economic opportunities in regional Australia.
A price cap will apply from commencement of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, with the 5-year EITE review to look at whether the price cap should continue into the future.
A number of other changes have been made to the EITE assistance program, including to the terms of the five-yearly EITE review (see Attachment A).
Global Recession Buffer
An additional Global Recession Buffer will be provided for emissions-intensive trade-exposed (EITE) industries for the first five years of the Scheme.
This Buffer will provide an additional 5 per cent free permits for EITE activities eligible for 90 per cent assistance, giving an effective rate of assistance of almost 95 per cent to these highly emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities in the first year of the scheme.
The Buffer will provide an additional 10 per cent free permits for EITE activities eligible for 60 per cent assistance, giving an effective rate of assistance of 66 per cent to these moderately emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities in the first year of the scheme.
Rates of assistance will decline at a rate of 1.3 per cent per year, in line with the Carbon Productivity Contribution set out in the White Paper.
Support through the Climate Change Action Fund
The Government has allocated up to $200 million to the Climate Change Action Fund in 2009-10 to support businesses and community organisations that do not receive EITE assistance, but do have significant energy costs, to take action to reduce carbon pollution through energy efficiency before the scheme starts.
The $200 million tranche of the Climate Change Action Fund for 2009-10 will include:
? $20 million for a business information package to provide advice to businesses on how the CPRS will work and what impacts and opportunities may arise.
? up to $100 million for Early Action Energy Efficiency Strategies for Business, including energy audits and capital investment.
? $80 million for capital investment grants for businesses and community organisations.
Together, these measures will help businesses cope with the global recession while making a contribution to Australia’s comprehensive climate change response.
CANBERRA
4 MAY 2009
MINISTER WONG’S OFFICE (02) 6277 7920
ATTACHMENT A
EITE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The CPRS legislation will include an ‘aims’ clause which directly relates the EITE assistance program to the impact of the scheme on the international competitiveness of EITE activities.
When conducting their five-yearly EITE reviews, the Expert Advisory Committee will consider the following issues (amending and building on the position in the White Paper):
(a) the review of eligibility assessment for activities (e.g. taking into account falls in commodity prices etc as outlined in policy position 12.8 in the White Paper);
(b) whether modifications should be made to the EITE assistance program on the basis of whether it continues to be consistent with the rationale for assistance or is conferring windfall gains on entities conducting activities;
(c) the extent to which the Scheme has resulted in an increase in the cost of electricity and the extent of pass through to EITEs;
(d) the extent to which EITE firms are making progress towards world’s best practice energy and emissions efficiency for their industry sector;
(e) the future shape of the permit price cap, recognising the need to balance the development of market mechanisms and business certainty;
(f) international developments, including the extent to which Australia has entered international agreements, tangible emissions abatement commitments have been made by countries which compete with EITE industries, and major partners or competing countries have introduced carbon constraints into their own economies; and
(g) whether broadly comparable carbon constraints (whether imposed through an explicit carbon price or by other regulatory measures) are applying internationally, at either an industry or economy-wide level, or an international agreement involving Australia and all major emitting economies is concluded, in which case the Committee would make recommendations to Government with regard to the withdrawal of EITE assistance; this assessment will draw on analysis by an independent expert body (initially the Productivity Commission) of quantitative measures of carbon prices or shadow carbon prices in major economies.
Five years’ notice will be provided for any modifications to the EITE assistance program, unless the modifications were required for compliance with Australia’s international trade obligations.
The continuation of the Global Recession Buffer beyond five years will be reviewed in light of domestic and international economic conditions and other relevant factors.
HELPING ALL AUSTRALIANS DO THEIR BIT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
The Rudd Government will establish the Australian Carbon Trust to help all Australians to do their bit to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution and to drive energy efficiency in commercial buildings and businesses.
The Government will also take into account the contribution of individual households that purchase accredited GreenPower in setting Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme caps.
The $75.8 million Australian Carbon Trust will incorporate:
• a $50 million Energy Efficiency Trust, and
• a $25.8 million Energy Efficiency Savings Pledge Fund.
Australian Carbon Trust – Energy Efficiency Savings Pledge Fund
A new website will provide a one-stop shop for individuals and households to simply calculate their energy use and buy and retire carbon pollution permits under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Because the Pledge Fund will pool pledges, even small amounts can combine to make a big difference.
Households and individuals will be able to pledge as little or as much as they can afford to reduce carbon pollution.
The Pledge Fund will be entirely voluntary and contributions to the Pledge Fund will be tax deductible.
Australian Carbon Trust – Energy Efficiency Trust
The Government will provide $50 million in seed funding for an Energy Efficiency Trust to promote energy efficiency in the business sector.
The Trust will work by putting proposals to businesses to undertake energy efficiency measures that will save money over time.
The Trust would cover upfront capital costs of undertaking energy efficiency investments and put in place arrangements for business to repay the capital costs at a commercial rate as energy cost savings flow through.
For example, the Trust could identify lighting improvements in a business that would cost $2 million to undertake. The Trust would cover this $2 million cost, with the business contributing nothing upfront. The business would then pass the energy cost savings from the lighting improvements back to the Trust at a commercial rate until the full $2 million with interest is paid back to the Trust. Once the upfront capital is paid back, the business keeps the ongoing cost savings.
The Trust ensures participating businesses save money without having to tie up any capital.
The Trust also earns a solid rate of return on its investments and demonstrates to other businesses that energy efficiency pays dividends.
The Australian Carbon Trust will be developed in collaboration with the Carbon Trust in the United Kingdom, which is a leader in working with business to cut carbon and develop commercial low carbon technologies.
Supporting individual action through GreenPower
Many households, businesses and community organisations purchase accredited GreenPower to increase the supply of renewable energy and help Australia make the transition to a low pollution future.
As part of the new measures announced today, additional GreenPower purchases above 2009 levels will be directly recognised when the Government sets caps under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Additional GreenPower purchases will be measured annually and future caps will be tightened on a rolling basis.
The Rudd Government has listened to Australian households who have raised concerns that their individual efforts to reduce emissions will not be adequately taken into account under the CPRS.
CANBERRA
4 MAY 2009
Well there you go…
OH FFS! The Opposition still won’t support the CPRS.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25426549-29277,00.html
So WHY ON EARTH did the government propose the changes? They should’ve only proposed changes that they KNEW would be able to pass parliament.
Couldn’t you just copypasta the links instead?
I don’t have them as links. They’re not at Wong’s website yet. You are getting them in advance.
You think the Greens dropping their target to 25% today as well was a coincidence?
And how are they supposed to know that in advance? Turnbull appears intent on opposing any scheme at all. The Greens may now come on board, but that won’t be enough to pass the bill.
Adam I agree with BH, Grattan has CHANGED. I too have always admired her balance, particularly leading up to the last election when Howard’s cheersquad was screaming the loudest. But lately she seems to take up the Lib talking points quite freely and doesnt seem to include the caveats of the poll situation. Eg. she wrote tha Rudd was feeling the heat about China- WOW, the polls show 58/42, that’s some HEAT Michelle
The Defence Department and AusAID announced that they have signed a cooperation agreement last Thursday:
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=9033
The press release is pretty light on for detail.
Radio Australia covered the announcement:
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/200904/s2556941.htm
It isn’t very clear what the repercussions of this cooperation might be for either agency.
On one hand, this is good news for those who see international development assistance as a corollary to Australia’s strategic interests. Stability in our region is an important foundation to preventing conflicts on our doorstep, and social and economic development play an important part in ensuring such stability.
However it is possible that such cooperation could undermine the credibility of our international development assistance. If countries and communities are more likely to accept aid that is at least perceptively free from such strategic objectives, but suspicious of Australia’s intentions in other more defence oriented objectives, closer ties between the departments could have our aid program perceived as a stalking horse.
It would be interesting to know how this agreement is intended to be implemented. Will it have an impact on program support decisions by AusAID? If it does, is that necessarily such a bad thing?
Sorry to drag us back to this from Glen, but it has a touch of gold about it:
This is, of course, the only thing that the Liberal Party has ever consistently stood for. It is the reason that Free Trade and Protectionists combined into the first Liberal Party, and the reason that the anti-Labor parties reformed the Liberal Party in the 40s.
This highlights why the Liberal Party in Opposition is always a shambles. Whenever pressed to stand for something, as opposed to simple opposition for its own sake, their internal divisions become apparent. Even in government they have a hard time maintaining a consisted policy position, witness the immigration debate.
This is also why Turnbull’s safest ground is pure opposition – it’s the only line that’s guaranteed to keep his unruly party somewhat unified.
Good to see that the Government has taken up my suggestion and been out more aggressively promoting the increased ability of individuals to make a contribution to cutting GHGs under an ETS.
As I said before, under an ETS, for about $100 per year, we each can reduce Australia’s emissions by 4 tonnes, which is the same amount as a solar panel will do. Furthermore, there is no limit on how much pollution we can save, even going greatly negative in our individual contributions, except our own wealth and priorities.
Can’t do that under a carbon tax system.
Turnbull is offside with business yet again.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-business/business-backs-changes-to-ets-20090504-asa5.html
Caroline Overington is ecstatic.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/coverington/index.php
The only trouble is, is that he now says he will not support it which means he has just negated any electoral support benefit he could have gained by the Government’s backdown. 65% of people support an ETS.
Exactly. Overington is an idiot.
Talking about “own goals”!!!!
If they had an own goals Olympics, then Turnbull would be shoe-in for the gold medal.
Turnbull has a problem. The Newspapers will credit him for the changes, as will the door stop journalists. So just how does he oppose them then without looking like a political opportunist and economically wreckless? He has been backed into a corner, one that has only one way out.
I have to say, most of the mainstream media has analysed this completely incorrectly. The only journo to get it right so far has been Keane. The line is that this is some kind of olive branch to The Greens.
Bob Brown is apparently about to have (or just had) a press conference so his position will be clear imminently, but it’s fairly obvious to me (and Keane) and the changes are far less a capitulation to The Greens and far more a cave-in to some of the demands of the Libs and industry. AIG is applauding this move. Why would they applaud a move that is shift towards The Greens?
The only “Green shift” in this new proposal is a higher potential target, that’s still at the very bottom of what The Greens want. Everything else is what industry wants and virtually the opposite of what The Greens were asking for. The Greens don’t want the scheme delayed, industry wants it delayed – it’s delayed. The Greens don’t want big polluters to get exemptions, industry wants more exemptions – they get more exemptions. The Greens don’t want a low carbon price, industry wants a low carbon price – there’s a low carbon price. Not to mention the other criticisms The Greens made regarding less investment in RE etc.
Given that virtually all the changes were what Turnbull (as a proxy for the big polluters) wanted and only one could be called (dubiously) a tilt towards The Greens it’s fairly obvious to me who the hand was extended too.
Turnbull is an idiot. He probably got suckered in by The Australian’s spin that this was a Greens appeasement tactic.
Rudd virtually took on board all of Turnbull’s points. The fool should have said “See, we were right all along, Rudd’s doing what we wanted so we’ll support it”.
I think CO jumped in a bit quick on this one trying to save her job by getting a head start on her colleges. Bad mistake girl. Shoen up especially by her response to a commenter.
Sorry Caroline, Malcolm and the Liberal Party don’t “HAVE” a CC Policy!!!
The Nationals do though. CC doesn’t exist. I think Malcolm has copied the Nats policy.
Agreed!
OK, so are bets on yet for when Turnbull will go? Any auspicious dates we should be aware of?
Agreed!
BTW don’t accept The Greens to change their mind based on this. Just a heads up.
Absolutely correct Oz. The Greens dealt themselves out of the argument forcing the government to chase the Libs. You got the very thing you should have been avoiding at all costs.
Blocking government legislation is easy for Turnbull – all he needs is Fielding to agree with him. But it’s only a political winner for him if the voters agree with him that the legislation ought to be blocked. There’s no evidence that the voters want the CPRS bill blocked. They support a CPRS, even if they don’t really understand the details. The political message from today is that Rudd has bent over backwards to accommodate Turnbull’s “concerns” and he *still* opposes it. I don’t see how that’s a win for Turnbull.
Rudd has just snookered Turnbull. Adam, (395) you are spot on.
Turnbull has missed a golden opportunity to get a jump on the greens here but instead, he has allowed Bob Brown the opportunity to jump in and get a small reflected glow.
Politically naive is an understatement in relation to Turnbull. I wonder just what the rusted on Lib supporters think of this one?
No one forced anyone to do anything. The government thought it would be easier “brown down” the ETS and thus make the big polluters happy and have a higher chance of passing it at the same time. If they negotiated with The Greens it had less chance of passing the Senate, but if it was blocked, and if Rudd was serious was about it he’d either call a DD or take it to the next election. Liberal private polling published in The Australian on the weekend suggested that they would lose up to 10 seats in a DD called over the ETS.
The “forced to negotiate with the Coalition” argument only works if you honestly believe that Rudd/Wong wanted a stronger ETS that didn’t give the polluters a free ride. You can believe that if you like but there’s no evidence to suggest that’s the case.
Yes, but Oz it seems like Labor will still fail to have an ETS passed and thus be able to hold a double dissolution election, with perhaps an even stronger case against the Opposition.
By the way, energy efficiency in new homes will apparently deny many young Australian families the dream of home ownership, according to the Master Builders Association:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/04/2560129.htm
Pages: « 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 » Show All