• About

Zak From Downunder

~ Zak de Courcy's sometimes incendiary thoughts about politics, life and religion.

Zak From Downunder

Category Archives: Australian Politics

Frack the Frackers!

31 Friday May 2013

Posted by Zak de Courcy in Australian Politics, Gotta Life, International Politics

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Australian politics, carcinogen, coal seam gas, economy, federal government, frack, fracker, fracking, Great Artesian Basin, groundwater, groundwater depletion, international politics, NSW, nuclear power plants, politics, Qld, water

Letterman telling it like it is.
Yea, I know… where was I.
I didn’t get to see this 2012 clip until it was posted by a friend on Facebook.

I remember when Gasland came out and it was said by industry types in Australia, that coal seam gas would be extracted in a different and much safer way than that depicted in the film. Well guess what, that was just spin; the Frackers are doing it in exactly the same dangerous way. Even taking a benign view of Fracking in Australia, it still involves the waste of vast quantities of precious groundwater just to produce the gas. This groundwater depletion for coal seam gas production has by itself, made the extraction of water for human consumption and agriculture much more difficult.

The past informs the future and that tells us that no industrial process is without risk, it’s just a matter of deciding how much you’re willing to lose. No matter how safe offshore drilling was said to be, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico still happened. No matter how safe nuclear power plants are, according to proponents of nuclear power, the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster still happened.

Whereas Fracking elsewhere in the world might contaminate one of many aquifers, in Australia, Fracking contamination anywhere in Queensland and northern New South Wales would destroy the world’s greatest aquifer, The Great Artesian Basin.
“The Great Artesian Basin provides the only reliable source of freshwater through much of inland Australia. The basin is the largest and deepest artesian basin in the world, stretching over a total of 1,700,000 square kilometres.” (Wikipedia).
• Also see here for a map of the Great Artesian Basin.

The Qld and NSW governments need the Fracking tax cash so in this age of short-termism, they’re prepared to give Australia’s Frackers the benefit of the doubt right up to the point when Australia’s Great Artesian Basin is totally fracked. When that inevitably happens, they’ll squeal: “it was a terrible accident” or “the company responsible will be held to account”. But by then it’ll be too late and as inland towns, livestock and crops die, who will hold our politicians to account. In the meantime, some chemical contamination of the groundwater, as a consequence of Fracking, is inevitable. It’ll just be a matter of ‘authorities’ determining how much carcinogenic water we’re prepared to tolerate.

So good on Letterman for having his rant but he forgot to mention we elect governments to prevent this sort of economic rape, so wherever it’s happening, there’s a fracking government watching.

More:
• Gasland the Movie
• Artists Against Fracking.
• More Views on the Gas Rush and Hydraulic Fracturing
(by Andrew Revkin, NYT July 2, 2012)
• Buru seeks approvals for new round of fracking in the Kimberley
(By Ben Collins, ABC 16 May, 2013)


From now on, I think I’ll replace the ‘u’ with ‘ra’ and use frack, frackers, fracking instead. Hey, it’s PG enough to use round kids and you never know it might become a byword for this evil industry.

:: Please leave a comment ::


Clive Palmer’s a Funny Bloke:

14 Tuesday May 2013

Posted by Zak de Courcy in Australian Politics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

advertising, ALP, Australian politics, Clive Palmer, elections, federal government, Labor, Labor Party, Liberal Party, Tony Abbott, UAP, United Australia Party

Clive Palmer

Clive Palmer… sorry
Professor Clive Palmer

I know Clive Palmer’s new/resurrected United Australia Party (UAP) (now Palmer United Party) is a joke but it worries me that a couple of people in Australia might buy his TV ad. line, that both the Liberal Party and Labor Party are “all run by lobbyists”. It worries me a bit that this billionaire buffoon might actually be able to con enough votes to get a seat or two in September’s federal election. Worse than that, he might help Tony Abbott get elected (not that Tony needs much help), as almost all UAP preferences will be directed to The Coalition.

These ads are the ultimate in cynical Orwellian double-speak from Palmer, given that his self-financed Palmer United Party is in fact just such a lobby group serving the interests of only one person… Clive Palmer. At least regular lobbyists, obnoxious as some of them are, represent a community of interest (public or corporate).

Jeez Palmer must be a funny bloke to have a beer with if he can try this one on with a straight face. Oh, I had a quick look at his website… and when the hell did he become Professor Clive Palmer?

See the ads:
• UAP – United Australia Party – Clive Palmer – TVC – “Lobbyists 1”
http://youtu.be/_nTLnarYpJg

• UAP – United Australia Party – Clive Palmer – TVC – “Lobbyists 2”
http://youtu.be/mYHFFPUiUEo


Is there anyone in Australia so lacking in intelligence that they might think this guy and his cronies are worth voting for?.
:: Please leave a comment ::


More on Same-Sex Marriage and the Church:

10 Wednesday Apr 2013

Posted by Zak de Courcy in Australian Politics, International Politics, Religion

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Anglican Church, Australian politics, catholic church, Episcopal Church, gay rights, Human Rights, international politics, LGBT, marriage, politics, religion, same-sex marriage, United Church of Christ, USA politics

My previous post, The Last Civil Right? Same Sex Marriage:, has generated a bit of heat on Facebook with comments suggesting that in 1967, when the bulk of churches stood against interracial marriage, they were simply reflecting a society with similar attitudes. The argument follows that the churches are doing the same now.

Image In my previous post I did mention that some churches, including the United Church of Christ support marriage equality. The Anglican’s progressive American Episcopalian branch is another wonderful exception. With same-sex marriage now legal in Washington DC, Rt. Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, the Episcopal bishop of Washington DC, recently announced that The Washington National Cathedral (an Episcopalian church), where the nation gathers to mourn tragedies and presidents, will soon begin performing same-sex marriages. Unfortunately, the main body of that church, the Anglican church in England continues to stand alongside the Roman Catholics, as one of the main churches vocally opposed to marriage equality. Jeffrey John, the Anglican dean of St Albans in the UK, recently accused the church of pursuing a “morally contemptible” policy on same-sex marriage. He writes that, by setting themselves against same-sex marriage, the bishops of the Church have prioritised the union of the Anglican Communion over the rights of gay Christians. “Worst of all, by appeasing their persecutors it betrays the truly heroic gay Christians of Africa who stand up for justice and truth at risk of their lives. For the mission of the Church of England the present policy is a disaster.”
See the whole Guardian Newspaper report here:
• Anglican stance on same-sex marriage ‘morally contemptible’

There’s a reason why the churches have emptied in the most religious country in Europe, Roman Catholic Ireland. I know the Anglican Church is experiencing the same sort of ‘West vs. the Rest’ crisis that’s decimating the Catholic Church in Europe but they both need to decide whether they prioritise expedience over principle.

If the churches were purely political organisations, then it might be reasonable for them to simply reflect or lag behind community consensus or act expediently. But the churches set themselves as moral and social arbiters and as such they should bravely and with principle, lead the community by advocating for tolerance, social inclusion and progressive social policy. Alternatively, they can continue to choose, as they did in 1967, to identify themselves with intolerance, prejudice and exclusion. If the churches continue in that direction, they’ll accelerate their irrelevance to the West and soon exist only in the third world.


I’m almost afraid to ask for comments on this hotly debated issue.

:: Please leave a comment ::


The Last Civil Right? Same Sex Marriage:

08 Monday Apr 2013

Posted by Zak de Courcy in Australian Politics, International Politics, Religion

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Australian politics, Chief Justice Earl Warren, civil rights, DOMA, gay rights, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, Human Rights, international politics, LGBT, Loving v. Virginia, marriage, politics, Proposition 8, religion, same-sex marriage, US Supreme Court, USA, USA politics

Image For those old enough to remember, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967), was a challenging and controversial film. At that time (only 46 years ago) interracial marriage was unthinkable and strongly opposed by the church as well as being illegal in 16 states in the USA and opposed by 72% of the American public. Running against the tide in 1967, the US Supreme Court ruled against interracial marriage prohibition in Loving v. Virginia. Chief Justice Earl Warren, who penned the unanimous decision, wrote in words that echo strongly for same-sex marriage:
“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival… To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
Today, such relationships are barely noticed let alone condemned (except by a small minority in the deep south).

Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two landmark cases related to same-sex marriage. The Court is being asked to rule on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (1996), which defined marriage as between a male and female and also required the US federal government to deny benefits to same-sex couples, married in states that allow same-sex unions.

Image It seems that the last great Civil Rights issue is in the balance and once again, just like they did with interracial marriage in 1967, the churches stand on the side of prejudice (with a very few exceptions like the 1 million strong, United Church of Christ).

So while great strides have been made in recent decades to recognize the civil rights of the LGBT communities, there still exists one glaring inequality that defines them and their life partnerships as inferior and somehow frivolous: Marriage inequality.

Marriage today, particularly in the West, has moved away from being an exclusively religious institution and is now celebrated in many ways: in churches; synagogues; court houses; city halls; parks; and sometimes, in less solemn, perhaps even frivolous settings.

Some are religious ceremonies while many are very secular. Generally though, they have one thing in common: they celebrate the love, joy and commitment of two people to each other in the company of friends and family. For most, this is one of life’s highlights but it is one that is wholly denied to gay people and relegates gay relationships to being somehow less worthy and legitimate than those of straight people.

I have no problem with religious people defining for themselves the nature of their creation, their relation to a deity and dogmatically ordained relationships between people within their faith. I similarly have no objection to religious celebrants, declining to marry same-sex partners. I do however, object strongly when those same people seek to impose their definitions on the rest of society. The religious might believe that their deity created marriage to foster procreation but the reality is that marriage was a device developed thousands of years ago, long before Christianity, Islam or Judaism, to ensure property ownership and inheritance. Whatever the view, the decline in formalised religiosity in the West has paralleled an increasing view that marriage is not a necessary precursor to procreation. At the same time, I believe there is a growing identification with the notion of marriage as a desirable way of publicly demonstrating and celebrating the commitment of two people, including mothers and fathers already in a family, to each other. As well, I think many people now see the legal responsibilities inherent in marriage as somehow affirming their willingness to more permanently commit to each other.

Many countries have approved or are in the process of legislating marriage equality, including: Andora, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Columbia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay, although I’m ashamed to say, not my own (Australia). In the traditionally conservative United States, same-sex marriage has been legalised in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, D.C., the state of Washington and the largest state, California (barring the success of Prop 8, currently before the Supreme Court). Even in the UK which is currently ruled by a right-wing coalition government, the Conservative Party are pushing ahead with marriage equality. British Prime Minister, David Cameron, In a speech to his Conservative Party in 2011 said: “I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.”

  • See the full transcript of Cameron’s speech here.

The conservative fall-back position for those opposed to same-sex marriage, seems to be: that some form of civil union might be possible. While civil unions do legally cement a gay partnership contract in much the same way as a marriage, they do so without the equality of status and celebration conferred by a straight marriage. And worse, such a confirmed legal status further entrenches the inferiority of gay relationships by only recognising their legal but not societal status. Allowing civil unions but not marriage, is akin to legally granting an African American the right to travel at the front of the bus but with a big sign fixed to his seat patronisingly proclaiming “We whites have to let you ride but you’re still BLACK!!!”, thus perpetuating the myth that being white (or in this case, straight) is still somehow superior.

At a time when family and society’s bonds are being increasingly challenged, why would we not take the opportunity to help place family and relationship commitment more firmly at the core of our communities by affirming the role of marriage as a desirable and cherished family institution not just as something religious people do before they procreate.

It’s time to remove one of the last signposts of gay inferiority, reach out the hand of inclusiveness to all people and support the affirmation of family and committed relationships intrinsic to marriage equality for all.


Has this issue reached a tipping point or are the forces of prejudice like the leader of the conservative Liberal Party in Australia, going to be able to hold back what seems like the inevitable tide of history?

:: Please leave a comment ::


The Leaderless, Leadership Spill:

22 Friday Mar 2013

Posted by Zak de Courcy in Australian Politics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

ALP, Australian politics, federal government, Julia Gillard, Labor, leadership, Simon Crean, spill, Tony Abbott

Last Monday, the 11th of March, just after Labor’s WA State election disaster, I sent the following letter to all Labor members of the House of Representatives and also enclosed my It’s Time! or It’s Over! post. I’ve reproduced the letter here, to indicate my level of consternation at the current leadership crisis and the inept way in which the Labor Party are dealing with the issue.

Dear Member,

In two weeks, it will effectively be too late to salvage any possibility of winning an election in September or alternatively, saving the great Australian Labor Party from a wipeout.

In two weeks, parliament goes into recess and won’t return until the Budget in May. What the Caucus does now, will have a huge impact on the number of vulnerable members lost in the election in September (or whenever it is held).

I can only imagine the pressure you all must be experiencing at the moment, having survived the last two years with the constant noise from the media, Tony Abbott and a clamoring public, the relentless polls, and an 8 month election campaign to endure.

As a retired member of the ALP and supporter of more than 30 years, it distresses me to envision what lies in wait for the party at the election in September. And while I’ve never welcomed the arrival of a Liberal Coalition government, I’ve rarely been more apprehensive of the possibility.

The normal cycle of politics allows for centre-left and centre-right parties to periodically gain the ascendancy in Australia without the sky falling in.
This is a juncture in history when that’s not the case. With a climate system in crisis, this country can not afford a few years while an Abbott government does its best to unwind the Carbon Price, with a Climate change sceptic at the helm, fiddling while we burn. Nor can we afford the butchering of the NBN and the fiscal shock that will result from an Abbott razor-gang, slashing into the public sector in a show of mettle.

It may be that you have already concluded, from internal polling, that your government will not win the next election with or without the current Prime Minister. You may also have been convinced to stay the present course, no matter what. If, however, you have a glimmer of hope, then would you please take a few minutes to have a quick look at my enclosed blog post on this subject (posted 11-03-2013).

I’m not arrogant enough to think I have any special insight but I’m concerned enough to hope that there might be something, somewhere in what I’ve written, that might strike a chord.

Yours in Solidarity,
Zak Seager
St. James, WA

The Farcical Spill:

Simon Crean-sm Yesterday’s farce of a leadership challenge, did nothing to resolve the issue. The push by Regional Australia Minister, and stalwart Gillard supporter, Simon Crean to bring the issue to a head, would only have succeeded had the Prime Minister resigned. Clearly, his discussion with Julia Gillard, the night before he moved, was the proverbial tap on the shoulder from a loyal and respected colleague that tells a leader, the time is up. Julia is not a leader, it seems, who will go quietly into the night, with her dignity intact. She is a leader who appears ready to defend her castle until every bit of it, the Labor Party included, is destroyed.

By reputation, Mr. Crean is a veteran politician of demonstrable courage, loyalty and principle and a man who would not lightly go to his leader as he did on Wednesday. At the February 2012 leadership bloodbath, Simon Crean was one of Julia Gillard’s most vocal and loyal soldiers.

When he fronted the media on Thursday morning, there was no eagerness for the contest. Instead it was the grave and deeply troubled look on Simon Crean’s face that told of his desire to make the change with as little blood in the water for the encircling Opposition sharks to frenzy over. In making his statement prior to yesterday’s leadership spill, Crean explained that he felt he needed to take the action in the interest of his party and the nation. Without explicitly saying so, he hearkened back to an earlier age when the ALP stood for something, values an electorate could support.

In his statement, Mr. Crean said, “This is an issue that has to be resolved. There’s too much at stake. This is a very regretful decision for me. I think everyone knows the relationship between the Prime Minister and myself goes back some time. This is not personal, this is about the party, its future, and the future of the country. I actually believe we can win the next election. I believe that the agenda that is there but not understood well enough, as reflected in many of the comments that come back. We need to settle this and move forward.”.

He continued, “I’m doing this in the interest of the Labor Party and in turn, the nation. I believe that the great things that I was part of in the Hawke-Keating Government: great decisions; bold decisions; decisions that went through due process; difficult decisions; the decisions built around consensus; the decisions built round bringing people together; the decisions around growing the economy, as we have demonstrated in government, we can do; growing it for a purpose; for fairness; for distribution; for the values that I, like so many others, joined the Labor Party for. We can’t win from the position we’re in, in the polls. I don’t believe our future and our chances in the polls, is just going to be determined by a simple change of leader. People have got to believe, we have conviction, that we believe in what we stand for, there’s a coherence of message and we are determined to pursue it. What we have to do is to take people with us. That means being prepared to argue the case. And I know this, I know the people do not want an Abbott led government. I get so many people in frustration to me saying, ‘we are not going to allow that man to lead this country, are we?’.”

  • See the full text of Simon Crean’s statement here.

That Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan were the only candidates at yesterday’s meeting did not indicate the level of support for their leadership. The returning officer made it clear that there was no vote. What the result did indicate, is that, the Prime Minister knew the numbers were not yet there for a bloody and extremely damaging contest.

After the vote, the Prime Minister said, “I accept [the party’s] continuing support of me as Prime Minister and Labor leader with a deep sense of humility,”. This statememt is a prime example of the disconnect between reality and spin in this current crisis. If Ms Gillard had resigned with a deep sense of humility, that might have been believable.

That almost all the government members tasked with ensuring party unity, chief whip Joel Fitzgibbon, and whips Ed Husic and Janelle Saffin, have now publically withdrawn their support of the Prime Minister and resigned, is an indication that this leadership stoush is far from over.

The only winner so far, on the Government side, is Kevin Rudd, who took a big stride towards his rehabilitation by refusing to challenge. He clearly recognizes that a challenge now would amount to a capitulation at the election, a step he’s not prepared to take. In his statement yesterday, he said that he would honour his pledge not to challenge and that he wouldn’t return to the leadership unless the Prime Minister resigned or he was ‘drafted’ by an overwhelming majority of his colleagues. He enhanced his position, rightly or wrongly, as someone who is prepared to put the interests of the Labor Party and the country before his own. He also astutely contrasted this with Julia Gillard’s apparent willingness to cling to power at any cost.

With barely contained glee beneath feigned gravity, Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, asked “How long must this circus last?”

Well that was the question that Simon Crean bravely tried to answer yesterday before he was sacked. And it’s a question that will hang over the Government until Julia Gillard recognizes that she and Wayne Swan are toxic to Labor’s election prospects. Every day she delays the inevitable, drives the number of vulnerable government members that will be lost at the election, just that much higher.

The Prime Minister has been regularly commended as a tough and astute politician. She needs to add good judgment to the list and see she has no future as Prime Minister and resign for the good of the Labor Party and Australia.


Is this the end of the leadership instability or is there yet another chapter to this saga?

:: Please leave a comment ::


Simon Crean’s Statement:

22 Friday Mar 2013

Posted by Zak de Courcy in Australian Politics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

ALP, Australian politics, federal government, Julia Gillard, Labor, leadership, Simon Crean, spill, Tony Abbott

Here is the full text of Simon Crean’s statement given before the Labor leadership spill on 21 March 2013.

Simon Crean-sm Something needs to be done to break this deadlock, to resolve the issue once and for all and to enable us to get on with the job we’re actually elected to do and that is to campaign on behalf of Australian people, through labor values. I have talked to the Prime Minister, yesterday and today, and as a result of that conversation, I informed her that I would think about my position and get back to her before I made this announcement; That I am asking her to call a spill of all leadership positions in the Party.

I will not be standing for the leader. I will be putting myself forward in the leadership team for the deputy leader. If the Prime Minister does not agree to it, which I expect she wont, then I urge members of Caucus to petition in the appropriate way, for the calling of such a meeting. This is an issue that has to be resolved. There’s too much at stake.

This is a very regretful decision for me. I think everyone knows the relationship between the Prime Minister and myself goes back some time. This is not personal, this is about the party, its future, and the future of the country. I actually believe we can win the next election. I believe that the agenda that is there but not understood well enough, as reflected in many of the comments that come back. We need to settle this and move forward.

As for the position of the positions being declared open, Kevin Rudd, in my view, has no alternative but to stand for the leadership. He can’t continue to play the game that says he’s reluctant or he has to be drafted. I know that the party will not draft him. I know the party is looking for change and clear air and they don’t see that simply by changing the leader. That’s why I’m putting myself forward as part of the leadership group to demonstrate that we are serious about not just changing leaders, but of actually showing leadership. That’s what we’re elected to do, that’s what I want to be part of. I think in all my life, my public life, I’ve demonstrated that is the driving force. For me, the position itself, again, is not a personal one that I’m taking. I’m doing this in the interest of the Labor Party and in turn, the nation.

I believe that the great things that I was part of in the Hawke-Keating Government: great decisions; bold decisions; decisions that went through due process; difficult decisions; the decisions built around consensus; the decisions built round bringing people together; the decisions around growing the economy, as we have demonstrated in government, we can do; growing it for a purpose; for fairness; for distribution; for the values that I, like so many others, joined the Labor Party for.

We can’t win from the position we’re in, in the polls. I don’t believe our future and our chances in the polls, is just going to be determined by a simple change of leader. People have got to believe, we have conviction, that we believe in what we stand for, there’s a coherence of message and we are determined to pursue it. What we have to do is to take people with us. That means being prepared to argue the case. And I know this, I know the people do not want an Abbott led government. I get so many people in frustration to me saying, ‘we are not going to allow that man to lead this country, are we?’. Now, I agree with that from an obvious point of view, but the truth is there is a mood out there that does not want him but is fed up with us at the moment. We’ve got to change it.

I hope this circuit breaker does it and I look forward to the Caucus taking a mature decision in the interest of their future and this country’s future.


Was Simon Crean’s action: courageous, foolhardy, naive, or fiendishly calculated?

:: Please leave a comment ::


Time to Go, Julia!

20 Wednesday Mar 2013

Posted by Zak de Courcy in Australian Politics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

ALP, Australian politics, challenge, federal government, Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Labor, Tony Abbott

With the level of backgrounding seemingly exploding in Canberra at the moment, you’d think that the move must be on to replace Julia Gillard. The trouble is, the Prime Minister must also surely know, that a leadership challenge now would be absolutely fatal for Labor’s electoral chances and to force her colleagues into that position would be unforgivable.

The unbridled venom unleashed against Kevin Rudd during the February 2012 leadership contest, was so viscous that it ensured another challenge would be impossible. I don’t think the electorate has forgotten that it seemed Prime Minister Gillard and her key supporters, with the exception of Stephen Smith, had lost the plot and decided that a scorched earth was preferable to Rudd’s return. Their reckless action also provided Opposition leader, Tony Abbott with a plethora of footage and quotes to help destroy Labor at the next election.

Incalculable damage has already been inflicted on the Government’s chances of surviving this current crisis. If Prime Minister Gillard continues with her visibly desperate attempts to cling to power, there’ll only be a carcass of a government remaining and Labor’s chances of saving a rump of the party let alone winning the election, will be dead.

If there is to be any hope for her party members, she should do the honourable thing, resign now and quietly present a new leader, someone who has a glimmer of a chance to lead. And, by glimmer, I don’t mean Simon Crean! There’s chat about that he might be tapped for the job. But while he seems decent enough, he was dumped as party leader 10 years ago for a reason.

There must be someone in the government who can believably string words together, look us sincerely in the eye and tell the electorate why an Abbott government would be such a devastating outcome for Australia.

Also check out:
• Trouble brewing, but don’t blame it on the usual bloke by Peter Hartcher.
(Age, 19 March 2013)


Will/should Julia see the tide and resign or will she continue to tune out the clamour with her “tin ear”?

:: Please leave a comment ::


Who Said This about Climate Change?

13 Wednesday Mar 2013

Posted by Zak de Courcy in Australian Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Australian politics, carbon price, climate change, economy, elections, Malcolm Turnbull, NBN, Tony Abbott

Who said this about Climate Change and carbon emissions pollution reduction?

“First, let’s get this straight. You cannot cut emissions without a cost. To replace dirty coal fired power stations with cleaner gas fired ones, or renewables like wind, let alone nuclear power or even coal fired power with carbon capture and storage, is all going to cost money.”

“To get farmers to change the way they manage their land, or plant trees and vegetation all costs money. Somebody has to pay. So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr. Abbott, `bullshit’. Moreover, he knows it.”

“It is not possible to criticise the new Coalition policy on climate change because it does not exist. Mr. Abbott apparently knows what he is against, but not what he is for.”

“…the fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job, do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human caused global warming. As Tony observed on one occasion “climate change is crap” or if you consider his mentor, Senator Minchin, the world is not warming, it’s cooling and the climate change issue is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the world.”

“Now politics is about conviction and a commitment to carry out those convictions. The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is “crap” and you don’t need to do anything about it.”

“Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental fig-leaf to cover a determination to do nothing. After all, as Nick Minchin observed, in his view the majority of the Party Room do not believe in human caused global warming at all.”

“…we have an Opposition Leader who has in the space of a few months held every possible position on the issue, each one contradicting the position he expressed earlier”.

 

 

 

You probably guessed right… It was the Liberal federal Shadow Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull. (Samantha Maiden, The Australian, 7 December 2009)

“Many Liberals are rightly dismayed that on this vital issue of climate change we are not simply without a policy, without any prospect of having a credible policy but we are now without integrity. We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted,” Turnbull said.

And who was also reported in the Australian, on 7 December 2009, as attacking Tony Abbott’s Direct Action Plan to reduce carbon pollution, in a Shadow Cabinet meeting, warning it would cost tax-payers over $50 billion…. Liberal Shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey.

The Liberal Party leadership don’t believe that humans have caused the change in climate that has seen records tumble with super-heatwaves, super-storms, and many more floods and bush-fires. They profess the so-called Direct Action plan, that Turnbull and Hockey derided, to replace the Carbon Price. But does anyone believe that Tony ‘climate change is crap’ Abbott would implement any effective carbon pollution reduction plan… Hardly.

The rest of the world, including even China, are slowly changing their economies to reduce carbon pollution, while taking opportunities to retool industry for a new more competitive, energy efficient world. An Australia, under Abbott, would see us continue as the the world’s highest per capita carbon polluter, with an old-world high energy, low efficiency, and less competitive economy.

Check out Chief Political Correspondent, Lenore Taylor’s Sydney Morning Herald piece on the effectiveness of the Carbon Price:
• Carbon tax contributes to emissions drop (SMH, 18 October 2012)


Is there any chance the Australian Liberal Party will ever come to terms with “Climate Change” or are they destined to remain “climate change deniers” until we’re cooked?

:: Please leave a comment ::


It’s Time! or It’s Over!

11 Monday Mar 2013

Posted by Zak de Courcy in Australian Politics, WA Politics

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Australian politics, Bill Shorten, Julia Gillard, politics, Stephen Smith, Tanya Plibersek, Tony Abbott, WA politics

The weekend election in WA has brought the fate of federal Labor into sharp focus. Although the swing in the primary vote against Mark McGowan’s State ALP team was a little over 2%, with the collapse in the Greens vote, the 2-party preferred swing of almost 7%, produced a bitter result for Labor.

Various pollsters have put the Gillard ‘drag’ effect, on the ALP in the West, at between 1.5 and 2 percent. This accounts for almost all the primary loss for McGowan’s WA Labor team. The retirement of the iconic, Bob Brown has undoubtedly caused some of the drop in the Greens vote. But when the third party vote collapses as has recent support for the Greens, it suggests that sharp differences have brought voters back to a choice between ‘Black and White’. The Greens generally provide a reliable stream of preferences to Labor. But, with most of the slumped Greens primary vote leaking to the Coalition, this is bad news for Labor.

Defence Minister, Stephen Smith
Defence Minister, Stephen Smith

Defence Minister, Stephen Smith conceded on the weekend that federal Labor had caused a “drag” on McGowan’s chances. The always colourful, former WA Labor planning minister Alannah MacTiernan went further, saying the party faced an “absolute massacre” in the federal election and called on Prime Minister Julia Gillard to resign. On Monday, she told ABC news that she believed the result for federal Labor could be even worse than that suffered by McGowan in WA, such was the animosity towards the Prime Minister that she heard in the electorate. “It’s pretty simple and it’s pretty brutal,” Ms MacTiernan said. “They’re saying they don’t like Julia Gillard, they don’t believe her”, she added. “The overwhelming reportage from the doorstop, from the shopping centres, was that people were saying, in Labor heartland, they were saying ‘ok we’ll vote for you guys but no way are we voting for federal Labor and Julia Gillard‘. And if we do not take note of this there is going to be an absolute massacre in the federal election.”

While Ms. MacTiernan can often be relied on to shoot from the hip, she voices an opinion that is haboured by many alarmed Labor members and supporters.

The Prime Minister’s caravan tour to Rooty Hill and western Sydney last week, looked like a stunt, walked like a stunt and was a stunt. About all that came from it were traffic stop opportunities which showcased Ms Gillard’s makeover, with her stylish new eye-wear and suits, and a clumsy attempt at worker solidarity with her attack on 457 visas. Whether her points about the exploitation of 457 visas have any validity, is another issue. The fact is, her handling of the issue was terrible. You know the Prime Minister is in dangerous territory when the Xenophobic Pauline Hanson supports her. And the optics of Gillard’s own British media adviser, John McTernan, working here with a 457 visa, standing in back while she stumped for the employment of ‘Australian workers before foreigners’, smacked of hypocricy.

Respected as Ms. Gillard might be within Caucus, there’s no escaping the reality that she’s not believed as authentic in the electorate. Neither is she perceived as a strong leader with a personality that engages. Her lack in these areas, is not compensated by gravitas, authority or perceived strength. In short, the recent sartorial style change is not enough to begin to change the public narrative that has been set in concrete for the last two years.

Tanya Plibersek-sm
Health Minister, Tanya Plibersek

It might only be my opinion, but I think last year’s boost for Gillard as preferred prime minister, was more an ‘antidote to Tony Abbott‘ response, than any warming to Julia Gillard. In contrast, Health Minister, Tanya Plibersek, always a star on Q&A (ABC), looks and sounds like the genuine article with a warm personality, a sense of humour and a relaxed, authoritative, competent and compassionate style.

I would not normally counsel a panicked reaction to an election loss or the recent diabolical poll numbers, but in this case, the window of opportunity to change the leader and staunch the bloodbath that will ensue in September, is closing. The next two sitting weeks are the last, the members of the federal Labor caucus will be together, before leaving Canberra until the Budget in May. By that time, the noise of the Budget and its aftermath, will make it difficult for a new prime minister to find any air. As well, the short lead in to September makes it strategically unthinkable to wait that long.

I think the current poll-driven, reactive politics that eschews thoughtful policy and rejects an ideologically infused theory of government, is eroding public support for democracy as well as party membership. I also think the poll-driven dumping of Kevin Rudd in 2010 and Ted Baillieu last week were a symptom of a political system suffering from ‘Anxiety and High Blood Pressure’. And while my call for Julia Gillard to resign might seem to fall into this trend, it is however, rooted in a very long-held belief that she cannot lead the federal ALP to victory. The figures don’t yet show it, but I’m fearful that the looming, but wholly avoidable, disaster for Labor will rival the sad tsunami that hit my hero Gough Whitlam in 1975.

The change must be made by Julia. She can either lead Labor to a humiliating and catastrophic defeat or she can do the right and gracious thing and resign and give her party a chance to recover before September. Caucus members in vulnerable seats, which now even include Defence Minister Stephen Smith (Perth), need to urge the PM to act before it’s too late. This next two weeks is the last real opportunity that exists to make the change and give Labor Caucus members any hope.

If Kevin Rudd hadn’t challenged last year, the obvious choice for transition would be clear as he’s still the most popular politician in Australia. However, It is the most high-risk, high-return option. His 2012 leadership tilt, was an extremely bloody event that provided the Opposition campaign boffins with a Chocolate Box Selection of damaging quotes and footage with which to attack him if he were prime minister.

That leaves the affable Bill Shorten or the telegenic and honest but introverted, Stephen Smith. Defence Minister, Smith might lack a little in charisma but he is eminently authentic and has a reflective, thoughtful style which might be welcomed by an electorate tired of the hyped drama surrounding the humourless, Gillard and the one-dimensional ‘Red Speedo Brawler’, Tony Abbott.

Employment and Workplace Relations Minister, Bill Shorten
Workplace Relations Minister, Bill Shorten

Employment and Workplace Relations Minister, Bill Shorten, another star of Q&A, has an easy ‘Let’s sit down and have a chat’ style that draws you in. His disarmingly quick wit and self-deprecation don’t do him any harm either. He also projects an honest, straight taking manner that contrasts with the Prime Minister. These are all traits the brittle Julia Gillard could use in spades.

Last week’s bloodless coup that saw Ted Baillieu resign as Victorian Premier, adds yet another leadership change story, that should make a federal Labor transition seem a lot more routine than it would have, even just a week ago. As well, it further robs Abbott of the argument that leadership coups are a Labor phenomenon.

Trying to tough it out is not an option; the negative narrative that is attached to Julia Gillard is too strong, sustained and concrete for that. And, make no mistake, Tony Abbott is loathed by as many people as Julia, women in particular. I know many conservative women who openly talk of spoiling their ballot rather than vote for that ‘awful man’. That Labor is as high as 32% on the primary vote, is as much a reflection of the passion of the dislike for Tony Abbott. A ‘Someone-who-isn’t-Tony’ could lead the Opposition and drive the Gillard government even lower in the polls.

Only a circuit breaker that forces the media, the public and the Opposition to find a new field of battle, will give federal Labor any hope of fighting back and maybe even saving itself and Australia from Tony Abbott.

The federal Labor Caucus needs to act now!


Will Julia see the writing on the wall and resign now or will she desperately hang on, and the day after the election, lamely try to explain why the Labor Party lost 30 seats?

:: Please leave a comment ::


Shiny Objects, Beat Tube Map:

10 Sunday Mar 2013

Posted by Zak de Courcy in Australian Politics, WA Politics

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Burswood Stadium, Colin Barnett, Elizabeth Quay, Mark McGowan, politics, WA politics

Well it seems Colin Barnett has won the ‘Boom State’ election which pitted his grandiose vision of shiny objects against Mark McGowan’s (well really Ken Travers’) Tube Map. Largely missing from the campaign menu, were the usual Cost of Living issues and the focus on service delivery like Health, Law and Order, Power, Housing and Education.

Labor Leader Mark McGowan, leapt out of the blocks early with his pre-emptive ‘Metronet’ campaign launch in January, stealing the spotlight and seemingly irritating Premier Barnett who became ‘Grumpy Colin’ for about a week. This clear air allowed Labor to establish Metronet as the iconic policy for the first part of the campaign. This left Barnett’s team scrambling in a desperate ‘me too’ catch-up phase with its own hurried Airport Rail Line pledge. The downside for McGowan in pitching early with Metronet, was that his campaign peaked early and got distracted by costing arguments.

Without a major second phase focus for Labor to pivot to, their campaign only simmered towards the end.

McGowan’s attempt to turn what should have been a secondary issue into a major winner, the ‘A Vote for Barnett is a Vote for Buswell’ suggestion, came in too late to have any impact. The seeds for that proposition should have been germinating in elector’s minds, long before the start of the campaign. Instead, it came off as a bit desperate in the eyes of many. The question raised, though, is a valid one and if better handled, this issue could have worked for Labor. Instead it was overshadowed by the seemingly hysterical optics of the protagonists.

If Colin Barnett were to complete this term as leader, he would be at least 67 before he could contemplate a succession transition. While that’s not exactly doddering by today’s standard, it would nevertheless make him the 3rd oldest of the state’s past 29 premiers. As well, previous leaders were a sprightly 54 years old, on average, when they left office. With a front-bench pretty slim on talent, other than the ever-present Troy ‘Chair Sniffer’ Buswell, is it any wonder that the harbinger of a Buswell succession looms in 2014. At least the cartoonists will be ecstatic.

Of course, the ALP were at a huge disadvantage coming into the campaign because the electorate had been primed with the Barnett Government’s $2million ‘Bigger Picture’ advertising blitz. This tax-payer funded promotion, featured the shiny vote-sweetening projects, his spending frenzy was bringing to Perth, as well as the much needed hospital projects begun under the previous Carpenter Labor Government. During his election coverage on the ABC, even host Kerry O’Brien seemed incredulous that our State Government was spending $1bn on the Burswood Stadium.

The large state-wide swing against Labor resulted in the loss of at least 6 seats, with 2 more still in doubt. The most surprising result might be the huge 7.9% swing (after distribution of preferences) against former minister, Michelle Roberts who is in a struggle to retain Midland. Of the many Labor members who lost their seat, perhaps the most poignant was John Hyde, the popular member for Perth. Hyde, first elected in 2001, seems to have drowned in the sea of money splashed by the government on expensive inner city projects like Elizabeth Quay and the Burswood Stadium.

With the swing fluctuating wildly, some southern ALP members bucked the trend with small gains. Opposition Leader, Mark McGowan and Deputy Leader, Roger Cook performed strongly with small swings to them. And Labor veteran Peter Watson (Albany) has again proved his fighting value, defending a miserly 83 vote margin from the 2008 election. He might yet pull off the most unlikely win in this otherwise horror election for Labor.

For the geeks:
Check out this bit of ‘Town of Vincent News’ nostalgia, featuring: John Hyde; Deputy Premier, Kim Hames; and former Labor minister, Bob Kucera, who unsuccessfully attempted to resurrect his career in the seat of Mt Lawley.
• Town of Vincent News, March 2001 [pdf]


Will Barnett keep his promises this time or will they get dumped like the “Rail line to Ellenbrook” promise from the last election?

:: Please leave a comment ::


← Older posts
Newer posts →

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • March 2022
  • May 2019
  • January 2019
  • January 2017
  • June 2016
  • March 2016
  • September 2015
  • January 2015
  • October 2014
  • August 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013

Categories

  • Australian Politics
    • Aus Pol. Posts Index
  • Film
    • Film Posts Index (All)
    • Reviews Index (Alpha)
  • Gotta Life
    • Gotta Life Posts Index
  • International Politics
    • Int Pol. Posts Index
  • Religion
    • Religion Posts Index
  • Science
    • Science Posts Index
  • Uncategorized
  • WA Politics
    • WA Pol. Posts Index

Meta

  • Create account
  • Log in

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Zak From Downunder
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Zak From Downunder
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...