Roy Morgan has published results from a small-sample phone poll showing Labor’s two-party lead at 54.5-45.5, compared with 53-47 at the previous such poll early last month. Morgan’s phone polls consistently give Labor lower ratings than its headline face-to-face polls. The poll was conducted on the back of a survey of 659 respondents to ascertain views on climate change, which found support for the government’s carbon emissions trading scheme down four points to 46 per cent and opposition up five points to 36 per cent.
To demonstrate that those who believe nothing happens over the silly season aren’t looking hard enough:
• The federal government’s much ballyhooed plan to reform regulation of political funding appears to have ended with a whimper. Whereas former Special Minister of State John Faulkner said last year the reforms would “definitely be in place before the next election”, his successor Joe Ludwig is refusing to make any commitments regarding the timing or content of any legislation. It was reported in October that the government and the opposition were close to agreeing on a package including limits on campaign spending and donations, increases in public funding to parties to cover the loss, and restriction of political advertising by third parties including unions and lobby groups. As part of the deal, the Coalition would drop its opposition to slashing the threshold for public disclosure of donations, which it voted down in the Senate last year with the support of Steve Fielding, and Labor would include union affiliation fees in a ban on donations from corporations, third parties and associated entities. The latter measure crucially met opposition from union leaders concerned it would reduce their influence. Furthermore, a leaked memo from Labor MP Michael Danby argued a move from private to public funding would be a bonanza for the Greens which they could use to target Labor-held inner-city seats. The scheme’s opponents have a handy weapon in the grave political difficulty involved in increasing public funding to political parties, which Danby argues would need to increase by a factor of 10 to keep them operating at their current level. In response to the obvious objection that the proposed package included spending caps, Danby argues that such mechanisms are untested and possibly unconstitutional.
• Meanwhile, Brian Robins of the Sydney Morning Herald reports NSW Electoral Commissioner Colin Barry has told a parliamentary committee that state legislation to introduce public funding was “close to unworkable”, making it very unlikely the measure will be introduced before the next election.
• Loretta Johnston of the Launceston Examiner reports that a decision by the Right faction not to challenge the Left over the succession to Duncan Kerr in the federal seat of Denison indicates a deal has been struck which will leave Bass clear for confirmed starter Geoff Lyons, a staffer to Right faction Senator Helen Polley and former manager at Launceston General Hospital. However, it’s also noted that the Prime Minister has been “tipped to take particular interest in the seat”, and will be able to direct the national executive to take action if a candidate he prefers comes forward. The report names state Bass candidate Michelle Cripps as a potential alternative if she does not win a seat in the state election. However, Danielle Blewett of The Examiner surprisingly offers that the Prime Minister has “made it clear he wanted a man to run for Bass after the recent distress experienced by incumbent Bass MHR Jodie Campbell”, according to “Labor sources”.
• Robert Taylor of The West Australian reports the Western Australian ALP is struggling to find a federal candidate for Cowan to replace Wanneroo mayor Jon Kelly, who stood aside a month ago because he was too closely linked to Brian Burke, as almost everybody in local politics suffers the same problem. Two names mentioned as possibilities are Karen Brown, former West Australian deputy editor, current chief-of-staff to Opposition Leader Eric Ripper and unsuccessful candidate for Mount Lawley at the 2008 state election, and Sam Roe, an “ALP staffer”.
• Contrary to earlier reports that they were pushed as much as jumped, Paul Toohey of The Daily Telegraph reports Fowler MP Julia Irwin and Throsby MP Jennie George were offered extra terms due to the Prime Minister’s determination to avoid factional conflicts over who would succeed them.
• The Camden Haven Courier reports there are three candidates for Nationals preselection in Lyne, which was won at a 2008 by-election by independent Rob Oakeshott after Mark Vaile’s retirement: Port Macquarie medical specialist David Gillespie, Taree legal practitioner Quentin Schneider and Port Macquarie electrical contractor Jamie Harrison.
• Antony Green lays out possible federal election dates, noting when double dissolution and half-Senate elections are due as well as the complicating factors of school holidays, long weekends and sporting events.
• The Australian Electoral Commission has published the final report for the Queensland federal redistribution, complete with individual maps for the redrawn seats.
• The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is conducting an inquiry in the New South Wales automatic enrolment scheme, legislation for which was enacted last month. The closing date for submissions is next Friday; the committee is schedule to report on February 25.
• Business SA has published a wish list of state constitutional and electoral reform. This includes two features the government hoped to put to an all-or-nothing referendum in conjunction with the next election: cutting upper house members’ terms from eight years to four, and introducing a double dissolution mechanism. Also recommended are the introduction of compulsory enrolment, which I actually thought had been done a couple of months ago; optional preferential voting (which has always seemed to me a no-brainer – but then has so has its logical corollary, optional voting); abolition of ticket votes in the upper house with a requirement that voters number only as many candidates as there are vacancies (which raises problems if that number is 22, as it would be if you abandoned eight-year terms); abolition of South Australia’s unusual mechanism to “save” informal lower house votes by deeming partially completed ballots to have followed the relevant party’s registered how-to-vote card (which would be logical, perhaps even necessary, if optional preferential voting was introduced); a strengthened “truth in advertising” clause (a cure worse than the disease, as Democratic Audit has noted – the government got it right when it made misleading advertising grounds for declaring a result void if it may have affected the result); and by-elections when sitting members resign from their party (not entirely sure what I think about this). Among the recommended reforms for parliament is appointing outsiders as Speaker and President.
• Hobart’s Taste food festival turned ugly just before new year, following what Matthew Denholm of The Australian calls a “heated arm-waving confrontation” between Elise Archer and Sue Hickey, respectively current and former state Liberal candidates for Denison. Two witnesses pointed the finger of blame firmly at Archer: festival director and unsuccessful Liberal preselection aspirant Marti Zucco, who subsequently quit the Liberal Party over parliamentary leader Will Hodgman’s failure to act against Archer, and Hobart deputy mayor and Greens candidate Helen Burnet. The latter was allegedly told by Archer’s husband, former state party president Dale Archer, to “f*** off” when she intervened on Hickey’s behalf. Hodgman ordered Archer to apologise to Hickey, which she did by email. At issue was whether there were too many lawyers in parliament: Hickey had argued there was, and Archer – a lawyer and, like Zucco, a Hobart alderman – expressed a strong view to the contrary. Matthew Denholm further notes that Archer is associated with the Right, whereas Hickey is a moderate. Various reports in the aftermath of the incident have focused on a rift in the party between moderates and the Right, with the latter evidently having gained ascendancy. Hickey had withdrawn as a candidate a fortnight previously as she did not wish for her business to forego government contracts, as required of parliamentarians by an onerous provision in the state constitution. She was replaced on the Liberal ticket by Richard Lowrie, a manager with Hobart catamaran manufacturers Incat.
• Further upsetting the previously smooth-travelling Tasmanian Liberal applecart is news that Franklin candidate Jillian Law – described by Sue Neales of The Mercury as “delightful Huon Valley Liberal candidate and grandmother” – received an email purportedly from a party insider which said Right powerbroker Senator Eric Abetz was “very, very angry” with her, and would “be doing what he can to see you are not elected”. The email also informed Law she was “offside” with Will Hodgman, the party’s sole member for Franklin, as she had been “running about the Huon Valley telling everyone he is second to you” in terms of local support.
• Peter van Onselen of The Australian reviews the 2010 electoral landscape.
And I hope those WA Greens and their local supporters are doing the right thing on this 41 degree day by not using an Air Conditoner to keep cool. 🙂
There will be bigger mass unemployment and closure of large rural towns due to unending drought conditions unless real action happens.
Anyway a lot of renewables require being dispersed over wide areas to maximise return from capital, look at Geodynamics in Innamincka or Solar Thermal in Cloncurry. Offshore Wind in the UK has seen as good for the fishing industry, which needs all the help it can get – the windy Bass Strait, not far from Melbourne, and the WA coast, off Perth, would be perfect locations for offshore wind.
If you give all the compensation to coal miners and coal power plants, there will be no money for renewables. There is relatively not much call for wind farms in country farming areas, unlike coal mining in food bowls for which the ALP is now guilty in supporting.
Frank I remember what happened when John Hewson and John Howard proposed a GST – they had a bad election loss. But we still got a GST. Rudd has no courage. He is in his first term, the liberals are a shambles, his popularity is through the roof, and he still doesn’t have the courage to do ANYTHING.
At least Barack Obama can blame the congress. What’s Rudd’s excuse?
What, as opposed to siding with the Liberals to let wealthy people have their health insurance subsidised?
And EVERY time a Wind Farm is proposed, it is immediately opposed by the Greens on either NIMBY grounds, or because some obscure plant or animal will be damaged.
deconst
Ah yes, but Senator Bob Brown is opposed to any new windfarms in Tasmania.
The Senate. Where do the Greens sit?
Zoomster @ 604
“What, as opposed to siding with the Liberals to let wealthy people have their health insurance subsidised?”
Is this a criticism of the greens??? It’s the labor party who always did that. Until they broke their promise. Evidently keeping the private health insurance rebate was a non-core promise, while keeping the rorted education funding model was a core one. It’s hard to keep track.
Ron, I am also against the ETS. Having a “Support or Oppose the ETS” question does not give the nuances of all the possible answers.
Zoomster, you’re correct about it being not an inherently evl industry, but it employs a relatively small proportion of people given the gross impact climate change would have. I would be happy to give money to polluters to spend only on renewable energy projects – they have the engineering knowhow and logistics for it – but that is not how the ETS compensation will be allocated. The strings attached to the ETS compensation is not strong enough to drive investment in renewables, actually, it would do the very opposite.
The Renewable Energy industry can more than adequately replace the jobs lost from the closure of the Coal industry.
Finally:
Regretfully, we do not have the leisure of time to adopt a ‘wait and see’ approach. Put in real action now, or you might as well not put in any action at all.
Essential Research: 56-44.
I also am opposed to land-based windfarms. There is no point when offshore wind offers so much better returns and is so much more suitable for providing large-scale power.
How interesting – economic outlook still solid but people perhaps being a bit more rational in their optimism.
611
deconst
so why isn’t anyone doing it then? There’s money out there for that sort of investment, has been for years.
I tend to conclude that if something is desirable but it isn’t on the table then it must be impractical in reality.
I see everyone is back to the same old arguments…
Zoomster
What money? Coal is heaps cheaper.
Or St Bob will suddenly oppose it because it will affect the mating habits of the Gay Whales 🙂
Did this story about a wave energy plant get any attention on PB?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/18/2794539.htm
As for NIMBY arguments about wind, I guess the ocean’s no one’s backyard in particular.
614
Astro: have just had a hydro station opened near us (most of our power comes from hydro) as the result of incentives offered by the Howard government.
There are numerous wind farms dotted around teh country (might have noticed) which were also supported by government grants.
There are a few pilot projects for solar and geothermal, supported by government grants.
Government grants have been available for the exploration of new energy sources for several years ago, surprised you haven’t noticed.
If someone came up with a feasible way of harnessing off shore winds, I’m sure they’d get a guernsey.
Off reading up on offshore wind. Very interesting.
Apparently one of the problems is that they have to be sited so far out (to avoid NIMBY complaints) that the pylons have to go down in deep water, making them very expensive.
NIMBYs!! Aarrgghh!
The future of the planet is more important than a view!
617
Yeah there are quite a few windfarms in WA.
they’re setting a wave power plant in WA (maybe they got the funds you are talking about).
This sounds a lilttle simplistic is all. There’s not a bottomless pit of cash and it could be in WA that the wave-power group (Carnegie Corp) got the money instead.
from
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20081605-17335.html
So land’s preferable, as it’s cheaper.
Thanks for that link Rewi, you just helped my point!
I should also note that the windfarms here in WA were supported by the Greens, even in Denamrk where there was a lot of Nimbyism. The Greens took the view that the area wasn’t environmentally sensitive/important and the wind farm should go ahead.
And I’ve proved mine at 613 – offshore wind is impractical in an Australian setting, as
(i) it’s more expensive than land based wind farms;
(ii) we have plenty of land;
(iii) it’s obviously easier to site a land based windfarm near to the area of power demand than a sea based one, in most cases.
I think our future is actually ‘niche’ power, with individual regions, towns, streets, houses using a mixture of power sources.
Astro
I’m not being rude, but do you have a link for that? I have been trying to collect instances of Greens supporting windfarms, for my own nefarious purposes.
I would really appreciate it.
Deconst @ # 580
It might be fun calling people manes but it des not add to anything. Some may smoke cigars but the ones I have met cover the entire spectrum of human character. They swim and play golf go to the football and the opera. You name it they do it.
But one thing you failed to mention that they do is that they are the decision makers. They decide what investment is to be made and where and when it will be made. They determine the lever of employment. They directly determine what our standard of living will be through these decisions.
Their sole task is to make money and if they cant because of local conditions they will move where they can get a better return. They are not sentimental and decide to say in one location and loose money if there is a chance of moving somewhere else and making money.
Now you may not like our system of free enterprise but it is the only system we have and that is the way it works.
Things may or may not turn out as you predict but one thing I am sure of is that if a Government damages our economy and lowers our standard of living for no gain (which is what the Greens are preposing) then that political party will be lucky to regain the Treasury Benches in the next 20 years. As an example just remember the time in the wilderness the Labor Party had to endure because of the recession that the Keating Government encountered
In this country this means Abbott and Joyce and the entire Liberal and the Nationals taking up residency on the Treasury Benches for what would most likely be a considerably long stay.
Most of us are well aware of Mitch Hooks and his (and his employers) views. However, the Government got Hooks and the industry he represents inside the tent. If you have been observant you would have noticed that Hooks has been equivocating on the benefits of the ETS along with a number of other stakeholders since the failure of Copenhagen. As someone else noted earlier “we missed our window of opportunity”. Rudd and Wong now have the problem of keep all these stakeholders in support of the ETS which is a bit like herding cats.
Once something has been started it is always easier to ramp things up but that first step is always the hardest. All the Greens were able to do was trip the Government up by siting on their hands and scratching.
The Greens had a chance to start but it was too much of an effort for them. They sat and farted hoping for something better without any comprehension of how they would get where they want to go.
One thing that you fail to mention is that if the Greens had really acted in a manner to help the environment we would today have an ETS with a range of 5% to 25% and we would be talking about the circumstances applicable to increasing this figure. The Government would be secure knowing that it had voters and stakeholders on side. While those that fear such a large change to our society would have a chance to have their fears soothed. But instead we have nothing and we are still battling to get this first step off the ground because the Greens sided with the climate change deniers and as times passes (as Ron pointed out in a previous post) support appears to be slipping away.
This argument that the Greens would be political damaged again comes to the surface. It is clear that from all the loud beating of the Greens and their continual mantra of how virtuous they are they are really only concerned about one thing. Their political survival and growth.
Ahh, Their ABC in doing their bit for the re-election of a Liberal govt by using the release of Kev’s book for CHARITY as their “Issue of the Day”.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/18/2795042.htm?section=justin
deconst
Posted Monday, January 18, 2010 at 5:09 pm | Permalink
‘Ron, I am also against the ETS. Having a “Support or Oppose the ETS” question does not give the nuances of all the possible answers.’
BS Back peddlin now from our #563 post when you then said quote: suport for th ETS was “good’ and “consistant” !
So I provd your #563 statement was FALSE
I show facts #573 that Polls Aug 2009 to Jan 10 showing ETS suport has colapsed , so now you wrigles and you talk Poll ‘nuanses’ You do not undrstand polls at all
re your latest backward step BLAMING th Pollster now ! he did not hav ‘nuananses’ :
Th poll gav ALL th choises people needed re th ETS:
“Approve” OR “Disaprove” OR “want more info” OR “can not say”
‘Approve’ in 6 mths has gone down 10% rto 46% , disaprov has gome up 12% to 36% , and othr to categorys ar now 18% from 21%
but figures ar actualy worse re suport for an ETS , th 14-17 group (non voting) were th highest Aprovers , and th lowest Aisaprovers !!
You Greens ignore factual Polls when you do not like th answer vs your crazy ideas
SO YOU GREENS yourselves hav undermind suport for th ETS by your stupid ETS citisisms
and YOU GREENS ALONE caused th ETS to fail (when for a week th Libs were going to vote to suport th 5% ETS
and you GREENS KNOW there ar not now Senate votes for a higher than 5% ETS , so you ar being totaly deceptive on this Site (chalenge tell me where 39 votes ar NOW)
and i hav no intenton of letting you Greens spam here tryin to avoid th above 3 points showing evidense of Greens vandalism of CC oz mitigaton starting now in this country , just to keep yur popularist 8 % vote
Frank@626:
Frank, I’ve seen spin before, but this is over the top.
By what twisted logic is it “their” ABC if the ABC is giving Kev’s book, for charity, a plug?
Seems like “our” ABC to me, giving a free kick to Kev.
then why open it up for “Comments” then – thatg is the sole reason why it is written in that way and to then open comments.
Zoomster @ # 618
NIMBYs!! Aarrgghh!
The future of the planet is more important than a view!
Not to those who have paid a premium, in this case, for that view
Especially those who coincidentally vote Green 🙂
Socrates@540:
Thanks, I didn’t know that about the Austrian forestry dept. I do know that there is an awful lot of forest in Europe, if southern France, southern Germany, and Austria are fair examples.
However even if the firewood used by homes is the result of cutting down old growth forests for pines or even agriculture, it is better that they be used to heat homes, thus replacing oil or electricity (coal in Oz’s case) than being left to rot, putting CO2 into the atmosphere anyway, or pushed into windrows and torched, ditto.
In my case, I have used dead trees, prunings and fallen limbs from my place (eight acres, three and a bit hectares) since 1975 to heat the house, and we haven’t bought wood yet. There are more trees now, and a bigger biomass of trees than when we came, by a large margin.
I remember when we first bought the place, some kids from my school checked it out when cycling past, and said “Geez, sir, you’ve got a lot of trees to cut down!”
zoomster #531
Did you fail to see (or just ignore) my specification of urban – which, incidentally, you cited? As someone living in an ag area with farmer relatives & friends (as I’ve said more than once) some of whom live quite literally On the outer Barcoo where churches are few I know many non-urban Australians do not have access to electricity grids and/ or gas lines, usually rely on fossil-carbon burning generators, use slow combustion stoves and use dead timber as a fuel.
Urban wood burning is quite another matter. For starters (& despite claims to the contrary) most wood for urban domestic woodfires comes from living trees – one of the reason some farmers are so against QLD’s (& other states) tree clearing laws – felled gumtrees = $$$$! As many Councils (inc mine) insist that only hardwood be burned (usually eucalypts, like the preferred Ironbark) urban woodfires increase native tree deforestation. But that’s the least of the problems.
There’s a considerable corpus of significant and replicated UN, USA, Australian & other research into the deleterious (to say the least) health effects (including cancer & respiratory illnesses like asthma) of domestic biomass (dung, wood, ag waste) burning – UNE used to keep archive research on the topic & probably still does.
Burning eucalypt species, (esp eucalyptus grandis aka flooded gum, rose gum) extensively grown internationally, is the subject of a critical mass of USA research on (among other issues) the length of time fine particulates stay alight, especially in strong winds (most are still alight when they’re inhaled from household & bushfires – in 1983’s Vic Ash Wednesday bushfires, live sparks reached Tasmania; in NSW fires c2003, those north of Sydney lit fires well to Sydney’s south) and the distance travelled by burnt particulates (several hundred miles – 300-700 in most studies). Their fineness & sparks’ longevity are very strongly linked to upper body cancers (esp sinus, lung & respiratory tract) & other illnesses in pets (esp dogs) as well as humans.
The literature search of one of the earliest Australian on-line research studies into Fine Particulates (PM2.5) Air Pollution Australia includes:
Comparing fine-particulate emissions of wood-fires & diesel trucks, the research found:
Given the environmental & health effects of woodfire smoke in urban areas, one would expect the banning of urban woodfires (as has happened in many NE European countries) to be a high priority on the Greens agenda.
Well, PB Greenies! Is it?
Frank@629:
Geez you are a mean spirited bugger.
I liked this one:
😆
Zoomster
Sure:
http://www.sciencewa.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2335:gusty-winds-of-change-hit-the-south-west
Paul Llewellyn helped set up the ground work.
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/pq/qsearch.nsf/179ca7006fb68a1848256db4002455cd/5165ea51527498c548257170007bae4e?OpenDocument
I can see you can’t recall, but when we had our last debate about Greens and windpower I did provide some links from Paul Llewellyn.
There are plenty of other examples of Greens supporting wind power… they’re not particularly hard to find
http://www.sciencewa.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2336&Itemid=710
Look at that Greens Senator, doing his bit for windpower… Go Paul!
“there are plenty of other examples of Greens supporting wind power”
you mean NOT suporting Wind power , by Greens polisy !
AGL had plans to build th larget wind farm in southern hemispere , ditched them in favor of a gas souse one , due to lack of investmen certainty from ETS being rejected (BY th Greens !)
now realise “lack of investmen certainty” is into areas a propar “longterm business plan” , that econamicaly speakin is just unundrstandable to Greens here
OPT
If 25% of Australian homes have wood heating, that’s about the same as the number who smoke. Given that smoking causes about 100x as many health problems as wood fires, I’m guessing no-one will be convinced by the health arguments.
And the ETS means we have no incentive to burn less carbon, as it doesn’t change our target.
Samantha Maiden on twitter:
http://twitter.com/samanthamaiden/statuses/7896186919
Ron
http://www.vic.greens.org.au/front-page-stories/victoria-needs-wind-power
Ohhh look at that.
http://kiama.nsw.greens.org.au/2009/05/13/ben-van-der-wijngaards-wind-power-presentation/
ohh look at that.
These comments about Greens not supporting wind farms are sourced from ignorance. There may have been instances where they have opposed a particular windfarm due to site issues (such as endangered plants or animals).
I know you WANT to believe that the Greens don’t support Windpower, because that suits your paradigm. But it just isn’t the case.
I should end this by saying, that I personally think wind power is good, but it isn’t a silver bullet. We will need other sources of power.
Diogenes @ # 638
”And the ETS means we have no incentive to burn less carbon, as it doesn’t change our target”.
I thought that the point made earlier in respect of this was that direct prohibition was the way to go rather than including it in an ETS
ABC Perth Political Reporter Peter Kennedy on The Week in politics.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/audio/2010/01/18/2794577.htm
no Astrodome , they ar “words” , but th Greens polisy actions followed thru by rejectin th ETS in Nov was anti Wind farm
If th Greens had not rejected th ETS we would hav th bigest wind farm in southern hemispere So th words were acadamic , youse do not undrstand investmen certainty & expct business to go into RE without it , econamic lunasy so efectively Greens anti wind
in realitys so th words ar empty
Ratsars
If wood burning was banned, it would decrease our emissions (for eg lets say by say 12M ton a year). That amount of CO2 not emitted would then be freed up for Big Coal to emit. There would be no net reduction in CO2 emissions (in fact it would be counter-productive because industry could delay making any restructuring decisions).
Is there anything Bob Brown ISN’T against? (Other than perhaps homosexual relationships)
The Greens should stop telling everyone else they are doing things wrong, and start telling us how they would sort out the worlds problems.
PS. Why do i keep getting logged out?
Zoomster
http://paul-llewellyn.net/node/226
http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=670
http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/greens-demand-just-transition-collie
and on and on it goes…
Seems they do like Wind power.
Oh crap. Something else I agree with the redneck about. Surely there can be nothing else!!
Any predictions for Newspoll?
Was it 56-44 last time out?
Ron
what a load of garbage.
You may like to think that the rejection of the ETS in Nov meant they were anti-windfarms, but that’s a failure of logic on your part.
they asked the Govt to separate out the renewable energy part of the bill – actually it was already a separate bill. I think in the end that happened an the renewable energy bill passed, is that right?
Can you please stop calling me redneck and racist, I have shown you the respect to not call you childish names, I expect the same in return.