Prior to the release of the Henry Review, Abbott delivered a speech to the Lowy Institute, advising all who cared to listen that Australia was punching below its weight. He believed we as a nation were contributing less than we should in current fields of service, especially Afghanistan, where he proposed increasing troop deployment to replace the role of the Dutch once they pulled out.
Our own national security, including our border protection, was an issue that deserved serious consideration, and increased investment in the areas that mattered most. This was Abbott’s view.
Twenty-four hours later, and Rudd announced a doubling of Australia’s civilian involvement in Afghanistan – more diplomats and aid workers would be deployed to the area. In doing so, he criticised Abbott for making “erratic policy decisions on the run.”
Such a statement was typical of Rudd at this time. He appeared on our TV screens that night, looking self-satisfied and sanctimonious. Looks can be deceiving, but in Rudd’s case, there was little room for misinterpretation of intent.
The writer's sympathy went out to the press present for the announcement. Delivered in his usual monotone, Rudd’s ability to disinterest the most avid follower of political affairs was acute.
As important as defence spending and procurement was, however, it was the arrival of Tuesday, April 27th that made front page news for days thereafter. This day would go down in Australia’s contemporary political history as one of the greatest policy ‘u-turns’ of modern times. It was Kevin Rudd who faced the media to announce a major change in policy, no, the major change in policy – the ‘postponement’ of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Paul Kelly of The Australian referred to it as the greatest back-down in public policy in the last fifty years. The media at large were unable to put a positive spin on the story. Tony Abbott laughed out loud. Bob Brown was less than impressed.
Rudd had reverted to Brendan Nelson’s position of a couple of years prior. At the time, Nelson was the Opposition Leader and was pilloried by left and right for his stance. With Rudd’s announcement, what was once considered the greatest moral challenge of our generation had been put off until 2013 at the earliest.
No matter which way the ALP tried to ‘spin’ the story, it was indeed a back-down of immense proportions. A ‘wait and see’ approach had replaced the proactive stance the ALP had previously espoused.
Tony Abbott had won.
All that talk, all that press coverage, all those feature articles and editorials on the ETS had come to nought, nothing, nil. Kevin Rudd had become the Prime Minister who announced grand schemes and programs but could not implement them with any success, if at all. He simply could not walk the walk.
On Thursday, April 29, in The Australian, it was Peter Van Onselen who said it best. “In December 2009 Rudd said: ‘The argument that we must not act until others do is an argument that has been used by political cowards since time immemorial.’” By Rudd’s own admission, his current position of postponement was one of cowardice.
Van Onselen continued. “...Rudd once said: ‘To delay [implementing the CPRS] any longer would be reckless and irresponsible for our economy and our environment.’” By Rudd’s own admission, he was now acting in a reckless and irresponsible manner.
As Van Onselen concluded: “It would appear Rudd is more concerned about being in power than implementing policies he believes are important...” What is it that is said about power corrupting?
The whole saga was not unlike the story of the village boy who sat on the hill watching the sheep. “Wolf, wolf,” he cried. “The wolf is chasing the sheep.” The villagers came to his aide to help him drive the wolf away. All the shepherd boy could do was laugh as he watched the reaction of the villagers when they soon realised there was no wolf.
It was the best entertainment in town. The shepherd boy could not resist. “Wolf, wolf,” he shouted out once more. The villagers fell for it...again. The third time the boy cried wolf, the villagers had had enough. “Nobody believes a liar," they told him, “even when he’s telling the truth!”
Aesop’s Fables have stood the test of time, and although not much is known about Aesop himself, the fables attributed to him have a cogent message for contemporary politicians of every ilk.
Kevin Rudd, the shepherd boy of Australian politics, was not going to fool the voting public, the villagers if you will, any more. The greatest moral challenge of our age appeared to be anything but. And even if the “liar” was “telling the truth” it may well have been too late for the villagers to listen to his message.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Taxing Success
The release of the Henry Tax Review saw articles and commentary galore, in particular relating to the Rudd Government's announcement that they were to introduce a Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT).
But first, out came a Newspoll that led to some members of the media coming close to writing off Rudd as a leader and his government as electable. Nothing could have been further from the truth of course. As we all know, whenever there are two opposing camps competing against one another, both have a chance of success.
Yet the Newspoll was to prove to be anything but a 'rogue' poll, as some commentators liked to imagine. It showed a massive swing towards the Opposition on a two-party preferred basis, with the government down five points to forty-nine percent and the Coalition up five points to fifty-one percent. As the Greens remained stagnant on ten percent on a primary basis, it was 'other' that seemed to be the real winner. All this meant was that Labor voters were moving away from the government they no longer trusted and towards someone 'other' than the Coalition. But as the federal system was one of compulsory preferential voting, Tony Abbott was the real winner.
And so began the commentary on the resource tax. An extra tax on mining had not been a recommendation of the Henry Review. No wonder Ken Henry, Treasury Secretary, looked so grim after the announcement. The review had recommended the resource tax as a replacement tax and had also recommended an easing of corporate tax to twenty-five percent from its current level of thirty percent as a compensatory measure. The government had announced the resource tax as an 'add-on' to existing tax structures and had further announced a reduction in corporate tax to twenty-eight percent. One hopes Henry was being well recompensed for his efforts as it was clear that, for all his hard work and the hard work of those on the Review Board, he did not have the ear of the Prime Minister.
Rudd's idea of reform was to announce the introduction, in one form or another, of only two out of 138 recommendations made by Henry. The second recommendation was the heightening of the superannuation contribution to twelve percent by 2019.
It raised a number of concerns. Firstly, what was a super tax and when did it kick in? The government's explanation was not clear.
Rudd tried explaining it soon after the release of the proposal and got tied up in knots. It seems wise for one never to try to answer a question one doesn't know the answer to. As Abraham Lincoln had once said: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
Wayne Swan tried to untie Rudd's knots but with limited success. He had been reported as saying the Super Tax would kick in at a level at which a mining company was declaring a profit over and above that deemed reasonable in a competitive market. But what did this mean? It sounded like a term straight from a lawyer's handbook. We've all heard the old joke that goes something like this: 'Question: How can you tell when a lawyer is not telling the truth? Answer: When they open their mouth.'
In other words, Wayne Swan's explanation was anything but helpful. So how did the resource sector feel about these developments? Clive Palmer, the Queensland mining magnate, was 'pissed off,' to say the least. The fifth richest man in Australia at the time, self-made billionaire, and donor to the Liberal National Party, found himself calling the Federal Treasurer a fool. Not the best way to win friends and influence people, but Clive Palmer was no shrinking violet.
His view, along with that of many others, was that the federal government was taxing success. As Palmer said, the Soviet Union lost the Cold War decades ago - the market economy was here to stay but the resource sector could easily move offshore. After all, where was the love? Where was the incentive to stay?
It appeared possible that taxing success could well lead to a reduction in mining projects, which in turn could see a reduction in employment in the resource sector. Alternatively, to supercede the super tax, mining companies may well engage in some 'creative accounting' that could lead to a reduction in declared profitability.
A reduction in the profitability of the mining sector could see a reduction in the level of revenue projected by government forecasts, and this could, in turn, be anything but compensatory for the increase in costs to the corporate sector as a result of an increase in compulsory superannuation to twelve percent by 2019.
Wage pressure and a reduction in real wage increases as labour costs increased could well result. Potentially this could lead to an increase in collective bargaining and strike action and a potential decline in workforce participation. Ultimately, this could have the effect of a decline in productivity. The flow-on effects were immense.
One such potential flow-on effect was a reduction in share prices. Superannuation accounts are one of the major investors in the share market, including the resource sector. Were the super funds of voters to be effected as a result of the RSPT? And if so, what benefit would they get from an increase in superannuation to twelve percent by 2019? If their salary was to be capped and their superannuation account(s) didn't perform as expected, then how would they be better off as a result? How would this effect their voting intention?
As it turned out, the RSPT was, unlike Swan's explanation earlier on, to kick in at a six percent return, at which time the mining companies were to be taxed forty percent. As similar return could be achieved on a short-term term deposit. ING Direct were advertising on their website a return of six percent on a one hundred and eighty day, one year or two year term deposit with a minimum balance of $10,000.
Debra Cameron, host of Mornings with Debra Cameron on ABC 702 Sydney, could see nothing wrong with the Resource Super Profits Tax. After all, "they've got pots of money," she said. Congenial, amenable, friendly, she had a thing against News Limited, the Melbourne Storm, Tony Abbott and all things anti-Rudder-like. It made for interesting morning radio.
It wasn't the "pots of money" the mining companies had that was the concern, so much as the small companies or businesses that relied on the resource sector for their livelihood. Any negative effect on mining in this country would also negatively effect small business. After all, only about one-third of small businesses were incorporated, meaning only one-third of small businesses could look forward to a measely two percent reduction in company tax. But those small businesses reliant on mining activity in Kambalda, Mount Isa, and elsewhere, had an uncertain future.
As Tony Abbott said in his budget reply, the first role of a government is to do no harm. Millions of potential voters had no confidence this government was doing no harm. It was little wonder their poll numbers were nosediving and rogue polls had become a trend.
Yet one kept hearing from this government that "working families" would benefit from the resource tax. What of retirees, childless couples with a single income, singles working full-time and living alone, university students?
The retiree may well have worked in the mining industry, and have felt the industry in which he worked hard for years had been singled out. The childless couple with only one income may well rely on sub-contracting in the construction industry for their income, and be concerned prices may rise as a result of the resource tax. The university student may well be planning to do work experience in the banking sector, another sector with super profits, and believe that sector likely to be the next to be affected by a super tax.
After all, why single out the resource sector? Surely the mining industry was only the beginning. These people all vote. Were they not important? Did they not contribute to society? Were they for some reason precluded from day-to-day commentary?
One thing was for sure. When exit polls are taken at the next federal election, they will include more than just working families. An important part of our society, but not the only part. A contributing factor, but not the whole. The government was getting tired and stale. And Tony Abbott had been given a segue to the next great big new tax on everything.
But first, out came a Newspoll that led to some members of the media coming close to writing off Rudd as a leader and his government as electable. Nothing could have been further from the truth of course. As we all know, whenever there are two opposing camps competing against one another, both have a chance of success.
Yet the Newspoll was to prove to be anything but a 'rogue' poll, as some commentators liked to imagine. It showed a massive swing towards the Opposition on a two-party preferred basis, with the government down five points to forty-nine percent and the Coalition up five points to fifty-one percent. As the Greens remained stagnant on ten percent on a primary basis, it was 'other' that seemed to be the real winner. All this meant was that Labor voters were moving away from the government they no longer trusted and towards someone 'other' than the Coalition. But as the federal system was one of compulsory preferential voting, Tony Abbott was the real winner.
And so began the commentary on the resource tax. An extra tax on mining had not been a recommendation of the Henry Review. No wonder Ken Henry, Treasury Secretary, looked so grim after the announcement. The review had recommended the resource tax as a replacement tax and had also recommended an easing of corporate tax to twenty-five percent from its current level of thirty percent as a compensatory measure. The government had announced the resource tax as an 'add-on' to existing tax structures and had further announced a reduction in corporate tax to twenty-eight percent. One hopes Henry was being well recompensed for his efforts as it was clear that, for all his hard work and the hard work of those on the Review Board, he did not have the ear of the Prime Minister.
Rudd's idea of reform was to announce the introduction, in one form or another, of only two out of 138 recommendations made by Henry. The second recommendation was the heightening of the superannuation contribution to twelve percent by 2019.
It raised a number of concerns. Firstly, what was a super tax and when did it kick in? The government's explanation was not clear.
Rudd tried explaining it soon after the release of the proposal and got tied up in knots. It seems wise for one never to try to answer a question one doesn't know the answer to. As Abraham Lincoln had once said: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
Wayne Swan tried to untie Rudd's knots but with limited success. He had been reported as saying the Super Tax would kick in at a level at which a mining company was declaring a profit over and above that deemed reasonable in a competitive market. But what did this mean? It sounded like a term straight from a lawyer's handbook. We've all heard the old joke that goes something like this: 'Question: How can you tell when a lawyer is not telling the truth? Answer: When they open their mouth.'
In other words, Wayne Swan's explanation was anything but helpful. So how did the resource sector feel about these developments? Clive Palmer, the Queensland mining magnate, was 'pissed off,' to say the least. The fifth richest man in Australia at the time, self-made billionaire, and donor to the Liberal National Party, found himself calling the Federal Treasurer a fool. Not the best way to win friends and influence people, but Clive Palmer was no shrinking violet.
His view, along with that of many others, was that the federal government was taxing success. As Palmer said, the Soviet Union lost the Cold War decades ago - the market economy was here to stay but the resource sector could easily move offshore. After all, where was the love? Where was the incentive to stay?
It appeared possible that taxing success could well lead to a reduction in mining projects, which in turn could see a reduction in employment in the resource sector. Alternatively, to supercede the super tax, mining companies may well engage in some 'creative accounting' that could lead to a reduction in declared profitability.
A reduction in the profitability of the mining sector could see a reduction in the level of revenue projected by government forecasts, and this could, in turn, be anything but compensatory for the increase in costs to the corporate sector as a result of an increase in compulsory superannuation to twelve percent by 2019.
Wage pressure and a reduction in real wage increases as labour costs increased could well result. Potentially this could lead to an increase in collective bargaining and strike action and a potential decline in workforce participation. Ultimately, this could have the effect of a decline in productivity. The flow-on effects were immense.
One such potential flow-on effect was a reduction in share prices. Superannuation accounts are one of the major investors in the share market, including the resource sector. Were the super funds of voters to be effected as a result of the RSPT? And if so, what benefit would they get from an increase in superannuation to twelve percent by 2019? If their salary was to be capped and their superannuation account(s) didn't perform as expected, then how would they be better off as a result? How would this effect their voting intention?
As it turned out, the RSPT was, unlike Swan's explanation earlier on, to kick in at a six percent return, at which time the mining companies were to be taxed forty percent. As similar return could be achieved on a short-term term deposit. ING Direct were advertising on their website a return of six percent on a one hundred and eighty day, one year or two year term deposit with a minimum balance of $10,000.
Debra Cameron, host of Mornings with Debra Cameron on ABC 702 Sydney, could see nothing wrong with the Resource Super Profits Tax. After all, "they've got pots of money," she said. Congenial, amenable, friendly, she had a thing against News Limited, the Melbourne Storm, Tony Abbott and all things anti-Rudder-like. It made for interesting morning radio.
It wasn't the "pots of money" the mining companies had that was the concern, so much as the small companies or businesses that relied on the resource sector for their livelihood. Any negative effect on mining in this country would also negatively effect small business. After all, only about one-third of small businesses were incorporated, meaning only one-third of small businesses could look forward to a measely two percent reduction in company tax. But those small businesses reliant on mining activity in Kambalda, Mount Isa, and elsewhere, had an uncertain future.
As Tony Abbott said in his budget reply, the first role of a government is to do no harm. Millions of potential voters had no confidence this government was doing no harm. It was little wonder their poll numbers were nosediving and rogue polls had become a trend.
Yet one kept hearing from this government that "working families" would benefit from the resource tax. What of retirees, childless couples with a single income, singles working full-time and living alone, university students?
The retiree may well have worked in the mining industry, and have felt the industry in which he worked hard for years had been singled out. The childless couple with only one income may well rely on sub-contracting in the construction industry for their income, and be concerned prices may rise as a result of the resource tax. The university student may well be planning to do work experience in the banking sector, another sector with super profits, and believe that sector likely to be the next to be affected by a super tax.
After all, why single out the resource sector? Surely the mining industry was only the beginning. These people all vote. Were they not important? Did they not contribute to society? Were they for some reason precluded from day-to-day commentary?
One thing was for sure. When exit polls are taken at the next federal election, they will include more than just working families. An important part of our society, but not the only part. A contributing factor, but not the whole. The government was getting tired and stale. And Tony Abbott had been given a segue to the next great big new tax on everything.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Mr. Flip-Flop
The news of the day provided Rudd with an out clause. April 22 was the day the public was told the Melbourne Storm’s National Rugby League franchise was in doubt. The club had allegedly fiddled the books and disobeyed salary cap restrictions to the tune of $1.7 million.
The full story would come out in good time. For now, the only thing known for sure was that the club was being fined, stripped of two premierships and not allowed to compete for points for the rest of season 2010. It was also known that three major sponsors wanted nothing further to do with the club. It’s future, financial or otherwise, was in grave doubt.
What a great day for the federal government to announce the official closure of the insulation program and the alleged lack of need for the remaining couple of hundred child care centres they had promised to build. The Daily Telegraph moved that story to page fifteen. It was clear what some broadsheets considered more important news for the people. Sport rules. Politics and public service delivery, or the lack thereof, comes a distant second.
Rudd must have been grinning from ear to ear. Tony Abbott may well have been ruing a lost opportunity. But in describing the Prime Minister, he referred to him as worse than Whitlam. Some media commentators thought that was a bit harsh...on Whitlam.
As the day progressed, Greg Combet, Rudd’s Mr. Fix-it, made an appearance. He’d been left with the job of explaining how the insulation program, which seemed like a good idea at the time, had ended up detrimentally effecting many a small business, and more besides. No matter what spin anyone tried to put on it, there could be little doubt or disagreement that the program had been a fatal disaster – failure personified.
As if that wasn’t enough for one day, along came Kate Ellis, Minister for Looking Good, and in her spare time other things such as sport and child care. It was her responsibility to announce that although the federal government had promised to build 260 new child care centres, only 38 would be completed.
One may ask, why? Simple. According to Ellis, though they had been promised, they simply were not needed. An easy way out of another policy failure – big ideas leading to disastrous service delivery. One could be forgiven for thinking it may well be time for the government to get out of the way. Being seeing to be doing something was more important to this government than the quality of what was being done. Promises made and promises broken had led to instability, uncertainty, and unpopularity.
The question on everyone’s lips now was: what next for the Melbourne Storm? But despite salary caps taking precedence over policy, over time, the onus would be back on the government to explain why it was unable to successfully provide quality service delivery of insulation and child care facilities. What chance was there health would see a better outcome?
One other concern had been raised also. This seemed to be a Prime Minister who was keen to be front and centre when positive news stories were being announced to the press, but conspicuously absent when the announcement was negative. The Prime Minister was so busy visiting hospitals, he went 'AWOL' on issues pertaining to the processing of asylum-seekers, the need to respond to criticism of cost blow-outs in the BER scheme, as well, of course, as the closure of the insulation program and the abandonment of child care centre construction.
Bob Carr used this technique to great effect when NSW Premier. Only problem for Rudd was it was starting to raise concerns that here was a man that could not be trusted. Were the Spin Doctors now running the country?
Amongst all this news, it was announced the Henry Tax Review, which the government had been keeping under lock and key since January, would finally be released in May, just prior to the May Budget. It was to be released on a Sunday – a day voters' attention turns to fun, frivolity, family...and the Melbourne Storm.
The full story would come out in good time. For now, the only thing known for sure was that the club was being fined, stripped of two premierships and not allowed to compete for points for the rest of season 2010. It was also known that three major sponsors wanted nothing further to do with the club. It’s future, financial or otherwise, was in grave doubt.
What a great day for the federal government to announce the official closure of the insulation program and the alleged lack of need for the remaining couple of hundred child care centres they had promised to build. The Daily Telegraph moved that story to page fifteen. It was clear what some broadsheets considered more important news for the people. Sport rules. Politics and public service delivery, or the lack thereof, comes a distant second.
Rudd must have been grinning from ear to ear. Tony Abbott may well have been ruing a lost opportunity. But in describing the Prime Minister, he referred to him as worse than Whitlam. Some media commentators thought that was a bit harsh...on Whitlam.
As the day progressed, Greg Combet, Rudd’s Mr. Fix-it, made an appearance. He’d been left with the job of explaining how the insulation program, which seemed like a good idea at the time, had ended up detrimentally effecting many a small business, and more besides. No matter what spin anyone tried to put on it, there could be little doubt or disagreement that the program had been a fatal disaster – failure personified.
As if that wasn’t enough for one day, along came Kate Ellis, Minister for Looking Good, and in her spare time other things such as sport and child care. It was her responsibility to announce that although the federal government had promised to build 260 new child care centres, only 38 would be completed.
One may ask, why? Simple. According to Ellis, though they had been promised, they simply were not needed. An easy way out of another policy failure – big ideas leading to disastrous service delivery. One could be forgiven for thinking it may well be time for the government to get out of the way. Being seeing to be doing something was more important to this government than the quality of what was being done. Promises made and promises broken had led to instability, uncertainty, and unpopularity.
The question on everyone’s lips now was: what next for the Melbourne Storm? But despite salary caps taking precedence over policy, over time, the onus would be back on the government to explain why it was unable to successfully provide quality service delivery of insulation and child care facilities. What chance was there health would see a better outcome?
One other concern had been raised also. This seemed to be a Prime Minister who was keen to be front and centre when positive news stories were being announced to the press, but conspicuously absent when the announcement was negative. The Prime Minister was so busy visiting hospitals, he went 'AWOL' on issues pertaining to the processing of asylum-seekers, the need to respond to criticism of cost blow-outs in the BER scheme, as well, of course, as the closure of the insulation program and the abandonment of child care centre construction.
Bob Carr used this technique to great effect when NSW Premier. Only problem for Rudd was it was starting to raise concerns that here was a man that could not be trusted. Were the Spin Doctors now running the country?
Amongst all this news, it was announced the Henry Tax Review, which the government had been keeping under lock and key since January, would finally be released in May, just prior to the May Budget. It was to be released on a Sunday – a day voters' attention turns to fun, frivolity, family...and the Melbourne Storm.
All things COAG...
The health debate found its way to the COAG meeting. COAG stood for the Commonwealth of Australian Governments, and gave the states a chance to have a say in federal policy. As Rudd did not plan to take over funding of the health system in its entirety, the states were front and centre as far as reaching an agreement on funding arrangements was concerned.
A drama of sorts was taking place on the Monday of the 19th April in Canberra. Or was it a soap opera? Either way, it had always seemed a deal would be reached, despite the language of the media and the Premiers in the lead up to the meeting itself.
Yet what remained uncertain was whether the deal would be for the better for the patient recently admitted to the emergency ward of a public hospital in the south-west of Sydney, suffering from a heart defect. Would they be seen within the four hours that Rudd had set down as the limitation on emergency consults? And would this target really be met ninety-five percent of the time, as he had suggested? Or was the Health Summit really just a way Rudd could divert attention from the failures the insulation program, the BER program, the SIHIP program, and others like them, represented?
The result of the Health Summit seemed to be to show once and for all the subservience of Labor State Governments. With substance sadly lacking, The Prime Minister had once again shown himself, within the space of forty-eight hours, to be ‘The King of Spin.' WA Premier Colin Barnett would now be shown to be either ‘out on a limb’ as a result of his unwillingness to sign up to the agreement reached with all other premiers, or the sole source of reason. And what now for Tony Abbott? To oppose or support was the decision before him.
Just another layer of bureaucracy was the way he saw the reform package. And, as NSW Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell sensibly said on the Wednesday following the meeting’s wind-up, it wasn’t so much how much money was being offered, but how effectively it was to be spent, that mattered most.
Colin Barnett’s refusal to sign up to conceding thirty percent of his state’s GST revenue seemed at the time to have more to do with common sense than the political colour of his state government. One thing was for sure, though.
A caller to talkback radio that day had said he did not know whether Barnett was right or wrong to hold out for retention of GST funding, but he knew for sure that guy, meaning Barnett, “had balls.” The WA Premier would surely have been pleased with the caller’s review of his minority position.
A drama of sorts was taking place on the Monday of the 19th April in Canberra. Or was it a soap opera? Either way, it had always seemed a deal would be reached, despite the language of the media and the Premiers in the lead up to the meeting itself.
Yet what remained uncertain was whether the deal would be for the better for the patient recently admitted to the emergency ward of a public hospital in the south-west of Sydney, suffering from a heart defect. Would they be seen within the four hours that Rudd had set down as the limitation on emergency consults? And would this target really be met ninety-five percent of the time, as he had suggested? Or was the Health Summit really just a way Rudd could divert attention from the failures the insulation program, the BER program, the SIHIP program, and others like them, represented?
The result of the Health Summit seemed to be to show once and for all the subservience of Labor State Governments. With substance sadly lacking, The Prime Minister had once again shown himself, within the space of forty-eight hours, to be ‘The King of Spin.' WA Premier Colin Barnett would now be shown to be either ‘out on a limb’ as a result of his unwillingness to sign up to the agreement reached with all other premiers, or the sole source of reason. And what now for Tony Abbott? To oppose or support was the decision before him.
Just another layer of bureaucracy was the way he saw the reform package. And, as NSW Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell sensibly said on the Wednesday following the meeting’s wind-up, it wasn’t so much how much money was being offered, but how effectively it was to be spent, that mattered most.
Colin Barnett’s refusal to sign up to conceding thirty percent of his state’s GST revenue seemed at the time to have more to do with common sense than the political colour of his state government. One thing was for sure, though.
A caller to talkback radio that day had said he did not know whether Barnett was right or wrong to hold out for retention of GST funding, but he knew for sure that guy, meaning Barnett, “had balls.” The WA Premier would surely have been pleased with the caller’s review of his minority position.
Kevin the humble one...
A happy face was what was seen on the TV news after the release of further Newspoll results showing Rudd had gained an ‘easy’ lead over Abbott and the Coalition once more, twelve percentage points on two party preferred in fact. Abbott’s face was devoid of a smile. He had been accused by media outlets nationwide of spending too much time showing how fit he was, pollie pedalling his way from Melbourne to Sydney for nine days, after having entered an Iron Man Triathlon in Port Macquarie, the winner of which would find their way on a trip to Hawaii to compete further.
If he spent as much time fighting the government as he had spent showing off his health and fitness the Coalition may actually have a chance at the next election. This was the view of some. Perhaps those journalists most vocal were just envious that here was a man of a similar age or older than they were showing no signs of obesity, cramps, a sore back, or nicotine-induced emphysema.
Still, the truth was that the Premiers seemed to be doing a good enough job of criticising Rudd’s Health Plan without the need for comment from Abbott. John Brumby, Premier of Victoria, was even mentioned in the same sentence as Abbott by no other than Rudd himself, as an obstructionist distraction standing in the way of his grand vision for the future of health in this country.
There were other distractions at play as well. Julia Gillard, widely seen as the best performing member of the Government’s team, and a potential future Prime Minister, was under pressure to take ownership of the Building the Education Revolution (BER) program’s failures to deliver infrastructure to public schools at a reasonable price.
The Australian newspaper was running an ongoing campaign to discredit the program through practical examples of bureaucracy out of control. Building a new canteen for $600,000 without general amenities required for it to run efficiently seemed to be anything but ‘value for money.' In fact, it had become clear that, via The Australian and other news outlets' discoveries, the BER was potentially a greater problem for the Rudd Government than the insulation program had been.
Many companies involved in the BER employed builders on a ‘fly-in fly-out’ basis and consultation fees and other expenses led to an artificial inflation in costs. As a result, the BER had become known as the Builders’ Retirement Fund. So what was to be done? There was only one answer. Initiate an inquiry.
An inquiry appeared to be the answer to most problems faced by the Federal Government around this time. It served the purpose of moving the issue to the inside pages of newspapers and diverting television’s and radio’s attention to the news of the day. It also had the effect of making the Rudd Government’s ‘spin doctors’ part of the story.
Hawker Britton was the firm widely believed to be the main source of political advice for Rudd and his team. Bruce Hawker had been considered by many to be a vital cog in the wheel that turned the Rann Labor Government’s chances of success at the South Australian election around. The result? Rann was returned, and had since offered his support to Rudd for his National Health Plan, unlike other Labor Premiers who had yet to face the people.
But what did the health plan really represent? Another diversion? Another layer of bureaucracy? An ability to campaign across the country in local areas in order to obtain local media publicity? All of the above?
One thing was for sure. Rudd had sent John Faulkner, Minister for Defence, to Washington, to meet with US President Obama. A chance to show, once again, he was a global visionary, gone. A chance to finally part ways with his nickname ‘Kevin 747’ taken. But oh, those photo opportunities. Rudd would have been quietly seething that the need to stay home to campaign for a health program designed to divert the people’s attention from bureaucratic and service delivery failures in other areas had resulted in a lost opportunity to appear on the world stage.
President Obama appeared that week on the ABC’s 7.30 Report. Interviewed by Kerry O’Brien he had described Rudd as “humble.” This was about as believable as climate change being the greatest moral challenge of our generation. Such are the ways of the world.
If he spent as much time fighting the government as he had spent showing off his health and fitness the Coalition may actually have a chance at the next election. This was the view of some. Perhaps those journalists most vocal were just envious that here was a man of a similar age or older than they were showing no signs of obesity, cramps, a sore back, or nicotine-induced emphysema.
Still, the truth was that the Premiers seemed to be doing a good enough job of criticising Rudd’s Health Plan without the need for comment from Abbott. John Brumby, Premier of Victoria, was even mentioned in the same sentence as Abbott by no other than Rudd himself, as an obstructionist distraction standing in the way of his grand vision for the future of health in this country.
There were other distractions at play as well. Julia Gillard, widely seen as the best performing member of the Government’s team, and a potential future Prime Minister, was under pressure to take ownership of the Building the Education Revolution (BER) program’s failures to deliver infrastructure to public schools at a reasonable price.
The Australian newspaper was running an ongoing campaign to discredit the program through practical examples of bureaucracy out of control. Building a new canteen for $600,000 without general amenities required for it to run efficiently seemed to be anything but ‘value for money.' In fact, it had become clear that, via The Australian and other news outlets' discoveries, the BER was potentially a greater problem for the Rudd Government than the insulation program had been.
Many companies involved in the BER employed builders on a ‘fly-in fly-out’ basis and consultation fees and other expenses led to an artificial inflation in costs. As a result, the BER had become known as the Builders’ Retirement Fund. So what was to be done? There was only one answer. Initiate an inquiry.
An inquiry appeared to be the answer to most problems faced by the Federal Government around this time. It served the purpose of moving the issue to the inside pages of newspapers and diverting television’s and radio’s attention to the news of the day. It also had the effect of making the Rudd Government’s ‘spin doctors’ part of the story.
Hawker Britton was the firm widely believed to be the main source of political advice for Rudd and his team. Bruce Hawker had been considered by many to be a vital cog in the wheel that turned the Rann Labor Government’s chances of success at the South Australian election around. The result? Rann was returned, and had since offered his support to Rudd for his National Health Plan, unlike other Labor Premiers who had yet to face the people.
But what did the health plan really represent? Another diversion? Another layer of bureaucracy? An ability to campaign across the country in local areas in order to obtain local media publicity? All of the above?
One thing was for sure. Rudd had sent John Faulkner, Minister for Defence, to Washington, to meet with US President Obama. A chance to show, once again, he was a global visionary, gone. A chance to finally part ways with his nickname ‘Kevin 747’ taken. But oh, those photo opportunities. Rudd would have been quietly seething that the need to stay home to campaign for a health program designed to divert the people’s attention from bureaucratic and service delivery failures in other areas had resulted in a lost opportunity to appear on the world stage.
President Obama appeared that week on the ABC’s 7.30 Report. Interviewed by Kerry O’Brien he had described Rudd as “humble.” This was about as believable as climate change being the greatest moral challenge of our generation. Such are the ways of the world.
Mea Culpa
Rudd had gained a sense of ‘the need to apologise,' not just for the 'stuff-up' that was the insulation program, but for pretty much anything and everything he may have done wrong since day one. This soon became known as Rudd’s ‘Mea Culpa.' Suddenly, the man who never made a mistake was responsible for and admitting all errors. Was this Rudd’s ‘confessional?' Did he think saying three Hail Mary’s would solve all his problems? He wasn’t even Catholic!
Newspoll, March 2, 2010. The Coalition was ahead of the Rudd Government on primary votes and four percentage points behind on a two-party preferred basis. What Abbott had achieved in only three months was to reconstruct an Opposition from a rabble to a true alternative government. He had also achieved what he had told the electorate was his intention, that being to hold the government to account. Rudd’s ‘Mea Culpa’ would not have occurred if Abbott had not been successful in this regard.
Abbott declared that “the choice will be clear-cut” in an article published in The Australian on March 1st. He mentioned key policies such as “stronger border protection... ending... parochialism over the Murray-Darling basin...ensure that all...NSW and Queensland public hospitals are run by local boards...take the Unfair Dismissal monkey off the back of small business and...allow...individual employment agreements...”
As this was being published, Kevin Rudd was appearing (or should I say ‘being heard’) on talkback radio across the country. Yes, that’s right, talkback radio. To this point his favourite form of radio communication with the people had been through the softer FM variety. Now he was in some trouble, he turned to those he knew had ‘pull’ with the more mature members of the electorate whose support he knew he needed to maintain (or gain) to perform well at the next election.
Rudd’s ‘word of the week’ was “whacking." That was the word he used to describe what he forecast the government would receive in the polls that week.
Here was a politician who used words such as “mate," “ain’t” and “bullshit," amongst others, in media interviews, to appear like ‘one of the guys’ in the belief this would add to his electoral appeal. Only problem was, it was so obviously false, he just couldn't hide the smirk.
Smirk. A quick search via Google and I found a number of definitions. The website, thefreedictionary.com defined 'smirk' as "to smile in an affected, often self-satisfied manner," "a smile expressing scorn, smugness, etc., rather than pleasure," to "smile affectedly or derisively." It brought back memories of Nick Greiner and Peter Costello.
Nick Greiner, former Premier of New South Wales, was a very likeable guy. His only problem was that he always seemed to have a smirk on his face, which came across visually as a sense of self-satisfaction. The electorate, consciously or otherwise, can easily perceive public figures in a negative light based upon their facial image. The age of television and the 30 second sound-bite personifies public figures. This has led to the electorate having a sense of ‘knowing’ public figures in a way that was not possible before the visualisation television brought with it. Peter Costello had this same problem throughout his career.
In no way is this reaction rational, but it is real. A perfect stranger may stand five centimetres away from you in a lift and say “hello, how are you?" Your instinct may well be to take a step away and look upon them as a threat. They have not only invaded your personal space but have also entered the realms of familiarity without your consent.
Rudd had recently appeared bedside with a patient in hospital, the patient’s wife looking on. It was a great photo opportunity to use in launching his Health Program, but how must the patient have felt? Well outside of his ‘comfort zone,' one would think. He could well have seen Rudd’s approach as a ‘threat.' Perhaps Rudd was assured of his vote. After all, Rudd's spin doctors would have advised him there is no point in showing empathy for the sick unless they are going to vote for you.
The launch of Rudd’s national health program was sure to see resistance. It had been launched prior to COAG, prior to the Premier’s ‘round table’ with the Prime Minister. People in general appreciate consultation, especially those that have risen to the top in their field. Even if their opinion is not taken up as policy, the fact they have been consulted in advance of a policy launch will make them feel more engaged when next approached. It is simply human nature.
The Premiers were unlikely to be quite so accepting, however. Here was a case where conciliation and compromise was a necessity. Was Rudd simply not aware of this? Or did he not care?
Self-satisfaction, arrogance, detachment. It was little wonder Rudd’s ‘Mea Culpa’ was so widely seen as an artificial apology. How can one apologise when they see themselves as never having made a mistake?
His way of moving on was to release big policy pronouncements, such as the National Health Program and the National Education Curriculum. Policies which were based on service delivery and federal involvement in improving industries which were failing to meet the electorate’s expectations were bound to play out in the media as Rudd being pro-active and being seen to ‘do something’ where doing something was well and truly required.
Only thing was, it didn’t play out that way. The insulation program and The Department of Environment’s service delivery had failed completely. It was little wonder there was concern about the Health Department’s ability to deliver a much larger program successfully.
And so it was that Rudd was criticised by one scribe as a Prime Minister who “doesn’t know that he doesn’t know," an insult if ever there was one. Even the Labor states were asking for the detail, probably concerned at the loss of one third of their GST revenue so the federal government could take a sixty percent share in funding the health system. ‘Another layer of bureaucracy,' was another criticism.
Rudd’s best bet was to hope that those voters turned off by his self-congratulation would be evened out by those voters turned on by his Mea Culpa. There seemed little chance of that just now.
Maybe Rudd was on a winner if only he’d use Botox to hide the smirk and change it to a smile. Everyone loves a happy face.
Newspoll, March 2, 2010. The Coalition was ahead of the Rudd Government on primary votes and four percentage points behind on a two-party preferred basis. What Abbott had achieved in only three months was to reconstruct an Opposition from a rabble to a true alternative government. He had also achieved what he had told the electorate was his intention, that being to hold the government to account. Rudd’s ‘Mea Culpa’ would not have occurred if Abbott had not been successful in this regard.
Abbott declared that “the choice will be clear-cut” in an article published in The Australian on March 1st. He mentioned key policies such as “stronger border protection... ending... parochialism over the Murray-Darling basin...ensure that all...NSW and Queensland public hospitals are run by local boards...take the Unfair Dismissal monkey off the back of small business and...allow...individual employment agreements...”
As this was being published, Kevin Rudd was appearing (or should I say ‘being heard’) on talkback radio across the country. Yes, that’s right, talkback radio. To this point his favourite form of radio communication with the people had been through the softer FM variety. Now he was in some trouble, he turned to those he knew had ‘pull’ with the more mature members of the electorate whose support he knew he needed to maintain (or gain) to perform well at the next election.
Rudd’s ‘word of the week’ was “whacking." That was the word he used to describe what he forecast the government would receive in the polls that week.
Here was a politician who used words such as “mate," “ain’t” and “bullshit," amongst others, in media interviews, to appear like ‘one of the guys’ in the belief this would add to his electoral appeal. Only problem was, it was so obviously false, he just couldn't hide the smirk.
Smirk. A quick search via Google and I found a number of definitions. The website, thefreedictionary.com defined 'smirk' as "to smile in an affected, often self-satisfied manner," "a smile expressing scorn, smugness, etc., rather than pleasure," to "smile affectedly or derisively." It brought back memories of Nick Greiner and Peter Costello.
Nick Greiner, former Premier of New South Wales, was a very likeable guy. His only problem was that he always seemed to have a smirk on his face, which came across visually as a sense of self-satisfaction. The electorate, consciously or otherwise, can easily perceive public figures in a negative light based upon their facial image. The age of television and the 30 second sound-bite personifies public figures. This has led to the electorate having a sense of ‘knowing’ public figures in a way that was not possible before the visualisation television brought with it. Peter Costello had this same problem throughout his career.
In no way is this reaction rational, but it is real. A perfect stranger may stand five centimetres away from you in a lift and say “hello, how are you?" Your instinct may well be to take a step away and look upon them as a threat. They have not only invaded your personal space but have also entered the realms of familiarity without your consent.
Rudd had recently appeared bedside with a patient in hospital, the patient’s wife looking on. It was a great photo opportunity to use in launching his Health Program, but how must the patient have felt? Well outside of his ‘comfort zone,' one would think. He could well have seen Rudd’s approach as a ‘threat.' Perhaps Rudd was assured of his vote. After all, Rudd's spin doctors would have advised him there is no point in showing empathy for the sick unless they are going to vote for you.
The launch of Rudd’s national health program was sure to see resistance. It had been launched prior to COAG, prior to the Premier’s ‘round table’ with the Prime Minister. People in general appreciate consultation, especially those that have risen to the top in their field. Even if their opinion is not taken up as policy, the fact they have been consulted in advance of a policy launch will make them feel more engaged when next approached. It is simply human nature.
The Premiers were unlikely to be quite so accepting, however. Here was a case where conciliation and compromise was a necessity. Was Rudd simply not aware of this? Or did he not care?
Self-satisfaction, arrogance, detachment. It was little wonder Rudd’s ‘Mea Culpa’ was so widely seen as an artificial apology. How can one apologise when they see themselves as never having made a mistake?
His way of moving on was to release big policy pronouncements, such as the National Health Program and the National Education Curriculum. Policies which were based on service delivery and federal involvement in improving industries which were failing to meet the electorate’s expectations were bound to play out in the media as Rudd being pro-active and being seen to ‘do something’ where doing something was well and truly required.
Only thing was, it didn’t play out that way. The insulation program and The Department of Environment’s service delivery had failed completely. It was little wonder there was concern about the Health Department’s ability to deliver a much larger program successfully.
And so it was that Rudd was criticised by one scribe as a Prime Minister who “doesn’t know that he doesn’t know," an insult if ever there was one. Even the Labor states were asking for the detail, probably concerned at the loss of one third of their GST revenue so the federal government could take a sixty percent share in funding the health system. ‘Another layer of bureaucracy,' was another criticism.
Rudd’s best bet was to hope that those voters turned off by his self-congratulation would be evened out by those voters turned on by his Mea Culpa. There seemed little chance of that just now.
Maybe Rudd was on a winner if only he’d use Botox to hide the smirk and change it to a smile. Everyone loves a happy face.
A step too far...
The Opposition had been reported as intending to block the $0.25billion rebate for commercial television stations unless the Rudd Government could demonstrate a viable reason for it proceeding through parliament.
This and other programs entered into by the Federal Government since Rudd’s election raised another, much broader question that related to governance generally. What was the role of a federal government in the lives of the people that employed it? After all, the parliamentarians of the day were all public servants, and, by definition, were answerable to taxpayers and registered voters at large.
Many years prior, the federal government’s role had been much smaller, responsible for areas such as foreign affairs, defence (the protection of Australia’s borders), and welfare, i.e. the provision of financial support for those unable to care for themselves.
The federal government was now involved front and centre in many and varied areas of the lives of its constituents. The ever-increasing level of bureaucratisation and the ever-increasing ratio of public servants to parliamentarians led to the government creating a much greater role for itself. This had gone so far as to create a sense amongst constituents that they had the right to ask “what is the government doing about it?” This could be in relation to a $45 dishonour fee charged by their bank, a Medicare form filled in incorrectly resulting in a delay in the issuance of a rebate, or their loss of a job within their probationary period for constantly being late for work. The sense of personal responsibility can be negatively affected as government takes on a larger role in our lives.
The $0.25billion rebate to commercial television stations and the insulation program are just two examples of cases where doing nothing may well have been so much better than government action. A $1600 rebate through the Medicare system only created what some may have seen as an artificial sense of demand for a product that would have been better left to the private sector to market to potential customers with regulatory safeguards such as Fair Trading legislation already in place.
Articles started appearing relating to scams associated with the rebate. People who had allegedly had insulation installed by a registered company under the insulation program were receiving letters from the Department of Environment when no such installation had taken place. This was so that ‘bogus’ installers could claim the rebate on offer...at the taxpayers' expense. The Auditor-General was requested to investigate the level at which this fraudulent activity had occurred. The Auditor-General would be busy for some time to come.
Regulatory safeguards are required in most industries. But direct government involvement in the private sector could be considered to be taking government action one step too far. Just how far should government assistance to private industry go? Should it exist at all? If so, in what form? Or is this just playing favourites? Where should the line be drawn?
As such questions were being pondered by all, it had become apparent that Rudd was about to make an ‘artificial apology’ – an apology with one thing lacking – any sense of sincerity. This was duly done in the sense that Rudd took ‘ownership’ of responsibility for the recent 'stuff up' that was the insulation program. As Greg Combet, who appeared to be Rudd’s ‘Mr. Fixit,' stood beside him trying to feign interest, Rudd announced that Combet would be taking over responsibility for seeing the ‘new and improved’ insulation program brought to fruition. Rudd could not let it lie. He had to prove the program could work. Combet had drawn the short straw. No wonder he couldn’t smile.
Meanwhile, Peter Garrett was the most relieved man in Australian politics. Whilst the press conference rolled on, he could be forgiven for opening a bottle of very expensive champagne and celebrating with his wife and family the end of his involvement in a failed program. He maintained his ministerial wage, his lurks and perks, and was now Minister for Environmental Protection, Heritage and the Arts. He could concentrate on what was close to his heart, the survival of the endangered dugong. He could hark back to his ACF days, take trips to wetlands, Tasmanian forests and the like.
Would Garrett be burning the midnight oil that night? One could hardly blame him if he did. Perhaps in his heyday as an ardent pop star, he’d done that often enough. Maybe now he’d just resign himself to a better understanding of the art of politics, move on... and smile.
What would Rudd be doing? The weekend had arrived and the Sun-Herald had released a poll showing the Government and the Coalition neck and neck, fifty-fifty on a two-party preferred basis.
The government was in damage control. They were looking stale and tired. Abbott was on a roll.
This and other programs entered into by the Federal Government since Rudd’s election raised another, much broader question that related to governance generally. What was the role of a federal government in the lives of the people that employed it? After all, the parliamentarians of the day were all public servants, and, by definition, were answerable to taxpayers and registered voters at large.
Many years prior, the federal government’s role had been much smaller, responsible for areas such as foreign affairs, defence (the protection of Australia’s borders), and welfare, i.e. the provision of financial support for those unable to care for themselves.
The federal government was now involved front and centre in many and varied areas of the lives of its constituents. The ever-increasing level of bureaucratisation and the ever-increasing ratio of public servants to parliamentarians led to the government creating a much greater role for itself. This had gone so far as to create a sense amongst constituents that they had the right to ask “what is the government doing about it?” This could be in relation to a $45 dishonour fee charged by their bank, a Medicare form filled in incorrectly resulting in a delay in the issuance of a rebate, or their loss of a job within their probationary period for constantly being late for work. The sense of personal responsibility can be negatively affected as government takes on a larger role in our lives.
The $0.25billion rebate to commercial television stations and the insulation program are just two examples of cases where doing nothing may well have been so much better than government action. A $1600 rebate through the Medicare system only created what some may have seen as an artificial sense of demand for a product that would have been better left to the private sector to market to potential customers with regulatory safeguards such as Fair Trading legislation already in place.
Articles started appearing relating to scams associated with the rebate. People who had allegedly had insulation installed by a registered company under the insulation program were receiving letters from the Department of Environment when no such installation had taken place. This was so that ‘bogus’ installers could claim the rebate on offer...at the taxpayers' expense. The Auditor-General was requested to investigate the level at which this fraudulent activity had occurred. The Auditor-General would be busy for some time to come.
Regulatory safeguards are required in most industries. But direct government involvement in the private sector could be considered to be taking government action one step too far. Just how far should government assistance to private industry go? Should it exist at all? If so, in what form? Or is this just playing favourites? Where should the line be drawn?
As such questions were being pondered by all, it had become apparent that Rudd was about to make an ‘artificial apology’ – an apology with one thing lacking – any sense of sincerity. This was duly done in the sense that Rudd took ‘ownership’ of responsibility for the recent 'stuff up' that was the insulation program. As Greg Combet, who appeared to be Rudd’s ‘Mr. Fixit,' stood beside him trying to feign interest, Rudd announced that Combet would be taking over responsibility for seeing the ‘new and improved’ insulation program brought to fruition. Rudd could not let it lie. He had to prove the program could work. Combet had drawn the short straw. No wonder he couldn’t smile.
Meanwhile, Peter Garrett was the most relieved man in Australian politics. Whilst the press conference rolled on, he could be forgiven for opening a bottle of very expensive champagne and celebrating with his wife and family the end of his involvement in a failed program. He maintained his ministerial wage, his lurks and perks, and was now Minister for Environmental Protection, Heritage and the Arts. He could concentrate on what was close to his heart, the survival of the endangered dugong. He could hark back to his ACF days, take trips to wetlands, Tasmanian forests and the like.
Would Garrett be burning the midnight oil that night? One could hardly blame him if he did. Perhaps in his heyday as an ardent pop star, he’d done that often enough. Maybe now he’d just resign himself to a better understanding of the art of politics, move on... and smile.
What would Rudd be doing? The weekend had arrived and the Sun-Herald had released a poll showing the Government and the Coalition neck and neck, fifty-fifty on a two-party preferred basis.
The government was in damage control. They were looking stale and tired. Abbott was on a roll.
Terms of endearment...
It seemed the media had found a new term of endearment – ‘cut-through’ was being used more and more often to describe the ability of a policy or a politician to ‘connect’ with voters. Tony Abbott’s comment that the $250million rebate offered to commercial television stations recently by the Rudd Government was an election year bribe was a case in point. He had made the comment, waited for it to ‘cut-through’ and left the hard work to the media to advertise it for him and work their magic with those voters that were tuned in to the day to day activity of the federal political scene.
The media were onto the story as soon as the word ‘bribe’ passed Abbott’s lips. Was this a form of defamation? Had Abbott just stated that he thought the Rudd Government was in some way corrupt? One could make up their own mind. The term surely gained traction with voters. Another poll showed Abbott and the Coalition favoured over the Government in terms of their ability to manage the economy, and only five percentage points behind the government in terms of who was best able to manage the issue of climate change.
The policy of the week was sure to be that of Abbott’s intention to introduce local hospital boards to take ownership of policy in public hospitals and to better affect improvements in the ability to provide doctors, nurses, and beds where and when they were needed. Again, Abbott’s interest was in announcing a scheme that would ‘cut-through,' creating a popular reaction with voters and a reaction of some sort with the media. The latter was guaranteed.
The media loved terms that would resonate with voters. ‘Quick-fix’ was one used to describe Abbott’s local hospital board(s) policy and a term unlikely to engender a positive response from readers of the paper that day. Health was always going to be a big issue in any federal election. But it was no less so currently as a result of promises made by the Rudd Government to address deficiencies in the public hospital system directly. All care taken but no responsibility was the way the role of the federal government could be interpreted at present. Promises made were sure to be broken within Rudd’s first term. Did this mean he would take the issue of health and the public hospital system generally to the election with broken promises hanging over his head?
The media had, for decades, rightly or wrongly, considered health to be a strength for Labor, a weakness for the Coalition. Thus any Coalition proposal would likely be met with negative headlines such as ‘Abbott’s Quick Fix.' It was just par for the course.
But Rudd seemed to be segregating himself from the electorate. When asked in mid-February why further progress had not been made on health reform, his response was ‘lame’ to say the least. He said his government had been working hard over the past 18 months to alleviate the affects of the Global Financial Crisis on the Australian economy (by spending billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money).
Excuses, not reasons, abounded. His ability to ‘cut-through’ (there’s that term again) with the electorate was diminishing as the week’s progressed. The latest polling in Queensland showed the federal government losing ground by as much as nine percentage points. And Queensland was the state in which Rudd had a home ground advantage. Mind you, he also had in office a rather unpopular Premier in Anna Bligh.
Rudd’s health, so to speak, was in question.
The week also saw Peter Garrett escape to Coffs Harbour in northern NSW, to show concern for potentially at risk species of one kind or another whilst meetings were being held in Canberra in his absence. These meetings related to the catastrophe that the insulation program had become for Garrett, Rudd, and the federal government.
Meanwhile, Abbott’s IR spokesman, Eric Abetz, was interviewed by David Speers during the week, on Sky News PM Agenda. Someone should have told him before his appearance that a striped tie does not go well with a striped shirt.
Speers was as objective as can be expected in such circumstances. When asked if anyone would be worse off under the Coalition’s proposed IR policy, Abetz all too readily said he didn’t believe anyone would be worse off. Abetz must have been living in an ideal world. Speers had his man. A good day’s work. Another political scalp. Speers would sleep well that night.
Tony Abbott was more effective than his spokesman when commenting on potential policy ideas, and the likelihood the Coalition would espouse support for greater flexibility within work practices, a reduction or change to unfair dismissal laws as they applied to small businesses, and the ability for workers to once again sign non-unionised individual contracts.
Julia Gillard, somewhat quiet of late, keen not to be seen as complicit in the total failure the insulation program had become, was in this instance happy to talk... about ducks. She was of the view that if it walked liked a duck, and looked like a duck then it probably was a duck. In other words, she was doing her best to call Abbott’s IR policy ‘Work Choices,' the one policy more than any other that had brought John Howard undone in 2007. Abbott was smart, pragmatic, and progressive. He and Gillard would fight a good fight over IR in coming months. It would be a fight not to be missed. One thing was for sure – they had a keen respect for each other. Abbott had even said at one time that once they got off the topic of politics, Gillard made a fine companion. Gillard was the Prime Minister in waiting. Abbott held a similar position.
Yet the Rudd Government’s bad luck continued. Stephen Conroy was announcing details relating to the $42 billion National Broadband Network – locals seemed to think such expenditure was clearly an example of the government of the day making poor use of the taxpayers' hard-earned money.
Abbott’s comment about an “election year bribe” led to Rudd attempting to deflect attention from the negative by holding a press conference on homelessness and government programs designed to improve it. But none of the issues causing the government harm seemed to be going away.
As the end of the week arrived, Peter Garrett held a press conference to announce the end of the insulation program as we knew it and a reduction in the solar panel rebate. Penny Wong announced that Bondi Beach could dissipate to nothingness over the course of the 21st century. Wong even went into bat for the IPCC, stating that the climate science on which global warming was based was indeed true and correct, save for the odd error associated with published reports. There’s nothing like a ‘true believer’ to pedal a false premise.
In The Australian on February 19, it was reported that “the UN’s top climate change official announced he would resign”, Kevin Rudd’s promise to build 260 childcare centres at schools had led to only three being completed by the end of the week, with a new promise to build only thirty-eight. The Federal Government suddenly decided the $250 million “election year bribe” to commercial television stations would have to be handed back if, as The Australian announced that same day, commercial television “didn’t produce enough Australian content.” This issue was covered in their licensing agreement anyway.
And then in the Weekend Australian on page four, there were six negative headlines, all associated with the insulation program. They read as follows:
“Law firm warned Garrett”, “Ill-fated scheme goes out with a whimper”, “Lives lost in haste to be seen as green”, “Staff left burnt by Rudd workload”, “Arsonist worked despite fire”, “PM stands by minister as roof plan scrapped”.
If Rudd’s paper had been delivered to Kirribilli House that morning, it may have been beneficial for him to have left his glasses at the office.
The media were onto the story as soon as the word ‘bribe’ passed Abbott’s lips. Was this a form of defamation? Had Abbott just stated that he thought the Rudd Government was in some way corrupt? One could make up their own mind. The term surely gained traction with voters. Another poll showed Abbott and the Coalition favoured over the Government in terms of their ability to manage the economy, and only five percentage points behind the government in terms of who was best able to manage the issue of climate change.
The policy of the week was sure to be that of Abbott’s intention to introduce local hospital boards to take ownership of policy in public hospitals and to better affect improvements in the ability to provide doctors, nurses, and beds where and when they were needed. Again, Abbott’s interest was in announcing a scheme that would ‘cut-through,' creating a popular reaction with voters and a reaction of some sort with the media. The latter was guaranteed.
The media loved terms that would resonate with voters. ‘Quick-fix’ was one used to describe Abbott’s local hospital board(s) policy and a term unlikely to engender a positive response from readers of the paper that day. Health was always going to be a big issue in any federal election. But it was no less so currently as a result of promises made by the Rudd Government to address deficiencies in the public hospital system directly. All care taken but no responsibility was the way the role of the federal government could be interpreted at present. Promises made were sure to be broken within Rudd’s first term. Did this mean he would take the issue of health and the public hospital system generally to the election with broken promises hanging over his head?
The media had, for decades, rightly or wrongly, considered health to be a strength for Labor, a weakness for the Coalition. Thus any Coalition proposal would likely be met with negative headlines such as ‘Abbott’s Quick Fix.' It was just par for the course.
But Rudd seemed to be segregating himself from the electorate. When asked in mid-February why further progress had not been made on health reform, his response was ‘lame’ to say the least. He said his government had been working hard over the past 18 months to alleviate the affects of the Global Financial Crisis on the Australian economy (by spending billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money).
Excuses, not reasons, abounded. His ability to ‘cut-through’ (there’s that term again) with the electorate was diminishing as the week’s progressed. The latest polling in Queensland showed the federal government losing ground by as much as nine percentage points. And Queensland was the state in which Rudd had a home ground advantage. Mind you, he also had in office a rather unpopular Premier in Anna Bligh.
Rudd’s health, so to speak, was in question.
The week also saw Peter Garrett escape to Coffs Harbour in northern NSW, to show concern for potentially at risk species of one kind or another whilst meetings were being held in Canberra in his absence. These meetings related to the catastrophe that the insulation program had become for Garrett, Rudd, and the federal government.
Meanwhile, Abbott’s IR spokesman, Eric Abetz, was interviewed by David Speers during the week, on Sky News PM Agenda. Someone should have told him before his appearance that a striped tie does not go well with a striped shirt.
Speers was as objective as can be expected in such circumstances. When asked if anyone would be worse off under the Coalition’s proposed IR policy, Abetz all too readily said he didn’t believe anyone would be worse off. Abetz must have been living in an ideal world. Speers had his man. A good day’s work. Another political scalp. Speers would sleep well that night.
Tony Abbott was more effective than his spokesman when commenting on potential policy ideas, and the likelihood the Coalition would espouse support for greater flexibility within work practices, a reduction or change to unfair dismissal laws as they applied to small businesses, and the ability for workers to once again sign non-unionised individual contracts.
Julia Gillard, somewhat quiet of late, keen not to be seen as complicit in the total failure the insulation program had become, was in this instance happy to talk... about ducks. She was of the view that if it walked liked a duck, and looked like a duck then it probably was a duck. In other words, she was doing her best to call Abbott’s IR policy ‘Work Choices,' the one policy more than any other that had brought John Howard undone in 2007. Abbott was smart, pragmatic, and progressive. He and Gillard would fight a good fight over IR in coming months. It would be a fight not to be missed. One thing was for sure – they had a keen respect for each other. Abbott had even said at one time that once they got off the topic of politics, Gillard made a fine companion. Gillard was the Prime Minister in waiting. Abbott held a similar position.
Yet the Rudd Government’s bad luck continued. Stephen Conroy was announcing details relating to the $42 billion National Broadband Network – locals seemed to think such expenditure was clearly an example of the government of the day making poor use of the taxpayers' hard-earned money.
Abbott’s comment about an “election year bribe” led to Rudd attempting to deflect attention from the negative by holding a press conference on homelessness and government programs designed to improve it. But none of the issues causing the government harm seemed to be going away.
As the end of the week arrived, Peter Garrett held a press conference to announce the end of the insulation program as we knew it and a reduction in the solar panel rebate. Penny Wong announced that Bondi Beach could dissipate to nothingness over the course of the 21st century. Wong even went into bat for the IPCC, stating that the climate science on which global warming was based was indeed true and correct, save for the odd error associated with published reports. There’s nothing like a ‘true believer’ to pedal a false premise.
In The Australian on February 19, it was reported that “the UN’s top climate change official announced he would resign”, Kevin Rudd’s promise to build 260 childcare centres at schools had led to only three being completed by the end of the week, with a new promise to build only thirty-eight. The Federal Government suddenly decided the $250 million “election year bribe” to commercial television stations would have to be handed back if, as The Australian announced that same day, commercial television “didn’t produce enough Australian content.” This issue was covered in their licensing agreement anyway.
And then in the Weekend Australian on page four, there were six negative headlines, all associated with the insulation program. They read as follows:
“Law firm warned Garrett”, “Ill-fated scheme goes out with a whimper”, “Lives lost in haste to be seen as green”, “Staff left burnt by Rudd workload”, “Arsonist worked despite fire”, “PM stands by minister as roof plan scrapped”.
If Rudd’s paper had been delivered to Kirribilli House that morning, it may have been beneficial for him to have left his glasses at the office.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Loneliness found in a crowd...
The parliament was back and Tony Abbott was playing the game like a footballer in the peak of his career, save for the odd case of ‘foot in mouth disease’ that his finance spokesman, Senator Barnaby Joyce seemed to be suffering from. If the H1N1 vaccine could be used as a cure, Barnaby would surely be the first in line for a strain. In the meantime, his discomfort continued, with Abbott declaring only that he would be “part of the team” that would be representing the Coalition in the lead-up to the federal election.
But why all the fuss over Joyce? Well, it seemed the man from St.George, a small country town in Queensland, population around 2,000, had been questioning the level of public debt and the government’s ability to repay it. An accountant by trade, he had a ‘small town’ view that was based on the need to prove the ability to service a loan, that is, any debt should be measured against the debtor’s ability to repay it.
Mind you, this was also the view of the four major banks as well as practically every other reputable lending institution in the country, so ‘small town’ may not be the best term to use – ‘sensible’ may be a better fit. He brought this view to his role as finance spokesman for the Coalition. It was sensible...but not popular. Especially with the government of the day. “Hock to our eyeballs” was a term he used on radio in early February.
It had been decided Joyce was a target the Rudd Government would continue to deride. The last thing any government likes to see is their economic management brought into question, especially by a National Party Senator who had no problem speaking his mind. You see, Joyce was popular with rural voters. He had a personality and a way about him that was easily understood. So maybe sometimes he went too far. Maybe sometimes he needed to think before he spoke. But it made for interesting times and publicity beyond his expectations. If he survived in his role (and this was a big if), he would learn to wear the government’s and the media’s scorn like a badge of honour.
Yet scorn can lead to loneliness and loneliness was something rarely welcomed. A schoolboy always the last one chosen for the football team, an apartment dweller with friends living far afield and a family overseas, a businessman at the highest level of the company’s corporate structure, a father of two, divorced and on bad terms with his ex-wife, with access to his children only once a fortnight. A politician who’s risen to great heights only to fall and be surpassed by those he used to lead.
It was not Senator Joyce but rather Malcolm Turnbull who was the definition of loneliness in Canberra.
Turnbull cut a lonely figure in the Lower House, and only in part because the newspaper’s photographic editor had done a fine job of making it look like he was speaking to an empty chamber.
Turnbull, the forgotten man, was explaining his reasoning behind his support for the ETS. Eloquent, articulate, his speech was too little too late, and given in the same week as he would cross the floor of parliament, it was a sure sign his time had passed. The successful businessman come merchant banker with assets beyond the imaginings of most of the electorate, had failed to impact on the federal political scene.
A media ‘darling,' they were at pains not to write him off completely. But had power ‘corrupted’ him? His success in self-promotion far outweighed his ability to successfully lead the Coalition back from the wilderness and to a position where they would be seen as a true alternative to the Rudd Government. That would be left to Tony Abbott to achieve.
And achieve it he would, in ten weeks as leader. By mid-February, Federal Parliament was seen as a true house of debate. No longer was there an opposition in search of common ground with the government of the day. Instead it had been replaced by an opposition doing a fine job in holding the government to account.
In the corridors of power, Malcolm Turnbull cut a very lonely figure indeed!
The ETS, however, was again on the government’s agenda. Rudd maintained a keen interest throughout the week to berate the opposition for its ‘counter-offensive’ whilst continuing to espouse the ETS as the ‘cure-all’ for our perceived global warming problems.
As Dennis Shanahan said in The Weekend Australian on the weekend of February 6-7, Kevin Rudd could not answer questions about likely levels of compensation. As Shanahan put it: “Small Business Minister Craig Emerson blustered about ‘the most stupid question’”, Justine Elliott, Aged Care Minister, “could not address a concern about pensioners in nursing homes”, and Greg Combet, assistant to Penny Wong, Climate Change Minister, had said low to middle-income earners would be fully compensated for the introduction of the ETS when this was by no means clear.
The government was ‘on the ropes.'
Abbott began comparing Rudd to John Hewson, former Leader of the Liberal Opposition in the early 1990’s. Abbott’s words were harsh. There seemed to be no love lost between himself and his former employer. Abbott thought “Rudd had started to sound much like John Hewson trying to explain the impact of the GST on the price of a birthday cake." Some may still remember Hewson’s befuddling approach to queries about how much a birthday cake would cost if a GST were introduced. His failure to explain it correctly, if at all, was a public relations disaster at the time.
Abbott went on to say that Labor could do as much for the people and the environment with the introduction of an ETS as derivative traders have done for the world banking system. This was meant as anything but a compliment. His sentiment was clear.
The government had clearly lost the week. A bad start, to be sure. It was only to get worse.
If Joyce and Turnbull felt lonely, they were about to find out they had nothing on Peter Garrett. By the middle of February, Garrett would be yearning for a Midnight Oil Reunion Tour, or an opening at the top of the Australian Conservation Foundation. An ‘out-clause’ from the political world beckoned.
But this was just a dream. In the real world, the government’s insulation program was in chaos. There had been loss of life as well as a sudden increase in the number of house fires associated with the program’s introduction. The enticement offered by way of the federal government’s undertaking to insulate 2.7 million homes as part of its $42 billion stimulus package, not to mention the $1600 rebate offered, had led to inexperienced installers potentially taking risks of which they may well have been unaware.
Why should Garrett be targeted? Was it his fault the program was less than successful? Was it his fault that installers lives had been lost? Was this due to shoddy workmanship or shoddy regulatory requirements? The fact of the matter was that Garrett was Federal Environment Minister, he was responsible for the program’s introduction and successful operation. He knew there were deficiencies. He was walking a fine line. But where did the buck stop?
As President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Garrett had been able to criticise others without the need to propose solutions to alleged problems. He could make speeches about issues for which he knew he would never be held to account.
But as Environment Minister, he had suffered an incident or two of foot-in-mouth disease. A quick comment at an airport during the 2007 federal election in which he had been quoted as saying that no matter what promises the Labor Opposition made during the campaign to offer the Australian people ‘more of the same,' once elected they “would just change it all."
This was anything but helpful to Rudd’s cause and he knew it. The outcome? Senator Penny Wong, previously unheard of by many, was appointed Climate Change Minister, a demotion of sorts for Garrett. She would now be the one with the opportunity to attend overseas junkets, speak on behalf of the Government at press conferences and take responsibility and kudos from her public persona. Garrett had been left out in the cold, to quietly but diligently work away behind the scenes and away from the public gaze.
But diligent may be misplaced when discussing Garrett. The government’s insulation program was front and centre and his resignation was being called for from the opposition benches. His career was at a crossroads.
Was the boat that was the federal government ‘Rudd-erless’? Was there a ‘quick fix’? Only time would tell...
The rebate seemed to be the core problem with the insulation program, of a philosophical kind. A government rebate is a way for government to artificially create popularity for a product by reducing the purchase price. The problem being, however, that the end-user’s discounted purchase price will be funded by the taxpayer. In most cases, the end-user will be a taxpayer and therefore will indirectly be funding the rebate gained by the purchase. Swings and roundabouts – what you don’t pay for at the front-end you will end up paying for at the back-end.
Garrett’s insulation program had been introduced as a result of the perceived need to counteract climate change. Remember, Rudd had said it was the moral challenge of our time. It was becoming clear that this was a saying that would be unlikely to pass his lips again anytime soon. But the media would use it many times over in the months to follow.
But why all the fuss over Joyce? Well, it seemed the man from St.George, a small country town in Queensland, population around 2,000, had been questioning the level of public debt and the government’s ability to repay it. An accountant by trade, he had a ‘small town’ view that was based on the need to prove the ability to service a loan, that is, any debt should be measured against the debtor’s ability to repay it.
Mind you, this was also the view of the four major banks as well as practically every other reputable lending institution in the country, so ‘small town’ may not be the best term to use – ‘sensible’ may be a better fit. He brought this view to his role as finance spokesman for the Coalition. It was sensible...but not popular. Especially with the government of the day. “Hock to our eyeballs” was a term he used on radio in early February.
It had been decided Joyce was a target the Rudd Government would continue to deride. The last thing any government likes to see is their economic management brought into question, especially by a National Party Senator who had no problem speaking his mind. You see, Joyce was popular with rural voters. He had a personality and a way about him that was easily understood. So maybe sometimes he went too far. Maybe sometimes he needed to think before he spoke. But it made for interesting times and publicity beyond his expectations. If he survived in his role (and this was a big if), he would learn to wear the government’s and the media’s scorn like a badge of honour.
Yet scorn can lead to loneliness and loneliness was something rarely welcomed. A schoolboy always the last one chosen for the football team, an apartment dweller with friends living far afield and a family overseas, a businessman at the highest level of the company’s corporate structure, a father of two, divorced and on bad terms with his ex-wife, with access to his children only once a fortnight. A politician who’s risen to great heights only to fall and be surpassed by those he used to lead.
It was not Senator Joyce but rather Malcolm Turnbull who was the definition of loneliness in Canberra.
Turnbull cut a lonely figure in the Lower House, and only in part because the newspaper’s photographic editor had done a fine job of making it look like he was speaking to an empty chamber.
Turnbull, the forgotten man, was explaining his reasoning behind his support for the ETS. Eloquent, articulate, his speech was too little too late, and given in the same week as he would cross the floor of parliament, it was a sure sign his time had passed. The successful businessman come merchant banker with assets beyond the imaginings of most of the electorate, had failed to impact on the federal political scene.
A media ‘darling,' they were at pains not to write him off completely. But had power ‘corrupted’ him? His success in self-promotion far outweighed his ability to successfully lead the Coalition back from the wilderness and to a position where they would be seen as a true alternative to the Rudd Government. That would be left to Tony Abbott to achieve.
And achieve it he would, in ten weeks as leader. By mid-February, Federal Parliament was seen as a true house of debate. No longer was there an opposition in search of common ground with the government of the day. Instead it had been replaced by an opposition doing a fine job in holding the government to account.
In the corridors of power, Malcolm Turnbull cut a very lonely figure indeed!
The ETS, however, was again on the government’s agenda. Rudd maintained a keen interest throughout the week to berate the opposition for its ‘counter-offensive’ whilst continuing to espouse the ETS as the ‘cure-all’ for our perceived global warming problems.
As Dennis Shanahan said in The Weekend Australian on the weekend of February 6-7, Kevin Rudd could not answer questions about likely levels of compensation. As Shanahan put it: “Small Business Minister Craig Emerson blustered about ‘the most stupid question’”, Justine Elliott, Aged Care Minister, “could not address a concern about pensioners in nursing homes”, and Greg Combet, assistant to Penny Wong, Climate Change Minister, had said low to middle-income earners would be fully compensated for the introduction of the ETS when this was by no means clear.
The government was ‘on the ropes.'
Abbott began comparing Rudd to John Hewson, former Leader of the Liberal Opposition in the early 1990’s. Abbott’s words were harsh. There seemed to be no love lost between himself and his former employer. Abbott thought “Rudd had started to sound much like John Hewson trying to explain the impact of the GST on the price of a birthday cake." Some may still remember Hewson’s befuddling approach to queries about how much a birthday cake would cost if a GST were introduced. His failure to explain it correctly, if at all, was a public relations disaster at the time.
Abbott went on to say that Labor could do as much for the people and the environment with the introduction of an ETS as derivative traders have done for the world banking system. This was meant as anything but a compliment. His sentiment was clear.
The government had clearly lost the week. A bad start, to be sure. It was only to get worse.
If Joyce and Turnbull felt lonely, they were about to find out they had nothing on Peter Garrett. By the middle of February, Garrett would be yearning for a Midnight Oil Reunion Tour, or an opening at the top of the Australian Conservation Foundation. An ‘out-clause’ from the political world beckoned.
But this was just a dream. In the real world, the government’s insulation program was in chaos. There had been loss of life as well as a sudden increase in the number of house fires associated with the program’s introduction. The enticement offered by way of the federal government’s undertaking to insulate 2.7 million homes as part of its $42 billion stimulus package, not to mention the $1600 rebate offered, had led to inexperienced installers potentially taking risks of which they may well have been unaware.
Why should Garrett be targeted? Was it his fault the program was less than successful? Was it his fault that installers lives had been lost? Was this due to shoddy workmanship or shoddy regulatory requirements? The fact of the matter was that Garrett was Federal Environment Minister, he was responsible for the program’s introduction and successful operation. He knew there were deficiencies. He was walking a fine line. But where did the buck stop?
As President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Garrett had been able to criticise others without the need to propose solutions to alleged problems. He could make speeches about issues for which he knew he would never be held to account.
But as Environment Minister, he had suffered an incident or two of foot-in-mouth disease. A quick comment at an airport during the 2007 federal election in which he had been quoted as saying that no matter what promises the Labor Opposition made during the campaign to offer the Australian people ‘more of the same,' once elected they “would just change it all."
This was anything but helpful to Rudd’s cause and he knew it. The outcome? Senator Penny Wong, previously unheard of by many, was appointed Climate Change Minister, a demotion of sorts for Garrett. She would now be the one with the opportunity to attend overseas junkets, speak on behalf of the Government at press conferences and take responsibility and kudos from her public persona. Garrett had been left out in the cold, to quietly but diligently work away behind the scenes and away from the public gaze.
But diligent may be misplaced when discussing Garrett. The government’s insulation program was front and centre and his resignation was being called for from the opposition benches. His career was at a crossroads.
Was the boat that was the federal government ‘Rudd-erless’? Was there a ‘quick fix’? Only time would tell...
The rebate seemed to be the core problem with the insulation program, of a philosophical kind. A government rebate is a way for government to artificially create popularity for a product by reducing the purchase price. The problem being, however, that the end-user’s discounted purchase price will be funded by the taxpayer. In most cases, the end-user will be a taxpayer and therefore will indirectly be funding the rebate gained by the purchase. Swings and roundabouts – what you don’t pay for at the front-end you will end up paying for at the back-end.
Garrett’s insulation program had been introduced as a result of the perceived need to counteract climate change. Remember, Rudd had said it was the moral challenge of our time. It was becoming clear that this was a saying that would be unlikely to pass his lips again anytime soon. But the media would use it many times over in the months to follow.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Coral Killing Fields?
The Great Barrier Reef, the eighth wonder of the world. A natural habitat of which all Australians were grateful. Kevin Rudd's comments were heard loud and clear. Alarm bells were ringing.He had said that if "temperatures went through the roof," the Reef as we know it would be gone.
Was 'Reefgate' just around the corner? Threats of extinction had been around for some time, with 2030 allegedly the Reef's 'Armageddon.' The Member for Bennelong, Maxine McKew was strangely silent. In 1999, as host of the 7.30 Report on the ABC, she had been anything but.
The 7.30 Report was a current affairs show that had influence beyond its ratings, as it welcomed any and every noteworthy politician who had something 'worthwhile' to say on points of interest. In 1999, it wasn't a politician but rather a reef biologist who was interviewed to warn people that the Great Barrier Reef had a life expectancy of only thirty years. "Impending doom" were the words used by McKew on July 6th 1999.
The report stated that as sea temperatures rose, coral bleaching occurred, leading to the process of photosynthesis being shut down. In the words of Bernard Bowen, the reporter, "coral killing fields" are the result.
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a reef biologist out of Sydney University at the time, and the interviewee, conceded that if modelling done by climate scientists projected that the temperature at which corals existed in 1999 was exceeded, coral reefs would die away. Hence the Barrier Reef was, basically, endangered.
BBC News took the impending doom seriously when, in a report on January 13, 1999, they declared, as a result of an announcement by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), that the reef was "dying a death of a thousand cuts" due, in part, to prawn trawling destroying seabed animals which can take up to twenty years to recover. The ACF was calling for urgent action.
Urgent action indeed! On the European Tribune's website on September 3rd, 2009, Charlie Veron, former chief scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) was quoted as saying "the future is horrific...This is the path of a mass extinction event..."
The impending doom forecast for the Reef could mar the tourist industry. Dat cruises in air-conditioned catamarans, viewing coral from a glass bottomed boat, seafood lunches, not to mention the snorkelling of the reef that so many of us took very much for granted. Was all this at risk?
At Cape Tribulation one could stroll along the headland and see views of where the rainforest meets the reef. Port Douglas, Mossman Gorge, tours along the Daintree River. These places and experiences were to be cherished, preserved, no matter what the cost. A tour guide whose job it was to take tourists down the Daintree River for the day had once been asked: "will we see a crocodile?" He had a dry humour. "Not if you close your eyes", came his response. It was his way of saying 'welcome to Far-North Queensland.' They breed them differently up there.
Now experts in the field were saying the Reef was dying?
Ray Berkelmans, a research scientist in climate ecology and climate change with AIMS for the past 10 years, having worked for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park for 14 years prior, had been reported over the years on this issue and had published many papers and journals.
In Discover Magazine in January 2003 he explained that corals and algae work hand in hand. Algae produces food and corals protect them. But if sea temperatures rise too high, the system fails and reefs suffer.
By 2004, the Reef was said to have been spared from coral bleaching by Cyclone Fritz, which had the effect of cooling the waters.
By the end of that year, Berkelmans was announcing the possibility of "forecasting" coral bleaching. This was due to work conducted by the Sea Temperature Monitoring Program, which, it was said, in a media release from AIMS in December 2004, "operates on a shoe-string with the help of tourist operators, other researchers, volunteer dive groups, and consultants..." Such important work relating to a World Heritage Area such as The Great Barrier Reef might be expected to receive assistance from other sources also, such as the Commonwealth. Was Kevin Rudd listening?
Five years later, and things apparently changed in the Reef we know and love. A physicist with James Cook University out of Townsville by the name of Professor Peter Ridd, had declared in an article in The Australian in December 2009, that "instead of dying, the Reef could expand towards Brisbane" and was "in bloody brilliant shape." Apparently it had been discovered that reefs around the Townsville area "can withstand water temperatures in the low thirties."
Berkelmans made mention of the fact the Reef was two thousand kilometres long and within it were around three thousand reefs. He alleged it was highly unlikely the reef was going anywhere anytime soon. As is the want of someone with a reputation to uphold, a clarification of the optimism that now surrounded the Reef needed to be aired. Berklemans suggested the Reef could not expect "to stay lucky forever." Such was the tone of the article entitled 'How the reef became blue again' that appeared in The Australian on December 19, 2009. A Christmas present of sorts, to be sure.
Words of impending doom seemed to have been drowned out by words of reason. Catastrophe averted - for now.
Was 'Reefgate' just around the corner? Threats of extinction had been around for some time, with 2030 allegedly the Reef's 'Armageddon.' The Member for Bennelong, Maxine McKew was strangely silent. In 1999, as host of the 7.30 Report on the ABC, she had been anything but.
The 7.30 Report was a current affairs show that had influence beyond its ratings, as it welcomed any and every noteworthy politician who had something 'worthwhile' to say on points of interest. In 1999, it wasn't a politician but rather a reef biologist who was interviewed to warn people that the Great Barrier Reef had a life expectancy of only thirty years. "Impending doom" were the words used by McKew on July 6th 1999.
The report stated that as sea temperatures rose, coral bleaching occurred, leading to the process of photosynthesis being shut down. In the words of Bernard Bowen, the reporter, "coral killing fields" are the result.
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a reef biologist out of Sydney University at the time, and the interviewee, conceded that if modelling done by climate scientists projected that the temperature at which corals existed in 1999 was exceeded, coral reefs would die away. Hence the Barrier Reef was, basically, endangered.
BBC News took the impending doom seriously when, in a report on January 13, 1999, they declared, as a result of an announcement by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), that the reef was "dying a death of a thousand cuts" due, in part, to prawn trawling destroying seabed animals which can take up to twenty years to recover. The ACF was calling for urgent action.
Urgent action indeed! On the European Tribune's website on September 3rd, 2009, Charlie Veron, former chief scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) was quoted as saying "the future is horrific...This is the path of a mass extinction event..."
The impending doom forecast for the Reef could mar the tourist industry. Dat cruises in air-conditioned catamarans, viewing coral from a glass bottomed boat, seafood lunches, not to mention the snorkelling of the reef that so many of us took very much for granted. Was all this at risk?
At Cape Tribulation one could stroll along the headland and see views of where the rainforest meets the reef. Port Douglas, Mossman Gorge, tours along the Daintree River. These places and experiences were to be cherished, preserved, no matter what the cost. A tour guide whose job it was to take tourists down the Daintree River for the day had once been asked: "will we see a crocodile?" He had a dry humour. "Not if you close your eyes", came his response. It was his way of saying 'welcome to Far-North Queensland.' They breed them differently up there.
Now experts in the field were saying the Reef was dying?
Ray Berkelmans, a research scientist in climate ecology and climate change with AIMS for the past 10 years, having worked for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park for 14 years prior, had been reported over the years on this issue and had published many papers and journals.
In Discover Magazine in January 2003 he explained that corals and algae work hand in hand. Algae produces food and corals protect them. But if sea temperatures rise too high, the system fails and reefs suffer.
By 2004, the Reef was said to have been spared from coral bleaching by Cyclone Fritz, which had the effect of cooling the waters.
By the end of that year, Berkelmans was announcing the possibility of "forecasting" coral bleaching. This was due to work conducted by the Sea Temperature Monitoring Program, which, it was said, in a media release from AIMS in December 2004, "operates on a shoe-string with the help of tourist operators, other researchers, volunteer dive groups, and consultants..." Such important work relating to a World Heritage Area such as The Great Barrier Reef might be expected to receive assistance from other sources also, such as the Commonwealth. Was Kevin Rudd listening?
Five years later, and things apparently changed in the Reef we know and love. A physicist with James Cook University out of Townsville by the name of Professor Peter Ridd, had declared in an article in The Australian in December 2009, that "instead of dying, the Reef could expand towards Brisbane" and was "in bloody brilliant shape." Apparently it had been discovered that reefs around the Townsville area "can withstand water temperatures in the low thirties."
Berkelmans made mention of the fact the Reef was two thousand kilometres long and within it were around three thousand reefs. He alleged it was highly unlikely the reef was going anywhere anytime soon. As is the want of someone with a reputation to uphold, a clarification of the optimism that now surrounded the Reef needed to be aired. Berklemans suggested the Reef could not expect "to stay lucky forever." Such was the tone of the article entitled 'How the reef became blue again' that appeared in The Australian on December 19, 2009. A Christmas present of sorts, to be sure.
Words of impending doom seemed to have been drowned out by words of reason. Catastrophe averted - for now.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Climate change of the political kind...
Tony Abbott's comments about women's virginity being a "gift" had barely had a chance to be read by friend and foe alike, than the media's attention had turned to another more pressing issue. Referred to by some politicians as the greatest moral challenge of our age, climate change was back on the front page once more.
The only constant in life is change, so some have been known to say. In January 2010, change was on everyone's lips. Why? Glaciergate. We shall come to that soon enough. First, in searching for answers as to why Armageddon was almost upon us, the findings were of exponential interest.
We live in the age of mammals, the Cenozoic Era. This has been divided into various epochs, the Paleocene, Eocene, and Oligocene Epochs, and the Miocene, Piliocene, Pleistocene and Holocene Epochs. Sixty-five million years ago, during the Paleocene Epoch, it was much warmer than it is today. Glaciers began forming in Antarctica only thirty-five million years ago, around when Goondwanaland split, with Australia and South Africa separating from Anatrctica.
Ten million years or so after that, grasslands began to form. As grasses began to develop, surplus grains were stockpiled, ending the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Homo erectus came on the scene under two million years ago.
Over the last 10,000 years there have been periods commonly referred to as 'neoglaciation,' 'climate optimum,' and 'Little Ice Age,' until today things appear to be warming up.
This summary comes from an article written by celebrated mathematical physicist John Baez entitled 'Temperature' (see http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/).
A lot of what Baez says is prefaced with statements such as "subject for debate," "exaggerated importance," "questionable importance," and other such terms that make one question the validity and/or importance of global warming as a threat to humankind. Such caveats may simply be a form of insurance.
Even so, Baez's article gives a broad overview of the past sixty-five million years, leading him to conclude that temperatures have, on average, risen one degree celsius in the last 125 years. "But it's happening fast," he warns.
So fast, according to climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf, that, when interviewed for Allianz (see http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/energy_co2/) he said:
"we need to act decisively now. It is a race against time. As US President Obama has put it, 'delay is no longer an option.'"
Rahmstorf believes the greatest threat to actively countering alleged climate change is what he refers to as "climate change deniers." These deniers, in his opinion, are very rarely ever climate scientists but rather meteorologists, geologists, and, God forbid, laypeople, who, to paraphrase his comments, really have no idea what they are talking about. "Not familiar with the data" are the words he uses.
The data. Now it's understandable that the average layperson could be excused for questioning the data when confronted, as the writer was, at lunch prior to Christmas '09, with what one could generously describe as 'advertising' from www.suprememastertv.com. In a food court near work, having picked up lunch from a nearby deli and having taken a seat at a table nearby, a lunch companion read aloud text from the 'advertising' material on the table. It read:
"...if the ice all melts, if the poles all melt away, and then if the sea is warm, then the gas might be released from the ocean, and we might be poisoned."
It was a quote taken from Supreme Master Ching Hai, allegedly a "world renowned humanitarian, artist and spiritual teacher, announcing such dangers at a Paris Seminar on Christmas Day 2007."
The next column on the 'advertising' material began with a warning that read "United Nations Report - Meat Eating is a Major Cause of Global Warming...Be Veg! Go Green! Save The Planet."
The "data" was the very same as that that had apparently been 'dumped' by the University of East Anglia (UEA). As a result, anyone could be forgiven for being a little wary as to the validity of the data on which such warming concerns were formulated.
Times Online said that "scientists at the University of East Anglia" had admitted to "throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based."
Welcome to 'Climategate'.
'Climategate' seemed to be only the beginning. Come 2010 and 'Glaciergate' had arrived. Some sceptics had been suspicious for some time of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) but now such suspicions appeared to be 'bearing fruit.' Were the Himalayan Glaciers really likely to melt by 2035, as the IPCC had declared in a 2007 report? It was not until 2010 that it was found and then commonly reported that the 2035 timeframe came from a report in New Scientist Magazine in the 1990's. The interviewee who provided the 'news' admitted to its speculative content.
And then came 'Disastergate.' From reading the papers, it appeared it was possible climate change may not be at the centre of the increasing incidence and damage caused by natural disasters after all. And forty percent of the Amazon Rainforest may not be wiped out by global warming, as was first claimed by the IPCC. The IPCC, Friends of the Earth, The World Wildlife Fund for Nature, and others, had always been thought to have the best interests of laypersons at heart. Could it be that they actually had an agenda of their own, a viewpoint that was more political than factual? Surely this could not be true - could it?
Throughout all this, the feral camels in Australia's desert were laughing. They had just been told that they would be exonerated by climate scientists because they were not 'domesticated.' Yes, even though feral camels emit more carbon than all other carbon-emitting animals except for cattle and buffalo, they were free and clear as their carbon was not included under the Kyoto Protocol.
The feral camels were having a party in the desert. But they had better be careful not to celebrate too soon. It was opposition policy to cull the camels Kyoto cleared. One thing was for sure - Australia's feral camels, whilst not being able to vote, would nonetheless be watching the result of the upcoming federal election with interest.
In a speech over the weekend prior to the opening of the first parliamentary session for the year, Tony Abbott had been quoted in The Weekend Australian on January 30-31 describing the existing federal government as "perhaps the most overhyped political outfit in Australian history." Meanwhile Labor politicians were trying to ram home to the public their belief Abbott was lecturing morality to the voters. Politics was getting personal again. The attacks were heating up, along with the climate.
Forty-eight hours later and the first Newspoll of the parliamentary session was on the front page of the day's paper and in the middle of many voters' breakfast tables that morning. Jaws dropped! It showed Tony Abbott and the Coalition in front of Labor on primary votes, forty-one percent to forty percent. The Opposition were narrowing the gap on two-party preferred as well, only four percent behind.
Abbott would attribute the result to the government's ability to take the voters for granted, and, of course, to their "great big new tax on everything," the ETS.
At least it seemed that, in the lead up to an election that would become a spin doctor's delight, the voters were faced with a credible choice...at last.
The only constant in life is change, so some have been known to say. In January 2010, change was on everyone's lips. Why? Glaciergate. We shall come to that soon enough. First, in searching for answers as to why Armageddon was almost upon us, the findings were of exponential interest.
We live in the age of mammals, the Cenozoic Era. This has been divided into various epochs, the Paleocene, Eocene, and Oligocene Epochs, and the Miocene, Piliocene, Pleistocene and Holocene Epochs. Sixty-five million years ago, during the Paleocene Epoch, it was much warmer than it is today. Glaciers began forming in Antarctica only thirty-five million years ago, around when Goondwanaland split, with Australia and South Africa separating from Anatrctica.
Ten million years or so after that, grasslands began to form. As grasses began to develop, surplus grains were stockpiled, ending the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Homo erectus came on the scene under two million years ago.
Over the last 10,000 years there have been periods commonly referred to as 'neoglaciation,' 'climate optimum,' and 'Little Ice Age,' until today things appear to be warming up.
This summary comes from an article written by celebrated mathematical physicist John Baez entitled 'Temperature' (see http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/).
A lot of what Baez says is prefaced with statements such as "subject for debate," "exaggerated importance," "questionable importance," and other such terms that make one question the validity and/or importance of global warming as a threat to humankind. Such caveats may simply be a form of insurance.
Even so, Baez's article gives a broad overview of the past sixty-five million years, leading him to conclude that temperatures have, on average, risen one degree celsius in the last 125 years. "But it's happening fast," he warns.
So fast, according to climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf, that, when interviewed for Allianz (see http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/energy_co2/) he said:
"we need to act decisively now. It is a race against time. As US President Obama has put it, 'delay is no longer an option.'"
Rahmstorf believes the greatest threat to actively countering alleged climate change is what he refers to as "climate change deniers." These deniers, in his opinion, are very rarely ever climate scientists but rather meteorologists, geologists, and, God forbid, laypeople, who, to paraphrase his comments, really have no idea what they are talking about. "Not familiar with the data" are the words he uses.
The data. Now it's understandable that the average layperson could be excused for questioning the data when confronted, as the writer was, at lunch prior to Christmas '09, with what one could generously describe as 'advertising' from www.suprememastertv.com. In a food court near work, having picked up lunch from a nearby deli and having taken a seat at a table nearby, a lunch companion read aloud text from the 'advertising' material on the table. It read:
"...if the ice all melts, if the poles all melt away, and then if the sea is warm, then the gas might be released from the ocean, and we might be poisoned."
It was a quote taken from Supreme Master Ching Hai, allegedly a "world renowned humanitarian, artist and spiritual teacher, announcing such dangers at a Paris Seminar on Christmas Day 2007."
The next column on the 'advertising' material began with a warning that read "United Nations Report - Meat Eating is a Major Cause of Global Warming...Be Veg! Go Green! Save The Planet."
The "data" was the very same as that that had apparently been 'dumped' by the University of East Anglia (UEA). As a result, anyone could be forgiven for being a little wary as to the validity of the data on which such warming concerns were formulated.
Times Online said that "scientists at the University of East Anglia" had admitted to "throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based."
Welcome to 'Climategate'.
'Climategate' seemed to be only the beginning. Come 2010 and 'Glaciergate' had arrived. Some sceptics had been suspicious for some time of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) but now such suspicions appeared to be 'bearing fruit.' Were the Himalayan Glaciers really likely to melt by 2035, as the IPCC had declared in a 2007 report? It was not until 2010 that it was found and then commonly reported that the 2035 timeframe came from a report in New Scientist Magazine in the 1990's. The interviewee who provided the 'news' admitted to its speculative content.
And then came 'Disastergate.' From reading the papers, it appeared it was possible climate change may not be at the centre of the increasing incidence and damage caused by natural disasters after all. And forty percent of the Amazon Rainforest may not be wiped out by global warming, as was first claimed by the IPCC. The IPCC, Friends of the Earth, The World Wildlife Fund for Nature, and others, had always been thought to have the best interests of laypersons at heart. Could it be that they actually had an agenda of their own, a viewpoint that was more political than factual? Surely this could not be true - could it?
Throughout all this, the feral camels in Australia's desert were laughing. They had just been told that they would be exonerated by climate scientists because they were not 'domesticated.' Yes, even though feral camels emit more carbon than all other carbon-emitting animals except for cattle and buffalo, they were free and clear as their carbon was not included under the Kyoto Protocol.
The feral camels were having a party in the desert. But they had better be careful not to celebrate too soon. It was opposition policy to cull the camels Kyoto cleared. One thing was for sure - Australia's feral camels, whilst not being able to vote, would nonetheless be watching the result of the upcoming federal election with interest.
In a speech over the weekend prior to the opening of the first parliamentary session for the year, Tony Abbott had been quoted in The Weekend Australian on January 30-31 describing the existing federal government as "perhaps the most overhyped political outfit in Australian history." Meanwhile Labor politicians were trying to ram home to the public their belief Abbott was lecturing morality to the voters. Politics was getting personal again. The attacks were heating up, along with the climate.
Forty-eight hours later and the first Newspoll of the parliamentary session was on the front page of the day's paper and in the middle of many voters' breakfast tables that morning. Jaws dropped! It showed Tony Abbott and the Coalition in front of Labor on primary votes, forty-one percent to forty percent. The Opposition were narrowing the gap on two-party preferred as well, only four percent behind.
Abbott would attribute the result to the government's ability to take the voters for granted, and, of course, to their "great big new tax on everything," the ETS.
At least it seemed that, in the lead up to an election that would become a spin doctor's delight, the voters were faced with a credible choice...at last.
Tony's Weekly...
Sport always seemed to be at the top of most Australian's minds in summer. The cricket was ever-present and the Australian Open tennis attracted crowds to please the organiser's, Tennis Australia. Politics had to wait to regain its position as the media focus for daily news.
Tony Abbott couldn't wait. He had agreed to an interview with The Australian Women's Weekly, with a readership the envy of most women's magazines. Even the newspaper reported the story's appearance and select quotes from Abbott. He had been open and honest and discussed women's issues. But who would have thought that an interview with The Weekly and his thoughts on sex would threaten to return Abbott's campaign to the starting line?
Abbott had been reported as saying that a woman's virginity was a "gift." The talkback radio stations ran hot with the news for days.
Had Abbott, a man with three daughter one could be forgiven for describing as 'attractive,' said this merely to gain publicity prior to the opening of the first parliamentary session for the year? Or was it to maintain his position 'front and centre' in Australian politics? Some believe that all publicity is good publicity and that there's nothing worse when in a leadership role, and a political one at that, not to have the media talking about you. But the view that gained most coverage was from those who could be heard saying: 'Tony, what were you thinking?'
Mind you, anyone with three daughters as Abbott had could be forgiven for wanting to keep a pretty close watch on who they were seeing and when. A father can sometimes be overprotective of the ones he loves, especially in the eyes of others.
The eyes of others are sometimes anything but objective. A bit of personal research never goes astray in such circumstances. And in picking up and reading The Australian Women's Weekly after its publication, one quickly came across the article on Abbott and his family.
Some had described the article as 'fascinating' and 'very personal,' especially in reference to the section including the word "gift", quoted in the papers from shore to shore. It read:
"Sex before marriage? 'It happens,' he says, before adding, 'I think I would say to my daughters if they were to ask me this question...it is the greatest gift of giving and don't give it to someone lightly, that is what I would say.'"
Hmm, how best to interpret a comment such as this? One could be forgiven for thinking he what he meant was that sex is something that should be meaningful, so don't sleep around with just anyone. Others may disagree, but the media's use of the word virginity is a classic example of guaranteeing the greatest possible reaction to a comment considered even by an experienced politician as somewhat innocent.
But consider this article, entitled 'Hypocrite' Abbott panned for virginity stance,' from January 27, published in The Age and attributed to Michelle Gratton and Geoff Strong:
"Comedian Fiona Scott-Norman said that if one were to look in the dictionary under 'hypocrite', there would be a picture of Mr Abbott. ''Yet another self-acknowledged one-time drug-taking, 'Vatican roulette' playing, shagabout, white, middle-aged male telling young women not to do what he did when he was their age.
''The irony is that the one thing guaranteed to make 'young people' do something is for a pompous tosspot like Tony to tell them not to.''
"Latrobe University sex education expert Associate Professor Anne Mitchell said Mr Abbott's pronouncement was nonsense."
As Editor-in-Chief Helen McCabe says in her editorial, "honesty can be a bit of a handicap."
Ain't that the truth?
Even the honesty of one's own daughter can sometimes serve as an embarrassment to a father in the public eye. The comment attributed to Abbott's daughter, Frances, that her Dad was a "lame, gay, churchie loser" was interesting and humorous to say the least. She immediately stole my attention and became a "cult hero", as The Weekly suggested some had described her, for her erudite and creative turn of phrase.
There's no-one like family to make sure a public figure feeling his feet in a new leadership role keeps them firmly on the ground.
Tony Abbott couldn't wait. He had agreed to an interview with The Australian Women's Weekly, with a readership the envy of most women's magazines. Even the newspaper reported the story's appearance and select quotes from Abbott. He had been open and honest and discussed women's issues. But who would have thought that an interview with The Weekly and his thoughts on sex would threaten to return Abbott's campaign to the starting line?
Abbott had been reported as saying that a woman's virginity was a "gift." The talkback radio stations ran hot with the news for days.
Had Abbott, a man with three daughter one could be forgiven for describing as 'attractive,' said this merely to gain publicity prior to the opening of the first parliamentary session for the year? Or was it to maintain his position 'front and centre' in Australian politics? Some believe that all publicity is good publicity and that there's nothing worse when in a leadership role, and a political one at that, not to have the media talking about you. But the view that gained most coverage was from those who could be heard saying: 'Tony, what were you thinking?'
Mind you, anyone with three daughters as Abbott had could be forgiven for wanting to keep a pretty close watch on who they were seeing and when. A father can sometimes be overprotective of the ones he loves, especially in the eyes of others.
The eyes of others are sometimes anything but objective. A bit of personal research never goes astray in such circumstances. And in picking up and reading The Australian Women's Weekly after its publication, one quickly came across the article on Abbott and his family.
Some had described the article as 'fascinating' and 'very personal,' especially in reference to the section including the word "gift", quoted in the papers from shore to shore. It read:
"Sex before marriage? 'It happens,' he says, before adding, 'I think I would say to my daughters if they were to ask me this question...it is the greatest gift of giving and don't give it to someone lightly, that is what I would say.'"
Hmm, how best to interpret a comment such as this? One could be forgiven for thinking he what he meant was that sex is something that should be meaningful, so don't sleep around with just anyone. Others may disagree, but the media's use of the word virginity is a classic example of guaranteeing the greatest possible reaction to a comment considered even by an experienced politician as somewhat innocent.
But consider this article, entitled 'Hypocrite' Abbott panned for virginity stance,' from January 27, published in The Age and attributed to Michelle Gratton and Geoff Strong:
"Comedian Fiona Scott-Norman said that if one were to look in the dictionary under 'hypocrite', there would be a picture of Mr Abbott. ''Yet another self-acknowledged one-time drug-taking, 'Vatican roulette' playing, shagabout, white, middle-aged male telling young women not to do what he did when he was their age.
''The irony is that the one thing guaranteed to make 'young people' do something is for a pompous tosspot like Tony to tell them not to.''
"Latrobe University sex education expert Associate Professor Anne Mitchell said Mr Abbott's pronouncement was nonsense."
As Editor-in-Chief Helen McCabe says in her editorial, "honesty can be a bit of a handicap."
Ain't that the truth?
Even the honesty of one's own daughter can sometimes serve as an embarrassment to a father in the public eye. The comment attributed to Abbott's daughter, Frances, that her Dad was a "lame, gay, churchie loser" was interesting and humorous to say the least. She immediately stole my attention and became a "cult hero", as The Weekly suggested some had described her, for her erudite and creative turn of phrase.
There's no-one like family to make sure a public figure feeling his feet in a new leadership role keeps them firmly on the ground.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Wild Rivers, Exciting Times...
Just prior to the return to parliament, Tony Abbott had decided to publicly air his decision to introduce a private member's bill to the lower house on its return to work and Kevin Rudd's return from holidays for the 2010 calendar year.
Rudd had been absent from our screens and papers for a while, soaking up the summer sun in Kirribilli, a suburb in Sydney's lower north shore. Kirribilli House, the Prime Minister's residence in the town in which over 4million Australians resided, was one of the best pieces of real estate anywhere in the country.
Meanwhile, Abbott was discussing issues pertaining to the First Australians, the indigenous community. The Wild Rivers Legislation, passed by the Queensland Government in 2005, with the scope increased to cover other rivers in 2009, was the source of Abbott's concern.
The legislation was designed to gazette development within a declared 'buffer zone' of the rivers covered in the legislation. However, in securing Green preferences for the 2009 State Election, by declaring the Archer, Lockhart and Stewart Rivers in Cape York as 'wild rivers,' the Premier, Anna Bligh, also secured the opposition of Noel Pearson, the respected indigenous leader and Director of the the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership. Crippling economic activity in the Cape York area was sure to gain the ire of a man with the interests of his people at heart.
And so this brought Tony Abbott into the fray, with his member's bill designed to proclaim the need for State legislation to be "struck down." The invitation had been given to Kevin Rudd to back Abbott's bold move so the Prime Minister could have the opportunity to finally address, even if belatedly, the problems the Wild Rivers Legislation was creating for the future of indigenous communities in Cape York.
Abbott stated in The Australian on January 12 that:
"a national government which fails to become involved in a serious problem of a State Government's making, where it has ample capacity to do so, becomes complicit in the original error."
Believe it or not, Abbott had actually spent time in Cape York, as The Australian was keen to bring to our attention, including 10 days in the peninsula in August 2009, "in the Peninsula Top End as a school truancy officer in...Aurukun, and 3 weeks as a volunteer teacher's aide in Coen in 2008."
Unique amongst politicians? Perhaps so. If not unique, certainly worthy of praise.
Although the private member's bill seemed socially responsible and designed to improve the economic opportunities available to the Cape York indigenous community, Abbott's bill would also fit comfortably with his view of there being a need to re-establish a more 'official' chain of command pertaining to Commonwealth-State Relations, as he explains in some detail in his book, 'Battlelines.'
Was Abbott using the private member's bill as a 'guinea pig' or 'trial balloon' via which he could espouse the need for change to the federation? Only time would tell.
But time waited for no-one. As the latest Newspoll was released, showing Rudd's satisfaction rating having declined six percent and Abbott's having jumped four percent, it was clear the Liberal heartland now felt more comfortable in declaring their support for the Coalition.
Soon after Newspoll results were published, the Massachusetts Senate seat that had been 'owned' by Ted Kennedy since 1962 was lost. Kennedy had recently passed away and the seat was seen as a 'sure thing' for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.
However, Obama had not countered on the swinging voters swinging to the right of centre, resulting in the Democrats not only losing the seat but also the balance of power they had enjoyed in the Senate since Obama's election a year earlier.
Was there a message in this for Kevin Rudd? Could an election half a world away be a sign of things to come closer to home? If nothing else, it was certainly a sign that incumbents need not take the electorate for granted. Terms such as 'taking a tumble' in reference to Rudd's personal rating and 'recapturing the Liberal base' in reference to Abbott's effectiveness since his election as Opposition Leader, were not terms Rudd would be pleased to see or hear on an ongoing basis.
The Government was seen by some commentators to be in need of a change of strategy. And now!
Rudd had been absent from our screens and papers for a while, soaking up the summer sun in Kirribilli, a suburb in Sydney's lower north shore. Kirribilli House, the Prime Minister's residence in the town in which over 4million Australians resided, was one of the best pieces of real estate anywhere in the country.
Meanwhile, Abbott was discussing issues pertaining to the First Australians, the indigenous community. The Wild Rivers Legislation, passed by the Queensland Government in 2005, with the scope increased to cover other rivers in 2009, was the source of Abbott's concern.
The legislation was designed to gazette development within a declared 'buffer zone' of the rivers covered in the legislation. However, in securing Green preferences for the 2009 State Election, by declaring the Archer, Lockhart and Stewart Rivers in Cape York as 'wild rivers,' the Premier, Anna Bligh, also secured the opposition of Noel Pearson, the respected indigenous leader and Director of the the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership. Crippling economic activity in the Cape York area was sure to gain the ire of a man with the interests of his people at heart.
And so this brought Tony Abbott into the fray, with his member's bill designed to proclaim the need for State legislation to be "struck down." The invitation had been given to Kevin Rudd to back Abbott's bold move so the Prime Minister could have the opportunity to finally address, even if belatedly, the problems the Wild Rivers Legislation was creating for the future of indigenous communities in Cape York.
Abbott stated in The Australian on January 12 that:
"a national government which fails to become involved in a serious problem of a State Government's making, where it has ample capacity to do so, becomes complicit in the original error."
Believe it or not, Abbott had actually spent time in Cape York, as The Australian was keen to bring to our attention, including 10 days in the peninsula in August 2009, "in the Peninsula Top End as a school truancy officer in...Aurukun, and 3 weeks as a volunteer teacher's aide in Coen in 2008."
Unique amongst politicians? Perhaps so. If not unique, certainly worthy of praise.
Although the private member's bill seemed socially responsible and designed to improve the economic opportunities available to the Cape York indigenous community, Abbott's bill would also fit comfortably with his view of there being a need to re-establish a more 'official' chain of command pertaining to Commonwealth-State Relations, as he explains in some detail in his book, 'Battlelines.'
Was Abbott using the private member's bill as a 'guinea pig' or 'trial balloon' via which he could espouse the need for change to the federation? Only time would tell.
But time waited for no-one. As the latest Newspoll was released, showing Rudd's satisfaction rating having declined six percent and Abbott's having jumped four percent, it was clear the Liberal heartland now felt more comfortable in declaring their support for the Coalition.
Soon after Newspoll results were published, the Massachusetts Senate seat that had been 'owned' by Ted Kennedy since 1962 was lost. Kennedy had recently passed away and the seat was seen as a 'sure thing' for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.
However, Obama had not countered on the swinging voters swinging to the right of centre, resulting in the Democrats not only losing the seat but also the balance of power they had enjoyed in the Senate since Obama's election a year earlier.
Was there a message in this for Kevin Rudd? Could an election half a world away be a sign of things to come closer to home? If nothing else, it was certainly a sign that incumbents need not take the electorate for granted. Terms such as 'taking a tumble' in reference to Rudd's personal rating and 'recapturing the Liberal base' in reference to Abbott's effectiveness since his election as Opposition Leader, were not terms Rudd would be pleased to see or hear on an ongoing basis.
The Government was seen by some commentators to be in need of a change of strategy. And now!
Australia Day honours...
The new Australian of the Year was Professor Patrick McGorry, a renowned Youth Psychiatrist, who had received numerous awards of note throughout what had to this point been an acclaimed and distinguished career in the field of mental health.
McGorry had, within hours of being awarded his latest honour, made public comment relating to the way in which 'asylum-seekers' to some, 'illegal immigrants' to others, but to all, those seeking refuge in Australia for one reason or another, were being detained.
Christmas Island was the main detention centre within Australia, off the west coast from the mainland. McGorry's view was that detention centres were "factories for mental illness." His view was that asylum-seekers who had yet to be granted refugee status, should have their status processed whilst living within the community at large, with access to Medicare benefits and the like.
Only 24 hours later, after his comment had received more press coverage than he himself had received for his Australia Day Council acclamation, McGorry was perhaps too keen to atone for his 'error' and, at a citizenship ceremony in Cenberra attended by the Prime Minister, he found the perfect opportunity to apologise for his 'wayward' comment. McGorry was anxious, it seemed, to have Rudd understand he had meant it as a sign of support for the present government.
Rudd seemed less than concerned, but behind the scenes he may well have been seething at the Australia Day Council's latest choice for Australian of the Year. 'Only another 364 days to go with this wanker', he most likely thought, although by all reports it was quite possible his language could have been more colourful.
Either way, if McGorry's comment had been, as he suggested, a show of support, a critical comment from him would surely be duly noted.
But McGorry had brought to the fore an issue that would see a lot of air-time over the coming months. There was no doubt 'asylum-seekers' were seen by some as 'queue-jumpers,' given a direct invitation to join those that had waited years for the privilege of proving themselves 'worthy.'
Was there room for a refugee program? Yes. Were all 'asylum-seekers' seeking refuge as a result of a home lost, a war ravaged, an inability to return to their homeland? Probably not.
But no matter your belief on emotive issues such as these, border protection and immigration were sure to be areas of concern in the Federal Election to be held most likely later in the year.
Amongst all the emotion, there was one constant amongst all those that wanted to come to Australia to establish a new life, be they immigrants, refugees or otherwise. It was a country that would be sure to provide security and freedom, one of only six continuous democracies the world over, and one that had never seen major conflict on its shores.
On Australia Day, this was cause for celebration.
McGorry had, within hours of being awarded his latest honour, made public comment relating to the way in which 'asylum-seekers' to some, 'illegal immigrants' to others, but to all, those seeking refuge in Australia for one reason or another, were being detained.
Christmas Island was the main detention centre within Australia, off the west coast from the mainland. McGorry's view was that detention centres were "factories for mental illness." His view was that asylum-seekers who had yet to be granted refugee status, should have their status processed whilst living within the community at large, with access to Medicare benefits and the like.
Only 24 hours later, after his comment had received more press coverage than he himself had received for his Australia Day Council acclamation, McGorry was perhaps too keen to atone for his 'error' and, at a citizenship ceremony in Cenberra attended by the Prime Minister, he found the perfect opportunity to apologise for his 'wayward' comment. McGorry was anxious, it seemed, to have Rudd understand he had meant it as a sign of support for the present government.
Rudd seemed less than concerned, but behind the scenes he may well have been seething at the Australia Day Council's latest choice for Australian of the Year. 'Only another 364 days to go with this wanker', he most likely thought, although by all reports it was quite possible his language could have been more colourful.
Either way, if McGorry's comment had been, as he suggested, a show of support, a critical comment from him would surely be duly noted.
But McGorry had brought to the fore an issue that would see a lot of air-time over the coming months. There was no doubt 'asylum-seekers' were seen by some as 'queue-jumpers,' given a direct invitation to join those that had waited years for the privilege of proving themselves 'worthy.'
Was there room for a refugee program? Yes. Were all 'asylum-seekers' seeking refuge as a result of a home lost, a war ravaged, an inability to return to their homeland? Probably not.
But no matter your belief on emotive issues such as these, border protection and immigration were sure to be areas of concern in the Federal Election to be held most likely later in the year.
Amongst all the emotion, there was one constant amongst all those that wanted to come to Australia to establish a new life, be they immigrants, refugees or otherwise. It was a country that would be sure to provide security and freedom, one of only six continuous democracies the world over, and one that had never seen major conflict on its shores.
On Australia Day, this was cause for celebration.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Kevin's Kerfuffle...
Change was and remains the one true certainty in life. But one thing that rarely changed was the New Year's Eve celebrations in Sydney. This year, Rhoda Roberts was Creative Director. The theme on the night, 'Awakening the Spirit', appeared true to her heart. It was little wonder she was able to 'sell' the night so effectively on TV in the days leading up to the big event.
5,000kg of explosive devices, 6 barges, 11,000 shells and 25,000 shooting comets. The night was guaranteed to 'awaken the spirit', and more besides.
Small children may well have been lucky enough to be allowed to stay awake to watch the 9 o'clock fireworks, but their spirit was more likely to be heightened by their parents reading them a new book soon to be published.
'Jasper & Abby and The Great Australia Day Kerfuffle', had been written by none other than Kevin Rudd. Former US President Jimmy Carter, better known to some of us as a peanut farmer and known to others not at all, had also had a children's book published, so Rudd would be in fine company.
With assistance from his friend Rhys Muldoon, a children's TV host, the book would surely make the voters see Rudd had a softer side, and they would love him all the more for it. Wouldn't they?
At the time of the announcement that publication was imminent, Prue McSween, social commentator extraodinaire, said, in her inimitable style, that the pictures in the book better be "bloody good" as the words, if Rudd's, were bound to cure any child suffering from insomnia.
In all honesty though, publishing a children's book seemed sweet enough, and to criticise Kevin for the work he and Muldoon had put into the publication would be unfair and unwise. This could well be why his political opponents remained silent on the subject. The reviews would soon be out, the enjoyment a surety for many.
Whilst the Prime Minister was planning his children’s book in the New Year, the first week or so seemed to be taken up with media pronouncements of government waste and mismanagement. There had been an article prior to the Copenhagen summit about the Australian delegation numbering as many as 114, including the Prime Minister’s official photographer and baggage handler. A blog on the Herald Sun’s website included comments expressing the situation as "Rudd’s Copenhagen Circus," "a farce," a "waste of money," an example of "snouts in the trough," a glorification of their (the Government’s) own self-importance, and "hypocrisy."
The summit itself had catered for 15,000 delegates but registered 45,000. Temperatures in Copenhagen were freezing. Were the 30,000 delegates registered but not catered for to be left out in the cold?
All this gave Tony Abbott an early Christmas present. His line that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (the ETS by another name) was "a great big new tax on everything" was being aired daily through all channels of the media. Now he was also able to air concern at the impending increase in the size of Kevin Rudd’s carbon footprint, not to mention the other 113 delegates to be flown over to save the world from itself.
If this was not enough, the New Year saw things only get worse. The first week of the New Year saw an article about the H1N1 vaccine, ordered by the Rudd Government the year before at the height of the alleged swine flu ‘pandemic.'
only 5.1 million of the 21 million vaccines ordered had been used at that time and Australia in summer was not likely to see a high preponderance of the flu nor have any ongoing need for its use, at least not the 16 million that remained. The order had cost $120 million in all. It seemed the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory (CSL) was making a pretty penny from the deal. Mind you, the taxpayer would always be liable for funding government expenditure. It was not the first time, nor would it be the last where obvious government failings hit the taxpayers’ back pocket.
A month or so in and swine flu was back on the evening news. A night before the first annual commemoration of the Victorian ‘Black Saturday’ bushfires, the evening news reported, with great alarm and concern, that there was likely to be another swine flu epidemic as school had now gone back and winter was just around the corner... well, only 4 months away, to be sure. It was hard not to feel that the alert had come from the Federal Government’s Department of Health, as a way of reducing the number of unused strains of the vaccine and ensuring taxpayers were made to feel their hard-earned taxable income had been used for the greater good of the community after all.
Was this view somewhat cynical? You be the judge. From the land of the 'working family,' a term we will re-visit later, it seemed like Kevin had a kerfuffle of his own to deal with that was in no way related to children's books.
Welcome to the New Year.
5,000kg of explosive devices, 6 barges, 11,000 shells and 25,000 shooting comets. The night was guaranteed to 'awaken the spirit', and more besides.
Small children may well have been lucky enough to be allowed to stay awake to watch the 9 o'clock fireworks, but their spirit was more likely to be heightened by their parents reading them a new book soon to be published.
'Jasper & Abby and The Great Australia Day Kerfuffle', had been written by none other than Kevin Rudd. Former US President Jimmy Carter, better known to some of us as a peanut farmer and known to others not at all, had also had a children's book published, so Rudd would be in fine company.
With assistance from his friend Rhys Muldoon, a children's TV host, the book would surely make the voters see Rudd had a softer side, and they would love him all the more for it. Wouldn't they?
At the time of the announcement that publication was imminent, Prue McSween, social commentator extraodinaire, said, in her inimitable style, that the pictures in the book better be "bloody good" as the words, if Rudd's, were bound to cure any child suffering from insomnia.
In all honesty though, publishing a children's book seemed sweet enough, and to criticise Kevin for the work he and Muldoon had put into the publication would be unfair and unwise. This could well be why his political opponents remained silent on the subject. The reviews would soon be out, the enjoyment a surety for many.
Whilst the Prime Minister was planning his children’s book in the New Year, the first week or so seemed to be taken up with media pronouncements of government waste and mismanagement. There had been an article prior to the Copenhagen summit about the Australian delegation numbering as many as 114, including the Prime Minister’s official photographer and baggage handler. A blog on the Herald Sun’s website included comments expressing the situation as "Rudd’s Copenhagen Circus," "a farce," a "waste of money," an example of "snouts in the trough," a glorification of their (the Government’s) own self-importance, and "hypocrisy."
The summit itself had catered for 15,000 delegates but registered 45,000. Temperatures in Copenhagen were freezing. Were the 30,000 delegates registered but not catered for to be left out in the cold?
All this gave Tony Abbott an early Christmas present. His line that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (the ETS by another name) was "a great big new tax on everything" was being aired daily through all channels of the media. Now he was also able to air concern at the impending increase in the size of Kevin Rudd’s carbon footprint, not to mention the other 113 delegates to be flown over to save the world from itself.
If this was not enough, the New Year saw things only get worse. The first week of the New Year saw an article about the H1N1 vaccine, ordered by the Rudd Government the year before at the height of the alleged swine flu ‘pandemic.'
only 5.1 million of the 21 million vaccines ordered had been used at that time and Australia in summer was not likely to see a high preponderance of the flu nor have any ongoing need for its use, at least not the 16 million that remained. The order had cost $120 million in all. It seemed the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory (CSL) was making a pretty penny from the deal. Mind you, the taxpayer would always be liable for funding government expenditure. It was not the first time, nor would it be the last where obvious government failings hit the taxpayers’ back pocket.
A month or so in and swine flu was back on the evening news. A night before the first annual commemoration of the Victorian ‘Black Saturday’ bushfires, the evening news reported, with great alarm and concern, that there was likely to be another swine flu epidemic as school had now gone back and winter was just around the corner... well, only 4 months away, to be sure. It was hard not to feel that the alert had come from the Federal Government’s Department of Health, as a way of reducing the number of unused strains of the vaccine and ensuring taxpayers were made to feel their hard-earned taxable income had been used for the greater good of the community after all.
Was this view somewhat cynical? You be the judge. From the land of the 'working family,' a term we will re-visit later, it seemed like Kevin had a kerfuffle of his own to deal with that was in no way related to children's books.
Welcome to the New Year.
Christmas Presents
Christmas 2009 was upon us and it seemed sure to be a long, hot summer. TV, radio and newspaper journalists all seemed to be saying it was a sure sign global warming was here to stay. Although they did not use that term. 'Climate change' was the term of choice.
Another term of choice was 'climate change deniers', which seemed to have superceded 'climate change sceptics'. Had this issue become the new religion of our time? Time would show this was most unlikely, but this was an unknown quantity around Christmas. Kevin Rudd's view that climate change was "the moral challenge of our age" was still popular amongst many. But issues have a way of falling from grace rather quickly, it seems.
At the time of the Copenhagen Summit, Kevin Rudd's view remained as popular as ever. Copenhagen was to be the ground-breaking summit of world leaders that would not only ensconce Rudd as 'Kevin 747' but would also prove him to be a Prime Minister of quality, concern, leadership, diplomacy, and a true 'arrival' on the world stage. Or at least that was the plan.
Back home, leadership spills were taking place and by-elections were being held. The Coalition seemed to be coming together again under an Abbott/Joyce umbrella. The Centre Unity faction of the NSW ALP was organising backroom coups run by faceless men with a female puppet the end result. Albeit a young, fresh-faced, female puppet, who would prove over time to be popular with the people.
In South Australia, a premier sometimes referred to as 'metrosexual,' Mike Rann, was fighting off allegations of late night parking 'trysts' that seemed to be diverting his attention from the issue at hand - getting re-elected.
Meanwhile in the Northern Territory, the government was alleged to be diverting millions to be spent on indigenous health and welfare projects to shore up support in regional Labor electorates.
Although things were to change by April 2010, at Christmas time, the Abbott/Joyce team were the only ones smiling. Joyce's role as Finance Spokesman for Abbott's Coalition was like placing a round peg in a square hole - it just didn't seem to be a good fit.
As Abbott appeared on the beach in 'budgie-smugglers,' the cartoonists and social commentators were having a field day - not since Harold Holt had a federal leader been so attuned to beach culture. A blessing or a curse for Abbott?
Coming home from work on December 1st to see the news on in the family room, David Speers was on screen, looking somewhat quizzically at the camera. His eyes were raised, his brow furrowed as if he was wondering to himself how 42 Liberal Party colleagues could possibly have considered Tony Abbott to be the man to hold the best alternative for the Party's chances at the next election. It was clear that many 'scribes' considered Abbott's view on the ETS and climate change in general to be impractical and reactionary.
As Abbott stood before the press gallery and the many voters at home in their living rooms, he could be heard saying he wanted to apologise for all his errors of the past as he asked the public to judge him on his actions from that moment on. Humble and humorous, was one way of seeing it.
One thing was certain as a result of Abbott's elevation to the leadership of the opposition - Rudd's ETS was in trouble. Abbott's view that the ETS was simply a "great big new tax on everything" was a line that would prove to be most effective.
Graham Young in The Australian on January 1st, 2010, said:
"the Government has been put on notice...If it (the contest) is about whether Rudd has got a bit too pompous, narcissistic and self-satisfied, then the straight-shooting gadfly (Abbott) may do suprisingly well. Particularly if voters don't think he can win."
One thing was for certain as 2010 arrived. Climate change of the political kind was real. The year ahead would tell the story of just how much change the general public was willing to accept - and how soon?
Another term of choice was 'climate change deniers', which seemed to have superceded 'climate change sceptics'. Had this issue become the new religion of our time? Time would show this was most unlikely, but this was an unknown quantity around Christmas. Kevin Rudd's view that climate change was "the moral challenge of our age" was still popular amongst many. But issues have a way of falling from grace rather quickly, it seems.
At the time of the Copenhagen Summit, Kevin Rudd's view remained as popular as ever. Copenhagen was to be the ground-breaking summit of world leaders that would not only ensconce Rudd as 'Kevin 747' but would also prove him to be a Prime Minister of quality, concern, leadership, diplomacy, and a true 'arrival' on the world stage. Or at least that was the plan.
Back home, leadership spills were taking place and by-elections were being held. The Coalition seemed to be coming together again under an Abbott/Joyce umbrella. The Centre Unity faction of the NSW ALP was organising backroom coups run by faceless men with a female puppet the end result. Albeit a young, fresh-faced, female puppet, who would prove over time to be popular with the people.
In South Australia, a premier sometimes referred to as 'metrosexual,' Mike Rann, was fighting off allegations of late night parking 'trysts' that seemed to be diverting his attention from the issue at hand - getting re-elected.
Meanwhile in the Northern Territory, the government was alleged to be diverting millions to be spent on indigenous health and welfare projects to shore up support in regional Labor electorates.
Although things were to change by April 2010, at Christmas time, the Abbott/Joyce team were the only ones smiling. Joyce's role as Finance Spokesman for Abbott's Coalition was like placing a round peg in a square hole - it just didn't seem to be a good fit.
As Abbott appeared on the beach in 'budgie-smugglers,' the cartoonists and social commentators were having a field day - not since Harold Holt had a federal leader been so attuned to beach culture. A blessing or a curse for Abbott?
Coming home from work on December 1st to see the news on in the family room, David Speers was on screen, looking somewhat quizzically at the camera. His eyes were raised, his brow furrowed as if he was wondering to himself how 42 Liberal Party colleagues could possibly have considered Tony Abbott to be the man to hold the best alternative for the Party's chances at the next election. It was clear that many 'scribes' considered Abbott's view on the ETS and climate change in general to be impractical and reactionary.
As Abbott stood before the press gallery and the many voters at home in their living rooms, he could be heard saying he wanted to apologise for all his errors of the past as he asked the public to judge him on his actions from that moment on. Humble and humorous, was one way of seeing it.
One thing was certain as a result of Abbott's elevation to the leadership of the opposition - Rudd's ETS was in trouble. Abbott's view that the ETS was simply a "great big new tax on everything" was a line that would prove to be most effective.
Graham Young in The Australian on January 1st, 2010, said:
"the Government has been put on notice...If it (the contest) is about whether Rudd has got a bit too pompous, narcissistic and self-satisfied, then the straight-shooting gadfly (Abbott) may do suprisingly well. Particularly if voters don't think he can win."
One thing was for certain as 2010 arrived. Climate change of the political kind was real. The year ahead would tell the story of just how much change the general public was willing to accept - and how soon?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)