The Australian brings us a second Newspoll in consecutive weeks, perhaps portending weekly results from now to the election. It shows no change from last week on two-party preferred, with Labor maintaining its 52-48 lead, but both major parties are up on the primary vote – Labor by two and the Coalition by one, leaving them tied on 39%. The Greens are steady on 9% and One Nation are, interestingly, down two to 4%. All we are told of the leaders’ ratings at this stage is that they are “virtually unchanged”. Scott Morrison is unchanged on 45% approval and up one to 44% disapproval; Bill Shorten is unchanged on both measures, at 37% and 51%; and preferred prime minister is likewise unchanged, at 46-35 in favour of Morrison. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1697.
Firefox says:
Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 11:36 pm
————————————
A graph illustrating Senate behaviour during a 255-day period, starting 988 days ago and finishing 733 days ago, seems a highly arbitrary way to try to make a point. Forgive me if I give more weight to my clear recollection of the Greens siding with the Coalition against the CPRS in 2009, than to this arbitrary slice of context-free figures.
Greens not gov they can’t shutdown anything.
Firefox,
Especially in comparison with Manus and Nauru, what was so abhorrent about Malaysia?
One thing that bothers me about William’s election guide is that in the description for Kooyong there was no mention of the ‘leafy east’ or of ‘leafy tree lined streets’. As a long time resident of Kooyong I object to any description of the electorate that does not include the leafy adjective.
Now some of my posts are being deleted? How disappointing. It seems that photos of the Qld Labor Premier shaking hands with Mr. Adani are off limits. Righto.
Wayne .. Given your mighty LNP will win the election leaves me pondering on 2 hypotheticals.
Who would be the new Labor LOTO after Shorten loses the unlosable election? And.
Should the unthinkable happen and Labor win – how long will Shorten remain PM before he is rolled and who will then be the new PM?
Shorten stammering his way through saying nothing about his view on coal after saying his view was simple. Hilarious to watch both would be PM’s in action. Same old Labor won’t do anything about Adani because of their CFMEU donations. Sad.
“Forgive me if I give more weight to my clear recollection of the Greens siding with the Coalition against the CPRS in 2009, than to this arbitrary slice of context-free figures.”
Labor tried to team up with Turnbull to pass the CPRS. They could have negotiated with the Greens but they chose the Coalition instead. Stop trying to rewrite history.
The context for that graph is provided on it. It’s based on the official Senate Hansard during the Turnbull gov era, which wasn’t very long ago. I know we change PMs at such a rapid rate that it seems like awhile ago but it was actually this same term of government.
I Can CU
Wayne is just a troll looking for a friend or just a bite.Its hard to believe its an adult posting here. The vocabulary is very limited.
Firefox,
Was the CPRS better than what existed at the time?
Firefox
The whole if only the Greens had supported Labor on Rudd’s CPRS is scapegoating. Greens worked with Gillard and got Good Climate policy in place. As did Windsor and Oakshott. Not exactly radically left in politics.
It’s all blame shifting for losing the election because the focus was on internal political battles.
So we have this myth it’s all the Greens fault.
“Especially in comparison with Manus and Nauru, what was so abhorrent about Malaysia?”
In comparison? All these so called “solutions” are abhorrent. Bring them here FFS and stop selling out innocent just to compete for the One Nation vote with the Coalition. None of these “solutions” actually address the issue, they just outsource our responsibilities and subject people to inhumane treatment. Labor should be ashamed of themselves and I know many in the Labor Left are just that.
Remember folks, on the day of the Victorian election Newspoll had Labor 54-46 & it finished Labor 58-42. Newspoll isn’t as accurate as people think
If Australia had actually taken refugees living in Indonesia it might have stopped the people smuggling trade and given refugees a reason to wait there and be accepted there instead of getting on boats in the first place.
Another point, Labor was just behind at the start of the 2013 federal campaign but the gap got progressively worse. I expect the final election result to be 55-45 & Labor will have over 90 seats
“Was the CPRS better than what existed at the time?”
That’s debatable. It certainly fell far short of what needed to be done. Only a matter of months after Labor’s attempt to pass the CPRS with Turnbull, the Greens managed to get them to introduce the carbon price which was a far better policy. Rudd could have negotiated something like the carbon price with the Greens if he had wanted to. Big mistake, Kev, big mistake. Remember, at that time I was still a Labor voter. It’s one of the main reasons I switched to the Greens.
I still think ON voters are just disaffected Libs. If the ON goes up again its probably coming from the Libs primary.
Nath
For that to work you can’t have onshore processing. The UN does that with refugee camps in places like Jordan Libya etc but still people get on boats to go to the EU.
We should do both and accept refugees can take the risk just like we did for the Vietnamese boat people.
“Firefox
The whole if only the Greens had supported Labor on Rudd’s CPRS is scapegoating. Greens worked with Gillard and got Good Climate policy in place. As did Windsor and Oakshott. Not exactly radically left in politics.
It’s all blame shifting for losing the election because the focus was on internal political battles.
So we have this myth it’s all the Greens fault.”
So true. Labor lost in 2013 because they spent three years destroying two prime ministers and they know it. Abbott had it so easy. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he’s easily the most underserving winner of an election that I can remember. So unworthy of office. Labor should never have allowed him to get anywhere near power but they gifted it to him on a silver platter.
guytaur says:
Monday, April 15, 2019 at 12:26 am
Nath
For that to work you can’t have onshore processing. The UN does that with refugee camps in places like Jordan Libya etc but still people get on boats to go to the EU.
We should do both and accept refugees can take the risk just like we did for the Vietnamese boat people.
_______________________
Sure, but it would be better if they didn’t have to cross that sea, which I think is a lot bigger and more dangerous than the Med. Although the Med can be choppy at times due to it being shallow. I obviously don’t have all the answers, but I’m sure we couldn’t have done worse in this area for the past 20 years. That much is obvious.
SMH Front page story has GetUp! Funding boost. Captain GetUp! Is doing wonders.
Nath
Agreed. However it was good enogh for the Vietnamese. Look at what a wonderful contribution they made to this country.
I don’t like Labor’s new policy but at least they can see its indefinite detention that’s abhorrent.
Hopefully the hard right loss will be for long enough Labor can do it’s Overton Window shift so sanity returns.
Firefox
Yes. We will get the usual denials. However it’s the only reason I can see for not being proud of that agreement across the political spectrum excluding the hard right
Firefox
You are the one who is trying to rewrite, or perhaps ignore, history.
The reason that the ALP didn’t negotiate with the Greens on the CPRS is that the resulting package would have been rejected by the senate. It is a simple matter of arithmetic.
JW
If you are going to do What If, maybe Fielding of Family First would have been convinced to come over.
However the reality you cite is exactly why Labor can’t blame the Greens for that loss.
You might as well blame the LNP person for being in the hospital when Abbott got in
J341983 says Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 11:09 pm
There were remarks on Insiders about Morrison using Howard’s “who do you trust” line. I just think that shows how bereft of new ideas this mob are.
I wonder what PHON are polling in Queensland? If they’re bleeding votes then maybe the LNP might decide that they don’t need a preference deal after all.
Guytaur
I blame the Greens for the loss because they voted against the legislation. It’s pretty simple really.
https://www.pollbludger.net/2019/04/14/newspoll-52-48-labor-11/comment-page-4/#comment-3128709
A new election was needed to pass a deal between the ALP and Greens, that is true. That does not mean it was a good idea for the Greens to reward the ALP for negotiating with the Liberals instead of the Greens. It was then and still is a serious issue worth fighting an election over and rewarding other parties for overlooking the Greens would be ignoring the wishes of Green voters to be represented by people committed to serious action.
Firefox says Monday, April 15, 2019 at 12:24 am
It may or may not have been a better policy, but where is it now?
The best outcome would probably have been for Labor and the Coalition to come to an agreement and pass legislation in 2009. If they had then it would probably still be in place now, and Health Minister might have been Abbott’s highest achievement in public life. That didn’t happen and here we are.
Whether we should blame Rudd for trying to wedge Turnbull, or Nick Minchin for undermining his leader, I can’t say. Perhaps both.
JW
Then you are blaming the wrong party. Rudd was negotiating with the LNP.
Why? As you so succinctly put it arithmetic.
We know what happened when Labor and the Greens did negotiate. A Carbon Price as part of a Market Mechanism got made into legislation
Firefox says:
Monday, April 15, 2019 at 12:18 am
I don’t know if you’ve been to Malaysia, but to equate it with the Islands suggests probably not.
Malaysia is one of the more developed Countries in SE Asia, it’s culturally familiar for many of the refugees and there is the ability for them to work there.
You just need to walk around KL to see them.
The Rohingyas and other Burmese are particularly obvious with their distinctively painted faces.
They would be living in a much more conducive environment than what they experience in the Island camps whilst awaiting a Country to take them.
I don’t disagree with you about bringing them to Australia, but that was never an option in the political climate that existed.
This is where the Greens fail so often, they won’t adapt and accept the possible and as a result those refugees that arrived by boat have been placed in a much worse situation.
“The reason that the ALP didn’t negotiate with the Greens on the CPRS is that the resulting package would have been rejected by the senate. It is a simple matter of arithmetic.”
So instead of trying to come up with something better that would have passed, Labor chose to just try and ram the CPRS through with Turnbull’s help instead. Remember, Turnbull was going to pass the CPRS before he lost the leadership by 1 single vote (Peter Slipper’s “tainted vote” – as the Libs would later describe him – being crucial in that. Liberal hypocrisy at its finest right there. But I digress…) The fact that Turnbull and half the Coalition were willing to support the CPRS should tell you everything you need to know about how weak a policy it was.
Barney, you’re suggesting that the Greens should have supported the Malaysia solution because it was – in your view – slightly less inhumane than sending them to Manus or Nauru. The Greens oppose off shore processing. Full stop. It’s would thus be impossible for them to support either “solution”. We had our own policy. Supporting either Liberal or Labor policies aren’t the only options. The Greens have their own policies. You shouldn’t expect them to just suddenly abandon their principles and policies just to make things politically easier for Labor. Abusing innocent people by locking them up, regardless of whether it’s in Malaysia, Nauru, or even on the Moon, is just unacceptable. The Greens don’t exist to make things easier for Labor, we exist to do what is right.
FFS, something better would not have passed! Are you innumerate?
I just came across this scene from Yes Minister. I assume it’s set in the UK’s version of Senate Estimates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIto5mwDLxo
52-48.
Steady as she goes.
“Labor tried to team up with Turnbull to pass the CPRS. They could have negotiated with the Greens”
and with Steve Fielding (who was necessary with the Greens to get something through the Senate).
Imagine getting Fielding to agree with the Greens on any sort of Carbon pricing. You’re much more likely to see pigs flying.
I’m sure this has been posted, but it’s good. “Candid Moments from the Bill Bus with Bill Shorten and Kristina Keneally”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UkVTNfh0Fs
“FFS, something better would not have passed! Are you innumerate?”
You can’t say that. Nobody can. We’ll never know if a renegotiated deal would have passed because that’s not what Labor chose to do.
I can and do say that. Also anyone who can count and has a knowledge of the senate numbers at the time would say that.
Night all!
“and with Steve Fielding (who was necessary with the Greens to get something through the Senate).
Imagine getting Fielding to agree with the Greens on any sort of Carbon pricing. You’re much more likely to see pigs flying.”
Since there’s a lot of rewriting of history going on here, I present to you and all others here the full explanation that the Greens gave at the time. The second last paragraph says it all about what Labor was actually doing…
Quote:
Why can’t the Greens support the CPRS as it stands?
There is broad recognition that the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme is weak and badly designed. However, some still hold the view that “something is better than nothing”, that, if the bill passes, “at least we’ll have the architecture of a scheme to build on”.
If that were the case and the CPRS were merely too weak, the Greens might have supported it as a start. But even the government acknowledged, as they negotiated with the opposition, that there comes a point when action becomes so weak that it is useless. Beyond that simple point, we Greens recognise that, when faced with a serious and complex problem, it is the choice of the right action that is vital, not simply the decision to act. Prescribing and locking in the wrong treatment to a seriously ill patient can hasten death rather than prevent it.
The Greens oppose the CPRS as it stands not because it is too weak but because it is the wrong action – it would actually point Australia in the wrong direction. It would pay polluters to keep polluting, hiding inaction with smoke and mirrors. It would undermine global action with its weak target, a target which, once set, would be impossible to lift without paying more billions in compensation. It would demoralise and disempower the community and it would repeat the mistakes of the Murray River, over-allocating permits.
This is why we say it is not just a failure, but it locks in failure.
Here is some detail on each of those points:
• Paying polluters to keep polluting – sending precisely the wrong investment signal
o Far from driving investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency and clean transport, the CPRS as it stands would unleash a wave of investment in coal. Far from making polluters pay, Mr Rudd’s plan will pay them to keep polluting.
o A weak target and price signal will drive short-sighted investment in polluting infrastructure that will have to be closed down when appropriate targets and price signals are implemented, wasting time and money. Compensation to polluters linked to a requirement that they continue generation exacerbates this problem. A recent report by the Grattan Institute confirmed this to be the case.
o In Western Australia, generators are considering recommissioning two old coal fired power stations to take advantage of this. In addition, experts expect to see new coal and gas fired power stations and refurbishment of old coal fired power stations that should really be closed down.
o If we set out on the right trajectory with a realistic price signal from the beginning, we will make fewer of these mistakes and waste less time and money.
o If, globally, we are to reduce emissions enough to constrain temperature increases to less than two degrees, then we need to make rapid emission cuts urgently. A slow start means that emissions have to be reduced much more rapidly later on, a requirement that is quickly becoming unrealistic.
• Hiding inaction with smoke and mirrors
o Minister Wong claims that the CPRS will transform the Australian economy, but her own figures show that Australia’s emissions, substantially from coal, will not drop at all before 2033. Almost all emissions reductions under the CPRS will be bought in from overseas – a case of smoke and mirrors, with offsets hiding the reality that Australia would be continuing with its highly polluting economy.
o The government even refuses to accept the Greens’ proposal to ensure that all offsets from offshore are accredited to make sure they are 100% reliable. There have been increasing reports of dodgy offset schemes around the world.
• Locking out the option of cuts deeper than 25% limits the options of later governments
o The government repeatedly refused Greens’ requests to model the economic impact of emissions cuts beyond 25%. This is particularly bizarre given that, while the economic impact of 25% cuts is almost identical to 5%, there is evidence that steeper cuts will be cheaper, as we will learn faster and make fewer mistakes.
o The Greens have obtained legal advice that says that if a future government chooses to lift the targets to beyond the current 5-25% range even more compensation to polluters would be payable. Read this advice here.
• Undermining global action with a weak target
o The key stumbling block to a global climate agreement is the refusal by developed nations to sign up to the kind of targets the science, the community and the developing world demand – in the order of 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.
o The Rudd government’s 4% target (below 1990), and the unrealistically stringent conditions placed on moving to the still too weak 24% target, are part of the problem globally.
• Demoralising the community with a weak target and undermined voluntary action
o There is significant disquiet in the community about the impact of the CPRS on voluntary and additional action to cut emissions.
o We need the community to be inspired, not disempowered.
• Repeating the mistake made with the Murray by over-allocating free permits
o Once rights are issued for something – for example for water rights – it is politically very difficult, and very expensive, for a government to change its mind.
o The government has been at pains to point out that scheme will provide long-term certainty by setting a 5 year rolling cap, supported by longer term gateways. In reality, this means that it will politically very difficult for any government to ramp up emissions targets after they are set.
o Just as the over-allocation of water in the Murray Darling has made a fix almost unimaginably difficult, the over-allocation of free permits in the early years would lock in a weak trajectory and make it almost impossible to strengthen the scheme without massive additional compensation to polluters or cost to taxpayers through purchasing imported permits.
The Greens did not take the step of opposing the CPRS lightly. We did so after extensive considered analysis of the legislation and many months of attempting to negotiate amendments. However, we remain determined to negotiate with the government and we have written to the Prime Minister once again seeking to open negotiations. These substantial problems can only be fixed if the legislation is amended before it is passed.
You can download a printable version of this explanation here.
What do the Greens propose to do?
The Greens are determined to deliver meaningful action to prevent climate crisis, which is why we developed our Safe Climate Bill – http://www.safeclimatebill.org.au – which sets out what needs to be done. In the meantime, we are also working to convince the Rudd Government to improve its CPRS to a state where we could support it. So far it refuses to do so. We are continuing to make every attempt to negotiate amendments with it for the bills’ return in February.
We have introduced into the Senate 22 amendments, alongside many consequential ones, that would have turned the government’s emissions trading legislation from a barrier to action into an environmentally effective and economically efficient scheme. These sensible amendments are based on Professor Garnaut’s economics and the globally accepted science. But the government did not support any of them, refuses to negotiate unless the Greens accept their woefully weak greenhouse reduction target range of 5-25%.
The Greens’ amendments to the CPRS (release here and full chart here) were designed to:
• insert environmentally effective emissions reduction targets of 25% unconditional and 40% in the context of global action, in line with the UN Bali Negotiating Range;
• adopt Professor Garnaut’s economically credible proposals to:
o auction all permits;
o compensate trade exposed industries only to the value of their lost competitiveness, not for lost profits; and
o not compensate electricity generators at all;
• fix the problem of undermining additional and voluntary action by providing for such action to be tallied and equivalent emissions cut from the following year’s target;
• remove market distortions such as the price cap and the ban on permit export;
• ensure that transport is covered by the scheme; and
• only allow the import of the most highly credible permits and restrict total imports to ensure credibility of the scheme and drive domestic economic transformation.
The Greens understand how negotiation works – we presented these amendments as a starting point for discussion and did not expect the government to accept them all. Neither, however, did we expect the government to reject them all out of hand. Significant progress towards our position needs to be made if the CPRS is to be improved to a state where we could support it.
How have the Greens been working with the Government?
The Greens first attempted to discuss emissions trading plans with Prime Minister Rudd and Minister Wong as soon as the government was elected. Early meetings set the tone for what was to come – a complete refusal by the government to accept Greens input.
Bob Brown and Christine Milne have written to Prime Minister Rudd and Minister Wong requesting negotiations, setting out proposed amendments and looking for a way forward on no fewer than ten occasions since March 2009. Responses have been less than forthcoming.
General letters were exchanged in March, following the release of the original draft legislation and surrounding Senate inquiry processes. With no negotiations having occurred, the Greens sent proposals for amendments to the government on May 4, including a shift from the previous position of 40% emissions reductions only to a 25-40% range for negotiation.
On May 27, the Prime Minister wrote to Bob Brown refusing to negotiate directly and passing the issue to Minister Wong, who had not personally responded. Senator Brown wrote back the next day, requesting meetings at the leadership level. No response has been received but a meeting took place between Senators Brown and Milne and Minister Wong at which the Minister refused to move on any issue, simply requesting that the Greens sign up to the government’s policy.
On June 14, the Greens Senators wrote to Minister Wong requesting further modelling of emissions targets. No response has been received.
Following the first defeat of the CPRS on August 13, the Greens wrote again to the Prime Minister and Minister Wong, suggesting negotiations to find a way forward. The Prime Minister again responded with a letter passing all responsibility to the Minister, who had not responded. On September 30 Senator Brown again requested a personal meeting with the Prime Minister, without response.
On October 11, the Greens sent the government fully drafted amendments to the CPRS bill. A meeting took place to discuss these amendments in early November at which Minister Wong told the Greens Senators that no negotiations on any of the amendments could take place until the Greens signed up to the government’s 5-25% target range. The Greens rejected this precondition in a letter on November 5, requesting negotiations around all the issues in the bill.
Following the second defeat of the legislation on December 2, Senators Brown and Milne again wrote to the Prime Minister and Minister Wong requesting negotiations to seek a way forward. Another letter was sent on December 22 following the Copenhagen conference. The Prime Minister again replied on January 7 2010 that any negotiations must occur with Minister Wong. There has been no response from Minister Wong as at January 13, but she closed 2009 telling the media that she would not negotiate with the Greens.
With the CPRS returning to the parliament on February 2 and no prospect of the opposition supporting it, the government must either work with the Greens or acknowledge that bringing the legislation back a third time is purely a political stunt.
https://greensmps.org.au/articles/greens-and-emissions-trading-–-your-questions-answered#cantsupportCPRS
There’s a lot there, so I’ll repeat the crucial part:
“Following the second defeat of the legislation on December 2, Senators Brown and Milne again wrote to the Prime Minister and Minister Wong requesting negotiations to seek a way forward. Another letter was sent on December 22 following the Copenhagen conference. The Prime Minister again replied on January 7 2010 that any negotiations must occur with Minister Wong. There has been no response from Minister Wong as at January 13, but she closed 2009 telling the media that she would not negotiate with the Greens.”
Again, Labor chose not to negotiate with the Greens.
“I can and do say that. Also anyone who can count and has a knowledge of the senate numbers at the time would say that.”
Nah, you can’t. You can say what you THINK may have happened but that’s it. You don’t know and neither do I. Nobody ever will because Labor refused to try. See above.
Sportsbet has betting on number of seats that Labor will have in the HoR.
81-85 seats $2.70
86-90 seats $2.80
A great Trump impersonation: https://twitter.com/NYinLA2121/status/1117223714397966336
Firefox says:
Monday, April 15, 2019 at 1:14 am
You haven’t been there, have you?
No, it was a humane solution as it allowed them to have a life whilst they awaited resettlement.
That’s like saying, I oppose capital punishment, so I don’t care if you stone him or give him a lethal injection.
Perfect over the possible.
You don’t get it, until the Greens are in a position to form a Government, their policies mean very little.
The Government formulates legislation, the Greens can sometimes push legislation closer to what they would like with amendments or through negotiations.
Why can’t they say, we certainly wouldn’t propose this, but we accept that it is preferable to the alternative.
That is a completely ethically sound approach.
It’s pointless attempting to negotiate with the Gs. They will not negotiate in good faith, preferring impasse, for which they can blame their counter-party, rather than an agreement, which would serve the political goals of their counter-party.
The Gs are Labor’s enemies. Labor has learned from bitter experience with both the Liberals and the Libkin that they cannot – and must never – put their fortunes in the hands of their enemies.
The Gs derive their campaign mojo from agitation around climate change responses and the treatment of asylum seekers. It suits the G Party – if not their supporters – to have these survive as live political issues for as long as possible. The Gs will oppose anything that will resolve these issues unless they are on the terms determined by the Gs. For reasons of political expedience, they will resist progress on these issues; they will side with the reactionaries to further their political strategy. They are absolutely not to be trusted on these issues. Their motives are the same as the motives of the LNP – to oppose Labor at all times and in all places on these issues. They are an oppositionist clique.
Rex Douglas says:
Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 10:04 pm
frednk @ #9 Sunday, April 14th, 2019 – 9:59 pm
Rex Douglas says:
Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 9:55 pm
I note Penny Wong again attacking the Greens today on twitter.
Such attacks will only harm Labors vote in the senate as Greens voters may well leave Labor out of their preferences altogether.
And exactly what was the black wiggle doing on insiders today? You reap what you sow.
He was offering a closer working arrangement. It’s up to Labor now if they reject that in favour of the Libs.
Penny Wongs attacks are illogical in terms of gaining Greens voter preferences in the senate.
The correct approach for Labor is to reject DiNatali’s overtures. Were Labor to endorse them, they would be encouraging voters to support the Gs. This would be an entirely counter-productive result. Voters who want reform should just vote Labor in the House and the Senate. The Gs will use any leverage they have to thwart Labor. They are already promising to do this.
The G’s are an anti-Labor gizmo. This is their act, their reason for being. Labor should make it very clear that a G vote is not a proxy for a Labor vote, but rather is a vote against Labor.
Firefox @ #155 Monday, April 15th, 2019 – 12:05 am
That photo appears in all its glory on both Firefox (the browser) and Chrome.