How green was my paper

The first of the federal government’s two green papers on electoral reform was released on Wednesday, this one dealing with disclosure, funding and expenditure issues. The paper was originally promised in June, but has been delayed pending consultation with state and territory governments. It might be hoped that this results in the unhelpful anomalies from one jurisdiction to the next being ironed out, potentially allowing for the establishment of a single authority to administer the system. You have until February 23 to make submissions in response to this paper or in anticipation of the next, which will deal with “a broader range of issues, aimed at strengthening our national electoral laws”. This paper’s concerns in turn:

Disclosure. State and territory party branches, associated entities (which include fundraising entities, affiliated trade unions and businesses with corporate party membership) and third parties (individuals or organisations that incur “political expenditure”, such as Your Rights at Work and GetUp!) are currently required to lodge annual returns disclosing details of campaign-related receipts, expenditure and debts. The Political Donations Bill currently before the Senate proposes to change reporting from annual to six monthly, but even this seems a bit lax. Voters would presumably want some idea of funding arrangements before they vote rather than after, and the practice in other countries shows how this could be done. In Britain, reporting is required weekly during election campaigns and quarterly at other times; in the United States, expenditures are disclosed daily during campaigns and donations monthly. This is made possible by mandatory electronic record keeping which is not required at this stage in Australia. Queensland’s and New Zealand’s practice of requiring disclosure of large donations within 10 or 14 days also sounds promising. Another issue is that itemised disclosure only applies to donations, which amounts to only a quarter of private funding – the rest coming from fundraising, investments and debt. Australia also uniquely requires “double disclosure” by both donors and recipients, which might be thought more trouble than it’s worth.

Funding. Australia is unusual in that it has neither caps on donations or bans on donations from particular sources. Canada allows donations only from private individuals; the United States does not allow donations from corporations, banks, unions and federal government contractors. Public funding arrangements such as our own are common internationally, but New Zealand interestingly uses measures of public support other than votes, including party membership, number of MPs and poll results in the lead-up to elections. This allows broadcasting time to be allocated ostensibly on the basis of current support, so that the system is “less vulnerable to criticisms of favouring major parties in comparison with minor parties and independent candidates”.

Expenditure. Expenditure caps apply in Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, with compensations of free air time provided in the latter two cases. They also existed here until 1980, when they were abolished on the basis that they “constrained campaigns” and were too hard to enforce. The US allows parties and candidates to agree to limit expenditure in exchange for public funding, which it settled for when set caps were ruled unconstitutional. Given that election campaigning is increasingly unconstrained by the formal campaign period, expenditure caps work best where there are fixed terms.

In other news, we’re probably entering a Yuletide opinion poll drought, but there’s plenty else going down:

• Antony Green’s dissection of the Queensland state redistribution has been published by the Queensland Parliamentary Library.

• The campaign for South Australia’s Frome by-election (the state’s first since 1994) is slowly coming to the boil – read all about it here.

• More action than you can poke a stick at from the good people at Democratic Audit of Australia.

• I missed an opinion poll last Saturday: Westpoll in The West Australian has the state’s new Liberal government leading 55-45, from a sample of 400. This sounds maybe a bit generous to Labor from primary votes of Liberal 45 per cent, Labor 34 per cent, Nationals 5 per cent and Greens 9 per cent. Labor’s Eric Ripper, viewed by all as a post-defeat stop-gap leader, has plunged seven points as preferred premier to 12 per cent, and even trails Colin Barnett 30 per cent to 26 per cent among Labor voters.

• The unstoppable Ben Raue at the Tally Room plays the dangerous game of anticipating prospects for the looming federal New South Wales redistribution that will reduce the state from 49 seats to 48. So for that matter does Malcolm Mackerras in Crikey:

Early this year I was quoted in The Australian as saying that the name Throsby would disappear. The Illawarra media quickly picked up on this and I heard Jennie George say on ABC radio that I was engaging in “pure speculation”. She is quite right, of course. Although the loss of a NSW seat has always been assured, it is pure speculation to say which one it will be.

Nevertheless my proposition actually is that the south coast seats of Gilmore (Joanna Gash, Liberal) and Throsby (Jenny George, Labor) will be merged into a seat bearing the name of Gilmore. Such a seat would, in practice, be reasonably safe for Labor so really it would be Gash to lose her seat. As to why the name Gilmore would be preferred to the name Throsby the explanation is simple. Dame Mary Gilmore (1865-1962) was a woman whereas Charles Throsby (1777-1828) was a man.

We have the precedent of 2006 to know that the MP who is the actual victim of a redistribution is not necessarily the one whose seat disappears. In 2006 and 2007 Peter Andren was the true victim but the name of his seat, Calare, was retained. That he died shortly before the 2007 general election is not the point. His seat of Calare became so hopeless for him he announced that he would stand for the Senate. Consequently there is no reason why Joanna Gash may not be the real victim in 2009 even though the name of her seat is retained.

If this is the way the commissioners decide to do it then the flow-on effect would be interesting to watch. My belief is that Batemans Bay (presently in Gilmore) would be restored to Eden-Monaro, in which division it voted in 2001 and 2004. Then the Tumut and Tumbarumba shires (presently in Eden-Monaro) would be restored to Farrer, in which division they voted in 2001 and 2004. Consequently it would be possible to retain all the rural seats by moving them into more urban areas. Bearing in mind that in 2006 the NSW commissioners abolished a rural seat but made the remaining seats more rural it would seem to me logical that in 2009 they would retain all the rural seats but make some of them less rural.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

578 comments on “How green was my paper”

Comments Page 3 of 12
1 2 3 4 12
  1. Gary Bruce
    Posted Saturday, December 20, 2008 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    It’s become pretty apparent that absolutely no-one on any side of the debate could care less about what Ross Garnaut thinks.

    “I agree Dio ”

    Why , Garnauts Report reflacts what he thinks , so whats wrong with th Report….nothing

  2. Gary Bruce
    Posted Saturday, December 20, 2008

    “I agree Dio ”

    Why , Garnauts Report reflects what Garnaut thinks , so whats wrong with what Garnauts Report says

  3. Ron

    Who’s right? Rudd or Garnaut or neither?

    I haven’t read that Garnaut Report. I can’t understand all that economic stuff. Same with the White Paper. I’m waiting for the UPP Minister for Climate Change to send me an executive summary.

  4. Garnaut Report gav only 1 target recommendation (5%) until th World entered an international agremetn Rudd has accepted Garnauts recommendation of 5% so they ar both right….so th rudd disenters hav no wedge between those two om th target

  5. A think a simple way of looking at ruud and garnaut is mathematical

    Garnaut is for exponential growth in a target to begin with.
    ie 5%-15% ramping to 25% and so on in a relatively short time.

    Rudd is for arithmetical/incremental growth in a target.
    ie 5% to 20% in a graduated manner. Ultimately the end end target will be reached,
    its just the implementation methodology that will determine the rate of growth of the target.

  6. Ron

    From Garnaut in the SMH today.

    [The white paper rules out Australia contributing to a global effort to achieve ambitious mitigation targets before 2020. That is a pity. There is a chance, just a chance, that with Barack Obama as American president, high ambition at Copenhagen will turn out to be feasible. Meanwhile, Australia cannot play a strongly positive role in encouraging the global community towards the best possible outcomes if it has ruled out in advance its own participation in strong outcomes. The Government should keep the 25 per cent option on the table.]

    It looks like you are wRONg! Rudd will only go up to 15% no matter what. He won’t sign Kyoto II if it agrees to 20% by 2020, according to Garnaut. God I love being right!!

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/oiling-the-squeaks/2008/12/19/1229189886229.html?page=3

  7. Um firstly Diogenes, you can’t use “wRONg”, it’s Trdemark belongs to ShowsOn.

    Secondly, if you believe the US and China are going to agree to targets in excess of 15% by 2020, you would believe that pink elephants will be flying around the moon by then.

    Therefore I think you will be wrong again 🙂

  8. Centre

    I own th trademark ShowOff has copied it

    months ago I said various phrases like …two w ron gs do not make a ‘right’
    ShowOff must copy paste my masterpieces , and now won’t even pay a license fee , and it would be xhorbitant i might add

  9. diog , you ar rong….again

    Actualy Mrs diog contacted me concerned for your self esteem about always being rong here , and so I asked Mrs diog …what ? , is diog always right at home…heavens no says Mrs diog emphaticaly , I am always right , and diog is alway wrong

    So she asked me to let you be right …at least once , now I am finding trouble finding an occasion ..and not your Garnaut comments sorry to say

    Garnaut Report actualy said th 25 World suport was unlikely to be agreed and that anyway he Garnaut concluded that few World Countrys could practicoly implement th 25 anyway !!!! (He did say we should still indicate our support for it which was a meaningless fairyfloss statement to anyone objectively reading his firm prior comments)

    THEN Garnaut gav an efective recommendation for a fixed 10% by recommending th 10 if th World entered into an international agrement , precisely because of above 2 flaws in th 25 and because he said th 10 was likely to hav more strong suport (and rudd has said 15 …MORE than Garnaut)

    So Garnauts meaningless comment on th 25 that we should still indicate our support is typical “Reporters” covering there a.rse…. by actualy recommending in SOME way recommending EVERYTHING , so they can neve be wrong

  10. Centre

    I would die with my leg in the air if either China or the US went for anything like 20%, but Rudd has taken that position off the table and lowered the world’s expectations.

    Ron

    You will not be surprised that my wife also delights in pointing out when I am wrong. She could be the fifth Amigo. I’m not sure where you have corrected yourself and said that Rudd has not set a cap on 15% being our maximum target, irresepective of what happens at Copenhagen. If (and I know it’s a big if) Kyoto II goes for 20% for developed countries (with the US not signing) and say 10% for developing countries, what does Rudd do? Will he go 15% and say we are in the semi-developed category?

  11. [I would die with my leg in the air if either China or the US went for anything like 20%, but Rudd has taken that position off the table and lowered the world’s expectations.]
    Oh Dio you do attribute Rudd a vast amount of power over other countries. You surely can’t be serious!

  12. Gary

    I think the US is probably the only country that will take much notice of Rudd’s plan, as they are the closest to us in terms of emissions, politics and CC policy so far. We saw at Bali how effective Australia was in applying pressure to the US. I doubt that Obama wants to look embarrassed in front of the world as he’s trying to restore their moral credibility. I think the 5% target would have pleased the US as it makes it easier for them to soft-pedal.

  13. It’s probably drawing a long bow but the Frome by-election should be an interesting first gauge of the electoral mood on the ETS, especially in Port Pirie where it has been big news for obvious reasons.

  14. Diog
    Posted Saturday, December 20, 2008 at 1:24 pm | Permalink
    #111

    “Ron
    You will not be surprised that my wife also delights in pointing out when I am wrong. She could be the fifth Amigo.”

    I can scarcely believe my luck in you posting that
    I shall create a new file , “diog you ar rong ….again”….and copy th abov to it as th first entry….unbeknown to you she already is th 5th amigo by th way

  15. Rudd disenters wishing ‘on our own’ target strawman arguments ar

    1/ “because it is right because th science is right

    No , we would be broke under a Rudd Govt after 2010 OR a Liberal govt would hav been elected…….either way , CC would still be occuring unhindered

    2/ “because we ar a principaled beacon to th World in making a CC stand”
    No , thats zealotary to be th sole sacrificer to save th planet , and be broke

    3/ “because other countrys will be influenced by our decision”
    No , we ar irrelevant in influencing ANY major Countrys whole econamic structures
    Australia will hav zero influnce on China , USA , India & Russia and only those 4 COLLECTIVELY will effect th worlds CC mitigation (plus th EU)

    4/ “because negotiating wise taking 25% off table lowers expectations”
    Garnaut has no idea or expertise in “negotiating nuances” whatsoever

    You Australia a small player do NOT put a negotiating position of 25% on th table that is far beyond th big 4 Country’s maximum position , you just get treated dismissively , not tht i tink we’d influence them anyway

  16. William – sorry, didn’t mean anything by it or to cause any offense! (I post here because I seem unable to post in the SA poll thread)

  17. No point of criticizing Australia or Rudd. At least we have started doing something about CC. We have made a start.

    What about the Great Satan? They are the ones that should be leading. So far Obama has only let off hot air, words, words, words that are meaningless. 2020 reduce NOTHING, a fat ZERO percent. When Obama takes office and says immediately that we ratify Kyoto and target 20% for 2020, then I will say “Rudd, you have failed us and you are wrong”.

    Anyway, Diog can never be right about anything, as it has been encoded in his gene that “Diog, You are Wrong”.

  18. [You will not be surprised that my wife also delights in pointing out when I am wrong. She could be the fifth Amigo.

    Diog, your delightful wife appears to be the brainy in your household. Yes, she appears to be a candidate for the 5th Amigo. Please let her music plays.

  19. diog

    “Ron
    The Ruddster was named in Time list of the 100 Most Influential People in the World.”

    And what , th time list has credibility…..Angelina Jolie and Mia Farrow ar listed

    I’m going to giv you a chanse just for once to be at least 1/2 right
    ALL Rudd dissenters hav th same flawed problam You all (rightly) ar convinced th science is correct , and FROM THAT then therefore believe nothing else matters and nothing else is a factor and as if th science view is a stand alone positon…just simply set a target in Greens case 25% unconditional , in others cases 15% unconditional , as if its so easy th science justifys it

    Reality is CC mitigation will only occur from a World international agreement and th agreemnt will not be sciensed based alone ….it will also involve factoring econamic , politcal and social consequenses whether CC ” zealous believers” like it or not , and ‘science’ only solution inevitably will be somewhat compromised as a result

    That decsion will be made undemocraticaly by USA , China , India , Russia and th EU
    and our influence on those 5 decisioner makers will be efectively zero As a good World citizen we hav made a stand , and hardly anyone else has and it will be noted but will not influenntial at all (all that Rudds ‘posturing’ 15% conditional means is that oz at 1/20 of EU’s GDP with 15% is NOT significantly inconsistent with EU’s 20% but thats nuancing caused by reportd EU requests since July to lift Garnauts efective 10% higher)

    Our targets whatever they may be , will not help CC mitigation at all

  20. William Bowe

    William I’ve left it an hour after Bob and Tom posted here , and I don’t get the “post a comment box” in that SA thread as did Bob and Tom

  21. I’m getting bored with all this yes-no’ing to-and-fro’ing about the climate change target that’s been set.

    If someone like me is getting bored – someone who’s reasonably politically-passionate – spare a thought for the accumulated reaction of the disengaged majority of voters out there. Greenies want to be careful they don’t burn out / fatigue too many people.

    There is, I suspect, a mood for climate change aversion out there. But there would also exist an inbuilt level of tolerance. If the proponents overdo it, with shrill evangelical-sounding browbeating of all and sundry, there is the risk of the “boy who cried wolf” syndrome developing … People will switch off, while the Global Financial Crisis looms menacingly in the forefront of their immediate political (read: economic) perceptions.

    I can just picture some people getting their backs up and saying, “The hell with climate change. Penny Wong, give me a guarantee that during the GFC I won’t lose my job to this climate-change emissions trading thingy.”

  22. “William I’ve left it an hour after Bob and Tom posted here , and I don’t get the “post a comment box” in that SA thread as did Bob and Tom”

    I note the thread is also a bit… odd.

    “Newspoll: 54-46 to Labor in SAs” seems to have grown an extra s.

    And the thread ends with

    “I would inf”

    Something change by accident?

  23. The statement that it doesn’t matter what Australia does on climate change is about as silly as saying it doesn’t matter how you vote. Of course one vote won’t make a difference, but in combination with others, it does.

    There is no silver bullet in climate change – everyone must do everything they can, and everything that can be done matters.

    Australia is in a unique position to take a lead on climate change. We control 40% of the world’s coal. We have great supplies of solar, wind, tidal and geothermal energy. We are a rich, developed country. By stopping logging our native forests we could cut our greenhouse emissions by well over 15% overnight.

    We are also the world’s highest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases.

    And we stand to lose far more than most from the effects of climate change. Here in Victoria, it is 12 years since we last had a year that was wetter or cooler than average – the longest previous run like this was 5 years, in the 1980s. We are now way outside our historical experience. The state’s average temperature is already 1 degree warmer than it was in 1950. It is nearly 2 degrees warmer than in 1900 – that’s the equivalent of moving the whole state 400 kilometres closer to the equator. And according to the Bureau of Meteorology (the source of these figures above) for each degree of temperature rise we lose 15% of stream flow.

    Putting substantial resources now into becoming sustainable is the first obligation of the government. Instead, in the May budget we had solar panel subsidies means tested – and now cut even further. The same budget gave $500 million to the coal industry. And now billions more to our biggest polluters.

    The Rudd target (it’s actually only 4% if you use the international standard base of 1990 emissions), and the scheme itself, are an international joke in very poor taste. They demonstrate complete failure to meet what Rudd has said is the great moral challenge of our time. Just when we could be taking an inspiring lead, we make ourselves an international pariah.

    When our children and grandchildren ask why we didn’t do more in response to the widespread calls of science to take action, it will be a poor answer to say we were waiting for the US and China and India to act first.

  24. I agree with all of th last 3 paragrapghs However passionate Greens (& other like minded on CC) ar outraged and think it is th critical issue & this forum as politcal tragics a place to ventilate it so i think they’re entitled to as its there number one issue afte all Th extent of my contrary blogs (although i’m also a CC convert) is to address various political & econamic reasons for them to ponder , that they’ll not here from Bob Brown whether they change there minds or not…..as they run th risk of self dealing themselves right out of any influense on CC

  25. 129 – Most of that I agree with Brian. However you need to convince the community of such. If you don’t take the people with you they will turn on you with the result that an opportunistic bunch of climate deniers and sceptics take control of the reins. Then it’s really game over.
    In this time of economic uncertainty scaring the horses is very easily achieved. Talk of massive job losses and higher prices, whether true or not, is enough to focus the mind on everyday problems for the average person let alone problems of 20 to 30 years hence and we have opportunistic opponents ready and very willing to make these claims at every opportunity.
    Politically, if you can carry the opposition with you far more will be achieved down the track.

  26. Brian

    Excellent post. Agree totally. Where the hell have you been while I and a few other zealots have taken a pounding from the political pragmatists here.

    There is one factual error. We aren’t even close to being the world’s largest emitter per capita. We are 13th with 16 tons per capita. Of comparable countries, the US and Canada are ahead, both on 20. Qatar is first with 69, about 4 times us!!!. Kuwait and the UEA aren’t too flash either.

    Of the developed countries, Oz, Canada and the US really are embarrassing outliers. 🙁

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

  27. Now, this is the type of BS you have to contend with from an opportunistic opposition.
    [Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt accused Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of setting up false expectations that he would take tough action on climate change.
    “It’s about the impression of activity, clothing it with a moral purpose and then the failure to deliver practical action,” Mr Hunt said.
    “He’s not the Messiah when it comes to climate change, he’s just a very naughty boy and he set those false expectations.”]
    This from a man who who would argue strenuously against higher targets for fear it would bugger up our economy.
    The Crosby/Textor approach – whatever the government does, even if you agree with it, find an angle to criticise.

  28. Brian

    “the statement that it doesn’t matter what Australia does on climate change..”
    “We are also THE world’s highest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases. ”

    No , not by a long shot , where’s your link

    What you did not acknowledge is any target implemented alone by oz will hav NO effect on CC which is th falsehood Bob Brown has sprouted , and is th unsaid but false innuendo of many Rudd dissenters here

    What you did not acknowledge is DOHA , or rather its failure because almost solely US and EU respective instansiance …..DESPITE th rest of World including oz wanting it So th proof is already there that your argument we hav influence is not sound

  29. Ah, peoples to talk with again. Well, I’ve made up my mind. The gov’t’s ETS is a crock.
    1. the go alone 5% target is too small to convince anyone else internationally that we’re serious.
    2. the compensation to serious polluters is rubbish, in that it will do nothing to protect jobs, which is the stated aim, and nothing to convince those polluters to switch to less polluting ways of producing their goods/services.
    3. the scheme will distort the economy.
    4. the Pine Bark Beetles will be applauding, along with a range of other critters who will take opportunistic advantage of the changed climatic conditions. Some of them might like humans as vectors or hosts.

  30. Diog ”
    I and a few other ZEALOTS have taken a pounding from the political pragmatists here.”

    Then diog , tell me why th billons of starving poor people and over 100 countries ar not given a chance to fairly compete & export there agricultural & other products to earn income (just to be able avoid starving) because US and EU primarily out of econamic seflishness will not agree to a fair DOHA agreement

    ….DESPITE th rest of World including oz wanting it

    And people tink her CC that is not an immediate threat vs people presently starving will be agreed without econamic seflishness , taking notise os us or th est of world

  31. After reading some of Ron’s many posts I can understand the politics of Rudd’s ETS decision – it is clever wedge politics – those who say its too low will vote green and preference Labor anyway, so who cares? Meanwhile if the Liberals don’t support this very weak 5% restriction with overgenerous business compensation they are sidelined because that is tantamount to admiting there is no type of ETS the Libs would support. Then roll on DD. So in a Rudd self-interest way I now think this is clever politics. Not in the (long term) National interest though.

    Of course, like some other posters I agree that mainstream community attitudes would have supported a bigger shift, and certainly less compensation. But that ignores Labor’s internal politics – the CFMEU is a wealthy, powerful supporter so their members must never be made to financially suffer, however much that costs the rest of the nation’s taxpayers. So Rudd must keep them on side, as he has done. Plus there are obviously coal and power business interests that also fund Labor, and they must be compensated at our expense too. (After all, they are entitled to their money’s worth on those donations!)

    So I can understand the politics, however little I like it.

    However I think the economic claims in defence of Rudds position are quite false. In the short term this ETS makes no difference, because energy producers can pass cost increases on, and big consumers get 90% free permits. It will take 5 or 10 years for this ETS to have any effect. So unless you believe we are in the start of a decade long depression, there is no reason for this ETS in terms of current economic circumstances. That is a non-sequiter. The claim that we cannot afford to adopt a Garnaut style ETS now is also nonsensical, because under the Rudd ETS we will gain less revenue fro fewer permits sold, while paying more in compensation. Hence the Rudd ETS will cost taxpayers far more than the Garnaut one would have.

    So why then compensate energy suppliers? Their plant that will become obsolete -eg old brown coal plants in the Latrobe valley – are already 30 years old or more and would have a depreciated value not much more than scrap. Why compensate them? Where is the economic analysis justifying compensation? It was not in Garnaut, who explicitely advised against this. See a summary:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnaut_Report

    Or the report itself at:
    http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/pages/home

    Before anyone says I am misrepresenting Garnaut, he said the same in the SMH today, with this neat, accurate quote:
    “Never in the history of Australian public finance has so much been given without public policy purpose, by so many, to so few.”
    http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/carbon-plan-fuels-meltdown/2008/12/19/1229189886133.html

    In other words, Rudd’s ETS opts out of making any of the worst offenders change, while any change this is caused is paid for by we taxpayers, not the causal agents. On this form, Rudd has a new nickname, not Kevin 07, but “Young Jellyback”.

  32. Ron

    That is an excellent point. We agree on something at last.

    There are huge numbers of starving people living in tropical areas. I gather that the EU ETS doesn’t allow the EU countries to trade carbon credits for reforestation outside of the EU, which is a disgrace. I imagine that Rudd’s one does. That sets up the possibility of Rio Tinto (for eg) reaching a deal with Indonesians in deforested areas to replenish the forests and be well remunerated. Tim Flannery talks about that possibility in the QE article.

    Incidentally, I learnt that growing forests in temperate regions can be a bit counterproductive due to the Albedo effect. It’s more CC effective growing them in tropical rainforests.

  33. Dio and Ron

    I agree the option for foreign trade credits in the ETS is good. Still disagree with the economics of Rudd’s ETS for the reasons above.

    The negative impact for temperate forests is only true if you are in an area where there is snow for a lot of the year – typiclly high altitude or high latitude. For most temperate areas forests are a positive, including all of Australia AFAIK.

  34. At least we’re better off than California. This looks like it could blow. 🙁

    [Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday ordered a state hiring freeze and payroll cuts to conserve cash as California struggles to deal with a $42 billion budget deficit.

    The governor issued an executive order that requires state agencies to reduce payroll by 10 percent, which could lead to massive layoffs. He also ordered the state’s 235,000 employees to take two days off a month without pay, starting Feb. 1.]

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/19/schwarzenegger-orders-hir_n_152513.html

  35. Socrates – so many assumptions based on…? You obviously have a crystal ball. It’s as simple as black and white isn’t it?
    The ETS begins in 2010, not in 10 year’s time. Who knows how long the downturn will last? Whether people will support higher targets with all that entails is not clear at all. In fact it has been shown many people really have only of scant knowledge of the ETS and what it means.

  36. The East is Red. Rudd’s baby wasn’t still born afterall.

    [KEVIN Rudd has decided to press ahead with his initiative for a new Asia-Pacific community based on an interim report on progress and options from his envoy and former Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade chief Dick Woolcott…… Rudd told Woolcott that on the basis of his interim report one option can be dismissed: abandonment of the initiative…… The pre-election argument Rudd put to Obama is that the US needs more political involvement in East Asia and that his Asia-Pacific initiative dovetails into this.It can help US efforts to revamp its image in Asia and send a message of commitment. Woolcott’s report is positive about China. He says China is open to an Asia-Pacific community based on co-operative principles. But China doesn’t want existing institutions to be downgraded, a pointer to its tactic to keep ASEAN Plus Three (China, Japan and South Korea) as the region’s main decision-making body.]

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24824788-7583,00.html

    Rudd was absolutely right in picking the centre of geo-political gravity is shifting to East Asia with China as the Black Hole (where nothing can escape). The GFC will only accelerate this. Even Japan is seeing the light with the recent first ever tri-partite summit between china, Korea and Japan. If the new Black Prince of the old Black Hole is any good, he must support Rudd’s initiative, and again, provide leadership. Otherwise the old Black hole will simply swallow up the new Black Prince.

    [There is no doubting the hazardous nature of Rudd’s initiative. It offers risks as well as gains for Australia because it aspires to change Asia-Pacific arrangements. Rudd’s vision is for a new regional community by 2020 that can encompass all issues, economic, security and political. As a foundation it must include the US, China, Japan, India, Indonesia and Russia. Although there are many regional forums, none meets these overall tests.]

    Fortunately the Lady will be in charged, and with Bill in tow, the signs are good as Bill has just recently completed a high pow-wow of East Asia emerging leaders in Hong Kong. Quiet please, the Lady is on stage.

  37. Gary
    So many non-sequiters, shifts of teh burden fo proof and misquotes!

    Actually I quoted my sources. I said it wouldn’t have ay effect for 5 to ten years, not that it wouldn’t be operating. that is the reality of teh transitional arrangements.

    But its good you raise the question of proof GB. I have asked several times where is the economic modelling to justify Rudd’s ETS? It wasn’t in the Garnaut Report, because Garnaut wasn’t stupid enough to advocate this extraordinary level of compensation. Surely the onus is on him to prove that what he is saying makes econoic sense? I say it doesn’t, becaues the cost of the compensation is too high.

    So Gary – where is the proof that Rudd’s ETS males economic sense? He used to demand the modelling when he was in opposition. Pity he can’t live up to that standard in office.

    Finally, nobody knows when the downturn will end, but if anyone has actual checked the impact of Rudd’s ETS, they had to assume something. Show us teh modelign and we’ll all know what Treasury assumed 🙂

  38. Some green groups are going to shoot the green movement in the foot with the general public if they go ahead with the type of antics they displayed at the National Press Club, as they promised they would on the news tonight. It reminds me of some unions some years back calling wild cat strikes. They may have had a good case but turned the average person against their cause through being disruptive. Those unions enabled the conservatives to demonise all unions for some years. Not a good career move IMHO.

  39. Finns

    I’m reading that book about Needham and China, which I’m loving. It’s very positive about the Chinese. Perhaps we shouldn’t be so pessimistic about them not doing the right thing on CC.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 3 of 12
1 2 3 4 12