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 5 of 12
1 4 5 6 12
  1. Corection

    “So Mayoferal, we’re better off not having an ETS?”

    No , better off not announcing any 5% unconditional target at all now (therefore there’s no ETS now) , and just take 15% indicative posture figure to Coppenhaggen , and let World collectively decide

  2. ron – can you please make an effort to make your post’s easier to read! – we all do this, why can’t you?… it’s common courtesy.

    I’m told you have some difficulty, faie enough but I have notice when you really want to make a point, things get a lot clearer. Your lack of effort is wrong. If you can put that much thought into your post’s as you claim, you can put the effort in to make them readable. (I skip, 90% cos I can’t be bothered!)

  3. tackling homelessness and increasing public housing for th low income , and thats waswhere me and Piping disagreed last nite , him think its lost its socil base due to lower Union influence and me saying th Labor ‘core left principals’ don’t change , just they’re said not as flamboyantly as Keating or others before and we’re not fighting class wars but equity and fairness and that reely was message of Chifleys lite on th hills

  4. Socrates

    “After reading some of Ron’s many posts I can understand the politics of Rudd’s ETS decision …In the short term this ETS makes no difference, because energy producers can pass cost increases on…..”

    Socrates you addressed both politcal & econamic in your detailed post , and summary replys (some restated but then all together) ar

    1/ Getting ANY Target/ETS Scheme passed by th Senate required a/ Libs agreeing to 5% (Libs would not support 10%) OR b/ Greens plus Fielding plus Mr X agreeing to 25% (Greens publicly say 25% was min)

    2/ Greens/fielding/X was not an option for 2 reasons ..Firstkly th Greens 25% unconditional when trding Partner hav not agreed to anything would be economically reckless almost vandalism so Greens/fielding/X option was dead Secondley Felding/Mr X ar both in ‘right’ (somewhere)…no chanse of getting both to agree anyway partic Fielding so Greens/fielding/X option was double dead

    3/ That ONLY leaves th Libs to woo to get ANY target/ETS thru (and Libs max is 5% and at best after lot of huff and after reel big time consevatives faction ‘revolt’) to get a Target/ETS NOW or alternatively hav no Target/ETS at all

    4/ All of th required Senators to get th target/ETS Senate passed (Libs and Greens/fielding/X) ar NOT Labor Senators , so therefore Rudd is blameless for th 5% (th Libs max) because that was th only Target/ETS that was EVER going to get passed NOW….Those that blamed Rudd should now accept he’s blameles for other (Senate deciding) Party’s party position on targets

    5/ Alternativeley Rudd could hav put a 10-15% target Bill up knowing it was going to get vetoed , and gone for a pre determined DD….arguing in a GFC to rise voters electricity etc prices (with a polies “promise” to compensate) AND with a massive Lib scare campaign exaggerating claiming Labor as usual irresponsible AND th Greens at other extreme aggressively (in a DD fighting for there very servival) claiming Rudd is a CC sellout…..Libd would hav a chanse .. no sensible political strategist would suggest such a DD

    6/ Senate numbers decided th 5% (irrespective of whether more than 5% was desirable or not , and irrespective of posters expectations here) Whether you may or may not accept this , and a Greens supporter may just reads this political reality , then dismiss as if non existant and blogs back about ETS flaws or dire CC consequenses which wwhilst true is totally irelevant to th reality that only a 5% ETS was going to pass , or zero zero was to pass

    7/ th target % dooble cross…if and when Kyoto mark 11 is agreed , I expect th target to be either Garnaut’s recommendation to Rudd (10%) or Rudds posturing indacative 15% probably th latter , with a 2nd step agreed of 25% at later start date) Then Rudd puts thru say a 15% Bill and wdges Greens and other 2 for support they ar ignoring th whole world’s agreement , and that they will responsible if 15% I defeated and 5% remains ( you’d win a DD on that as World has agreed) ….Libds having been “helpers” of th 5% & its ETS machinery will not be happy being ‘had’ …so Labors bed fellows vs enemys on th 5% will swap over on a 15% later Bill

    8/ ‘In the short term this ETS makes no difference, because energy producers can pass cost increases on, and big consumers get 90% free permits’ Yes and No ,

    firsltly there’s an income redistribution via excess como to less wll of so they can afford R E alternatives

    Secondley for higher incomes they gt no compo so hav an incentive to switch to R E ,
    Thirdly non export exposed only get 60% permits so there is a direct $40 a tonne incentive to look at alternatives , apart from LPG you got chemicals and pulp & paper etc

    Four , any under th 1000 limit there’s zero prmits

    Five , th trade esposed do wear A cost of th $40 a tonne for remaining 10% and can NOT necessarily pass that on poverseas against non ETS Country compeitiordsss & in falling GFC prices Market so there’s an incentive suppose to ponder maybe not hard

    Seven there a new CCA Fund created of about 2 billion of incentives to bussiness & community organizatios to invest in energey efficiency projects & low emission technologies , process and products to encourage all of th abov bus categories

    Eight th awareness levels of business actually forking out money and being monitored on emissions will itself cause management constant consideration of reducing enegey waste & use mor eficently or consider R E ….plus this awareness will filter into public awareness attitude usage changes

    Nine there is 5% target with growing population of energey misusers , with ermits subject ot ASIC commonw bond market standards , so 5% itself will hav an effect

    Ten th ETS little effect short term ?, well I’d argue th abov should hav an immediate positive effect representing an historic restructure , although accept any behaviour change is incramental Whilst seeing no modelling I’d suggest abov will achiev e th 5%

    Eleven I concede there seems a lot of warts in th machinery incl re big coal , however these warts ar th fat capacity to drive a later higher target , because I conced 5% is inadequarte and will itself by its low level not affect CC mitigation

    9/ “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.” Well could say that but itscoput , do tink cauton was warranted as adverse flow on of GFC do expect very low growth & limited credit facilities & we’d not be immune from some flowon of that….plus note mining boom is over (BHP no to Rio, prices down etc) & loss of prior big dividends has not flowed thru yet …..and so econamicly I do tink all this ollectively does justify no more than 5% on our own ie without a Kyoto mark 11

    10/ compo …to less abe to afford , well softin th pain of change I think is prudent for behaviour , also good politcs and is equity based as skewered to lower incomers & pensioners Support this , rather than a shocks and awe approach to force ‘change’

    11/ “So why then compensate energy suppliers? “ would hav preferred to hav accidentley missed this point I hate it , may mean th coal etc staying much longer term Now i would hav preferred that compo compenent to go to more $$ incentives on R E to increase tht 2 billion R E (incl th Solar farms) incentive per CCA Fund I mentioned earlior

    What you did not critise but I will is reducton of th 1500 bit for 60% free prmits to 1000 so LPG but also chemicals and pulp get that benefit , that’s occurred since Green Paper….again partly political or perhaps Libs trade off there

    Only caveat I’d put on assisting 90% and 60% players is partly maybe political to get that 5% target Libs suport & quieten bus public scare talk hindering Senate passage Other caveat with Coal itself ‘compo’ is it’s a big employer so we just don’t ditch peoples lives and close like th Latrobe Valleys in oz Also th transiton time of needed energey capacity to replace coal with R E without leaving us oz reely short of energey may hav been a factor also My pref wuld hav been no Compo there but maybe there’s some reality justaficaton

    12/ ETS machinery covers everyting in our Country and so more complex intro than th GST Again like th target there would hav been political & economic factors influencing th decions However a Countyy wide ETS also was going to hav warts anyway as well , so feel lets get this massve structurel change passed (maybe by Libd) , bed it down and then look at fine tuning ….perhaps concurrent with a Kyoto mark 11 initial possible World agreeed 15%

    So on th 5% target , th non Labor Senate Parts own target stanses ar to blame and not Rudd for th 5% , and on some warts in ETS machinery I’d giv him th benefit of th doubt , be happy there is an ETS i(if Libs ok it) and fine tune later

  5. About the environment and NOT climate change ….

    [
    The West Australian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has given the okay to two sites but has knocked back the location favoured by West Australian Premier Colin Barnett and another site

    Mr Barnett yesterday said the WA government would make a decision on the hub site within days, and would not rule out compulsorily acquiring land.

    http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/wa-land-too-environmentally-sensitive-for-project-20081220-72jf.html
    ]

    If Barnett can’t get his big oversized Liberal head around this problem when he was given 2 of 4 choices, Pete ought to get involved and put his Labor foot down.

  6. Hmmm, still on about the party political vacuum flask significance of 5% are we?

    Australia at 5% will not make a skerrick of difference to the rate of approach of climate change. It is mere statistical noise, signifying nothing.

    If we are to remain fixated on this mystical figure of 5%, we should invest in those bits of CO2 reduction that are sensible in terms of an improved economic efficiency and save the rest for amelioration projects.

    My suggestion for the highest priority among the latter is the resettlement and re-integration into the economy of the people who are now losing their livelihoods in the MDB. This is quite a few already with thousands more to follow. Why should they carry the disproportionate can for their fellow-citizens’ filthy CO2 habits?

    The current situation is catastrophic. When the drought ends we are probably looking at a long term reduction to about 80% of what was. The MDB produces 40% of Australia’s food and the people affected are right along the inputs and outputs chain so it is not just farmers who will have to be resettled and reintegrated into the economy.

    For those of you who don’t like irrigation farmers, rest assured that many more blue collar workers, truckies, machinery operators, farm labourers and shop assistants will lose their jobs than will farmers themselves. One out, all out.

  7. Gutten Morgen Bludgers, especially to the Amigos. On a beautiful calm and mellow Sunday morning like this, it’s really hard to die. What will make it even harder is for South Africa to be all out at 400, 5 overs before stump. Go Mitch, Massie’s 16 wickets haul is on the card.

    Anyway talking about sport, just saw on Skynoooows that FIFA has announced that World Cup for 2018 and 2022 will be announced simultaneously next November 2009.

    The genius of Kevin Rudd is again on display or is it the sexy Kate Ellis. Few weeks ago, the Rudd Govt announced $45m funding to support Oz’s bid for the World Cup. There was few criticisms when it came out. Just like the CC 5% now.

    Methinks there was a nudge nudge wink wink from Seb to Frank about this. It cannot be that coincidental that $45M few weeks ago and now the FIFA announcement.

    I will put my house on OZ getting one of the World Cups, I say 2022.

  8. I see the Government is shrugging off the over the top criticisms of the Libs and left wing Greens.

    This article is only significant because Christine Milne has chosen to use “wrong” in a her statement. Like Shakespeare before him, Ron’s use of language is shaping the way we are all talking. Milne’s context is wrong, but I’m sure she will get the hang of it over time. Go Ron!

    “It is essential that the Government admits that it has got the scheme completely wrong, and immediately review its weak targets and its shocking bias and generosity to the big polluters,” Greens senator Christine Milne said.

    http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24827800-5005961,00.html?from=public_rss

  9. Greensborough Growler, to the list of those wanting higher targets you can add: left-wing Labor MP’s, climate scientists, economists specialising in the area, the government’s climate advisor, the ACTU and the RE sector.

    Of course it must make it easier to sleep at night by assuring yourself that since the dirty pinko Greens want more and the Libs are against it, Rudd must be 100% on track.

  10. When Christine Milne becomes part or leads a government then I’ll take notice of her bleating. Everything is so black and white, so simple in her world. Only if it were so.

  11. Why are people concentrating on 5%? There is a range and it ends at 15%.
    As Boerwar says – “Hmmm, still on about the party political vacuum flask significance of 5% are we?” He’s right, it will go higher.

  12. #214, Amigo Vera, yes you do rock, Beautiful Sunday indeed. Just in case you miss it

    [Like Shakespeare before him, Ron’s use of language is shaping the way we are all talking. Milne’s context is wrong, but I’m sure she will get the hang of it over time. Go Ron]

    The stirring words of Amigo GG and the Amigo spirit were forged at the place where the Condors soar and the Inkas kicked the Spanish Butts, you know as in:

    [I’d rather be a forest than a street.
    Yes I would.
    If I could,
    I surely would.]

  13. Ron

    Regarding the ETS thanks for the detailed reply and your frankness on the economic modelling. That is a question Rudd will need a good answer for in parliament, assuming a competent opposition. I understand the politics re: Fielding althoug can you please tell me that whatever idiot in Victorian Labor did the preference deal with him is now employed as a branch organiser somwhere in Dubbo or better yet, Macquarie Island.

    We will have to agee to disagree on the economics – 5% is a cop out but as you say a more honest figure above 15% may be negotiated. I still fear that this approach lessens the likelihood of such an outcome and is therefore dangerous However the business compensation remains indefensible on both environmental and economic grounds, thus can only be explained by politics (of vested interests internal and external to Labor). I won’t pretend to defend that.

  14. Regarding the 2022 World Cup; its a good idea and worth a punt as we might get it, which would be great. Economicaly the World Cup and the Olympics are the only major sporting events which even go close to justifying their cost for the host nation.

    However I trust that those responsible are aware that these events are decided far more by voting blocks than the merits of the case. We should remember the embarasing circumstances behind Germany getting the 2006 World Cup and South Africa being relegated to 2010 and the shamefull role of the Oceania delegate in that vote. We shouldn’t overestimate how many friends we have on this one. It would be astute to involve New Zealand and maybe even Indonesia in the bid and a few games to maximise our chances, just as Korea and Japan did in 2002. My mail is that we have no chance in 2018, which is already a done deal.

  15. GB
    Saying its this ETS or nothing is a straw man argument akin to blackmail. I’d rather have this ETS than nothing, but to paraphrase someone else, “Its the worst possible form of ETS, except when you consider the alternative the liberals would refer”.

  16. GB at 207 your exactly right. The critics of the government want to talk about 5% rather than 5-15%. I might take more notice of them if they actually address the RANGE not the MINIMUM figure

  17. Does anyone believe that Rudd would settle for the MINIMUM figure he’s proposed?? Looks like he is setting up to EXCEED expectations

  18. [Saying its this ETS or nothing is a straw man argument akin to blackmail.]
    Not at all Soc. You just don’t want to address the question.
    What we have is the government’s proposal. No-one surely is suggesting that the opposition is going to “ramp it UP”. So that means we’re either going to get what the government wants via the opposition or we’re not going to have one because neither the government or the opposition agree with the minor parties on this.
    So, let me ask the question again – should we have all or nothing? Should this ETS be scrapped because we can’t or won’t have it all at once and is uneconomical?

  19. SorryvSoc I see you have answered the question. Given that, in your opinion it is better than nothing the points Andrew makes are very valid and should be considered.

  20. Gary Bruce, I believe the ETS as it stands is not a mechanism for dealing with climate change but simply a vehicle for transferring money from certain parts of the population to others to secure votes.

  21. hahahahaha, Oz, Rudd ‘s got enough votes and positive poll numbers that they’re coming out of his ears.Labor have more to lose by not getting it right, than trying to win a handful of votes he dosen’t need.

    Interesting point Andrew @ 224. Rudd could well be not only responsible, but the smartest politician we have ever seen.

  22. Obama has added a second Nobel Prize winning physicist to his Climate Change team. He has three experts on renewable energy and climate change. We have Penny WRong, the union lawyer. 🙁

    [President-elect Barack Obama’s selection Saturday of a Harvard physicist and a marine biologist for science posts is a sign he plans a more aggressive response to global warming than did the Bush administration.

    John Holdren and Jane Lubchenco are leading experts on climate change who have advocated forceful government action.]

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/20/obamas-science-team-4-top_n_152596.html

  23. Interesting to see that only 53% to 47% of people on the Sky News poll support Rudd’s homeless package. Well not everybody is born with a silver spoon in their mouth like many of those 47% I’m sure. Goes to show how pathetic Howards baby bribe policy was. The ones in desperate need have a child for the money and then they end up homeless, yeah good one,one for the country Costello you capital dope!

    Where does the coalition stand on the homeless package? We don’t want an inquiry, we don’t want a committee, we don’t want a summit, we want leadership, decisive leadership, how about it Turnbull?

  24. As much as I dislike lots of Rudd’s policies as smoke-and mirrors, short-sighted, mealy-mouthed and lowest common denominator-appealing, he genuinely is trying to do the right thing about homelessness, and deserves a lot better than 53-47% support for the package. There’s lots of evidence that helping the homeless actually saves a government money in less hospitalisations (general and mental), prison and court costs and sundries.

  25. We’ll, see how short-sighted Rudd is after Copenhagen Diogenes?

    It may take “Diog, you were wrong, again” to heights where no existence has ever been.

  26. I think 53-47 support for the homelessness package is a fantastic tick of support for the Rudd government considering the source – a Sky News poll watched by a majority of Liberal voters.

  27. Gary Bruce – “When Christine Milne becomes part or leads a government then I’ll take notice of her bleating.”

    Lucky not everyone took that attitude in the late 1800s, or we wouldn’t have a Labor Party in Australian politics.

  28. Those Sky polls are always lopsided to favour fibs. Before the election the who will you vote for polls always had Howard ahead by a country mile.
    homeless poll 50/50 now

  29. Diogenes

    #152
    “Ron
    There’s a blogger on the Tiser site referring to Penny WRong (sic)! It’s metastasising and mutating! ”

    Diog you realize Athens was not built in a day , th Greeks always metastasised and used Philosphers lingos to lead th punters to lingo heavens block by Athens block So disciples appear everywhere now in your Tiser back yards adding culture

    Am astonished that with your scientific background you did not notise th recent intro of th lingo adjective to archives….“rong” …which is qualatativly stronger wrong than
    ‘W ron g’ It denotes a level of scientific certainty

  30. Centre

    “We’ll, see how short-sighted Rudd is after Copenhagen Diogenes?”

    Indeed , there ar a FIRST set of guys who hav accepted reality of Senate but would hav prefferred a higher target BUT I am not sure whether they ar SAYING they wuld hav wanted a higher target even if Coppnehaggen ended with zero meaning we’d be trading with China and USA etc who’d potential hav no targets ? I’d like that clarified

    Then there is a SECOND set of guys saying they ar not they wanted a higher target and not only don’t answer th Trading Partner query of th fiirst group , but will not say how th hell there prefferred higher target would get passed by th Senate ??

    (& dont say what that target should hav been)

    so how can either Group judge how long sited Rudd has been without first clarifying what there current position is to measure against

  31. Yes Ron.

    If we cut emissions by more than the world’s major polluters, not only would it make insignificant difference to climate change, but it would be economic and political suicide.

  32. 233 bob, the only reason I say that is that when government is not on the line and when the economic buck doesn’t stop with you, you can afford to forget the politics of the situation and mouth off to your hearts content as to what should be done regardless of any economic or political considerations. A valid point I would have thought.

  33. 227 – Oz, so is that a yes to the question, “should this ETS be scrapped because we can’t or won’t have it all at once?”

  34. The Greens are funny. They should be cheering. We have the sceptics, Bush (Republicans) and Howard (Liberals), out of the way. We will have a CPRS in operation in 2010, and we will have a process whereby the world can act.

    This may be hard for the Greens to believe but Rudd cannot actually save the world on his own.

  35. To be honest Centre and Andrew I just don’t get it. One of my friends is also upset with Rudd because of the ETS. The thinking is that Rudd won’t take the targets any higher. I admit that politicians have brought this cynicism on themselves but what proof other than “I don’t believe them “does anyone have that Rudd will get his foot in the door first (a very good political tactic) then up the ante so to spreak. Doing anything less is bound to fail due to, yes politics. Surprise, surprise.

  36. Should read – what proof other than “I don’t believe them “does anyone have that Rudd will NOT get his foot in the door first (a very good political tactic) then up the ante so to spreak. Doing anything less is bound to fail due to, yes politics.

  37. Just like the Republic issue and the GST issue, many people voted for the Dems believing the Dems would vote against the GST. Guess what happened? If they voted Labor Beasley’s Labor Party would have won the 1998 election.
    Please Greens get sensible and take little steps and get where you want to, otherwise the same will happen to the Greens as happened to the Dems.

  38. GB

    If the world does not cut emissions enough to avert a catastrophe, well then we are all going down.

    If Australia does everything it possibly can, without any consideration to other consequences as the Greens suggest, and the rest of the world does not act, we are all going down together anyway.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 5 of 12
1 4 5 6 12