David Rowe, irrepressible cartoonist for the AFR, saw the election this way:
So out with the old and in with the new:
There is a lot of diversity and talent in those 23 bright shining faces. When new PM Anthony Albanese addressed the new caucus, the mood was a bit like a revivalist meeting, but outlining a large agenda of work to do.
One thing I noticed – for months and months the general media, the ABC, expert commentary and just about everyone has been telling us about Labor’s small target, lack of vision and lack of policy differentiation from the Coalition. If you listen to ABC RN’s PM reporting on the above speech, about 3:15 into the segment David Lipson refers to Labor’s “raft of big election promises”.
Strange he saw things completely differently before the election.
So here is the ministry from the AFR:
The official media release is here.
I understand the Cabinet is listed in order of seniority.
The ministry is picked by the factions, but has to be spread across the states, and aspires to gender equality, with the portfolios allocated by the leader, except the deputy pretty much has choice of portfolio. I believe 14 of the 23 in Cabinet have had ministerial experience in the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years.
On gender, a record 10 of 23 in Cabinet are women, in the Outer Ministry it’s three from seven, plus six from 12 assistant ministers. That makes 19 from 42, or 45%.
So all up a little over 40% of the 103 Labor parliamentarians are in the ministry.
Here are three commentaries by women:
- Louise Chappell, Scientia Professor, UNSW Sydney and Claire Annesley, Dean, UNSW Sydney – Australia has more women in cabinet than ever before: what difference will diversity make?
- Michelle Grattan – View from The Hill: Record 10 women in Albanese cabinet, and surprise move for Plibersek to environment
- Katharine Murphy – Anthony Albanese’s ministry contains more surprises than expected following a factional kerfuffle
Some highlights:
Looking at the list, the first seven are regulation in terms of seniority, given that Marles as deputy has chosen Defence. Plibersek as third of the rest is arguably about right, I think. The Coalition treated the environment badly. Scrapping recovery plans for 176 threatened species and habitats on the way out was par for the course. On water, it is probably better for someone not involved to look at the Murray Darling, which has, it must be said, received a major boost in funding, presumably at the behest of the former government.
McAllister was born and raised in Murwillumbah, attended the University of Queensland from 1992–1995, majoring in Politics and Government, and the University of Sydney, from which she graduated in 1996 with a Bachelor of Arts with First Class Honours, majoring in Political Economy, Politics and Government.
In 2003 she she co-founded the Labor Environment Activist Network with Kristina Keneally.
- Between 2006 and 2010, she served as the Director of Climate Change, Air and Noise Policy within the New South Wales Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water. She subsequently joined AECOM Australia Pty Ltd as Strategic Advisor Water and Climate (2010–2013), progressing to Technical Director – Infrastructure Advisory (2013–2014) and was Managing Director, Water and Urban Development (2014–2015) and a member of AECOM’s ANZ executive when she resigned to join the Senate.
As senator she replaced John Faulkner. Along the way she served as National President of the ALP from 2011 to 2015.
Apart from that Pat Conroy, who continues to carry the International Development and the Pacific outer ministry always sounds sensible and informed on climate, plus Penny Wong and Mark Butler who have done work on climate in the past.
Without going into great detail about how climate policy will develop with the Teal members and the Greens, climate will be central to politics from now on, along with pressing matters like housing and cost of living.
Labor plans, headlined as Powering Australia include:
Re-establish leadership by restoring the role of the Climate Change Authority, while keeping decision-making and accountability with Government and introducing new annual Parliamentary reporting by the Minister.
Countries are expected to ramp up their ambition in providing targets for 2035 to take to COP27 in Egypt at the end of this year. That should provide an opportunity to pivot in order to satisfy the ambition of the Teals if not the Greens.
Watt does not have a rural background, but few Labor members do. Apparently he has relatives in provincial Queensland, and has been most assiduous in visiting all parts of Queensland as a senator.
According to Wikipedia, Aly was born Azza Mahmoud Fawzi Hosseini Ali el Serougi in Egypt, has lived in three australian states, lived and studied in Egypt:
- Aly was a professor, lecturer and academic specialising in counter-terrorism, and she is considered a global authority on understanding how and why young people are drawn into violent extremism. Aly founded People Against Violent Extremism (PaVE) to address extremism in Australia.
Prior to the election, I think it was Bernard Keane who said that Chalmers had had more experience putting budgets together than any other Federal parliamentarian, including Josh Frydenberg, having worked for Wayne Swan. Leigh was a principal advisor in Treasury when the GFC hit. Gallagher has an impressive record in ACT politics, having been chief minister.
Now they have been joined by Dr Andrew Charlton, Rhodes Scholar and Oxford PhD, who co-authored a book with Jo Stiglitz, and was chief economics advisor to Kevin Rudd during the GFC.
The task before them is genuinely daunting, with Peter Martin suggesting Australia’s biggest economic threat isn’t home-grown. It’s a recession, originating in the United States, Alan Kohler saying Jim Chalmers needs an inquiry into tax and David Leitch says Australia’s electricity markets are on crack: It’s time to do something.
Chalmers has shown interest in measuring progress by well-being rather than GDP, has thought about ‘univeral basic income’ and has indicated he is up for a conversation as to how we should collectively pay for the conditions and services necessary for a dignified life.
Economist Steve Hamilton tells us Why Labor should leave bold reform for term two
Albanese doesn’t have the political capital to burn that Howard did in 1998. A good, solid first-term agenda for Labor would be to deliver on its commitments, fix the budget and sort out climate change.
A shame it is pay-walled. He says:
-
The risk for Labor on taking government is never doing too little, but rather doing too much.
And the cautious and pragmatic leadership Albo showed both as leader of the house and as opposition leader may, in an unexpected way, be exactly the approach the country needs coming out of a once-in-a-century pandemic buffeted by global economic and geostrategic headwinds. A steady hand on the tiller.
With that in mind, the new government’s focus should first and foremost be on restoring good government – to rebuild state capacity, to deliver on political integrity, to keep faith with the Australian people by delivering on the agenda it promised them.
Economist John Quiggin asks Will a Labor majority stunt climate action? If the government wants a second term, more climate ambition is essential.
Quiggin fails to see the opportunity presented by the Climate Change Authority, which is strange given that he was a member of the initial panel.
For me the most apposite was Richard Dennis in The Monthly piece A defeat for the true deceivers
- Labor may only have a slim majority of members of parliament, but it has a policy agenda that is supported by an overwhelming majority of that parliament. Albanese is right to insist he will focus on the changes he has already promised, and the Greens and independents are right to insist that they are in parliament to push for even more. The whole point of parliament is to thrash out such conflicts in public. If done well, it’s likely that voters will get a lot more good policies than they are used to, while the Liberals – or what remains of them – fight over the fruits of failure.
By focusing on issues with overwhelming public and parliamentary support, a Labor government has the opportunity not just to deliver big reforms but also to reset the public’s faith in the role of government as a force for good. It may even restore faith in democracy itself.
Finally:
- The next three years will not be easy, and they will not be without scandal or conflict or partisan politics. But whatever the problems that come Labor and Australia’s way, they will be addressed by a parliament with a super-majority of support for solving some of the biggest problems we face. If Anthony Albanese focuses on solving big issues, he has the opportunity to permanently change the identity not just of swinging voters, but of Australia.
In sum, return civility to government, get parliament working again as a collaborative, deliberative body to face issues at hand to build a sustainable future, rather than a political contest for power.
Please use this thread for sundry comments on politics and climate.
So Julie Collins is the Queenslander we must target on affordable accommodation.
bilb, she is not a banana bender, rather the bit that gets left off the map at times!
Here’s her official site, but Wikipedia is more interesting.
She has worked mainly within politics and government, and has worked for a lot of politicians. Of interest, though, she started life in public housing, and has served for Rudd and Gillard as a minister, indeed on one occasion in Cabinet. She has already been Minister for Housing and Homelessness in the second Gillard ministry.
Likely knows her way around.
Its a bit hard from Wikipedia to tell what Jullie Collins Job title is.
She is listed as minister for Housing and Homelessness, then at the bottom the position is abolished. Maybe the page needs updating.
I’ve started improving my “Ozarini” house model to fully populate the garden spaces to better convey the potential of this housing concept. I have to “buy” some plants, 3D model plants, and a household of cyber furniture.
Bilb, from the media release, Collins is Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness, Minister for Small Business.
I guess she might run those together on her letterhead.
She’s in Cabinet, next after Jason Clare, so would rate as ‘senior’.
Three items worth following up.
First, Paul Erickson in Labor campaign chief’s eight reasons Coalition lost election – from attacking states to ignoring women.
This was reporting on his National Press Club speech today (Wednesday). Can’t find the video, but should be on Iview. In answer to a question he gave a succinct character reference of Adam Bandt as a politician.
Second, Peter Lewis says Albanese has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore civility to Australian politics. According to Essential Poll he’s made a decent start.
Much will depend, however, on how others in parliament respond. I can easily see him having civilised interaction with the independents. For the way the Liberals Nats and Greens have started, the political carping will be to the fore.
This is a point Fred Chaney makes when Phillip Adams interviewed him along with Judith Brett and Troy Bramston in What happened to the Liberal Party of Menzies?
Chaney says parliament has become too much about politics rather than governance. He puts a lot of blame on John Howard.
It’s well worth a listen – the best of the three.
Last night I got diverted by two big items:
Climate Analytics report – Fossil gas: a bridge to nowhere
OECD countries need to phase out the use of coal by 2030 and gas by 2035 if we are to meet the Paris goals. Gas needs to be gone everywhere by 2045.
Secondly, compelling watching – ABC Q&A
The panellists were Chris Bowen, Minister for Energy and Climate Change; Zoe Daniel, Independent member for Goldstein; Saul Griffith, Inventor, author, and scientist; Sarah McNamara, Chief Executive of the Australian Energy Council; and Tony Wood, Energy and Climate Change Program Director, Grattan Institute.
Watching this will almost certainly shift how you see the path forward. It was also notable in that the program was ‘truth seeking’ rather the aiming for ‘political balance.
So missing were the Greens and the Coalition. As it happened while all this was going on Adam Bandt had been telling us via a presser that we had to nationalise the whole energy system, which had been set up to maximise corporate profits.
Earlier he had been saying we should just stop propping up old coal-fired power and simply install more renewables.
So he is in favour of blackouts for the next couple of years while we do all that. Saul Griffith, the engineer, said you could do stuff quickly, but it takes probably 10 years to fix the system.
Dutton had been telling all that the present crisis had nothing to do with what the Libs had done or more particularly not done for nine years. The whole discussion would have been degraded with the inclusion of either or both.
Both are dealing themselves out of sensible discussion which recognise that we are where we are and have to start from there. We also have to do things that are doable.
The real killer here, is that 1.5C is a dud aim, because it means really bad weather, no coral reefs outside a few refugia and the sea will keep rising. All that together with the notion that most scientists talked to by New Scientist in a recent article I haven’t linked to yet said that limiting temperatures to 1.5c was not in fact doable.
Anyway, have a read and a listen, be very afraid, and then think what we do now as well as longer term.
I think it means that if we don’t treat climate like a world war emergency soon the planet is going to be seriously depopulated during the next century or two.
Brian: “Adam Bandt had been telling us via a presser that we had to nationalise the whole energy system, which had been set up to maximise corporate profits.”
Adam is old enough to remember when Kennet? privatized the Vic power system on the grounds that this would reduce power costs. Funny thing prices went up despite what right wing beliefs say.
Part of the current crisis is caused by the crazy spot price marketing system that is supposed to keep our power systems running properly. Our new government had to step in to stop power companies gaming the system.
Me I like the ACT system that has used contracts for the supply of clean electricity to get very high levels of renewable power.
John, personally I think the electricity production/distribution system is a natural monopoly which works best when it stays that way, and reason is applied to the processes.
The introduction of privatisation and competition moving to a national system had it’s genesis in COAG back in 1996. It was one of the Keating era’s last and worst gifts.
It took until 2009 to set the thing up under the aegis of the COAG Energy Council, which was destroyed when Morrison introduced National Cabinet instead.
So ESB, AEMO, AEC and AER used to answer to the COAG Energy Council, and are now motherless, but I think exist under NEM Law, which is drafted in SA and then replicated in the jurisdictions of the other participating political entities – I mean the states involved (plus ACT), not sure whether the Feds role is legally defined, but someone should sort all this out.
Presently Chris Bowen has called it an Energy Ministers Meeting, and has included NZ for some reason, and the CEO’s of the NEM tribe (AEMO et al) were in the room.
The problem now is that a lot of stuff is owned by corporates, including internationals, so you have to start from where you are.
I’ll explain some other time that no-one was gaming the system. They were trying to stay alive commercially and limit how much money they were losing, although it was basically a cash flow problem. It’s a problem when when it costs over $700 per MWh and you get $300 then the rest after you make application and wait up to 6 months under a system you’ve never used before.
Under command they got $400 straight up, and I gather the recompensation route was smoother and more assured.
The ACT system I suspect works because it is small. There is no storage in the NEM system.
Sorry, Giles Parkinson can’t see properly beyond the Tweed when he looks north.
John, you may have seen this from The Conversation – 5 policy decisions from recent history that led to today’s energy crisis.
You may recall there was a wide-ranging move to privatisation involving Commonwealth bank, TAA, Qantas, Telstra etc. Kennett was indeed an enthusiastic proponent, but not on his own.
The article links to this interesting Australia Institute study – Electricity and privatisation: What happened to those promises?
Scroll down a bit to reveal an astonishing graph. Electricity prices rose by 50% in the decade from 1999, then really took off!
There has been a kerfuffle about HESTA super fund members (930,000 members, $68 billion assets) mainly health workers, divesting because the fund still invests in fossil fuel companies.
Market Forces has run the campaign. 130 investors are pulling the plug by switching to another fund. See Hesta members pledge to ditch super fund over fossil fuel investments and in the AFR Option to divest is not always best, HESTA tells activists.
HESTA claim that selling is easy, they would rather use their shareholding power to change company behaviour, and claim they have been leading the way. Both views were put on this ABC audio segment (4m 8 sec).
I can see it both ways, but the main concern is about Santos and Woodside. Both claim virtue in that there Scope 1 and 2 emissions are said to be offset.
However, it looks like both are going full bore to make as much out of gas as they can. Looks like greenwashing to me ending with climate grief and stranded assets.
Bloomberg Green has noted a company claiming credit for Scope 4 emissions reduction.
That’s new, and, no it isn’t official. The company is claiming credit for encouraging customers to save emissions, no doubt while creating emissions using their products and services.
Sounds a con. More greenwashing?!
I’ve just checked the investment metrics for Woodside and Santos. In both cases the current share price is about where it was in 2005. In both cases earnings and dividends have been roughly flat for the last 10 years.
So as investments, both are duds. HESTA would do better by putting members’ money elsewhere.
Philip Sutton, inspiring Australian activist who sounded climate emergency alarm has died suddenly at the age of 71.
Sutton with David Spratt wrote a piece The Big Melt in late 2007, when the Arctic ice cover took a deep dive in September that year. Before James Hansen in December 2007 proclaimed 350ppm of CO2 as what we should aim for, Spratt and Sutton suggested 320ppm.
The Big Melt became Part 1 of the book Climate Code Red: the Case for Emergency Action which prompted the site Climate Code Red, where David Spratt, Ian Dunlop and others have been warning us ever since.
They were suggesting a world war scale effort back then, which was characterised as urgent and feasible, not just to ‘avoid the worst’ of climate effects, but to achieve a safe climate.
Philip Sutton did his best. We would best honour him by taking his work seriously.
This is a summary of an article from the Australian by Roy Morgan:
The Australian – Page 5 : 24 June 2022
Original article by Greg Brown
Roy Morgan Summary
Research shows that just 26.2 per cent of people with a university degree voted for the Coalition at the 2022 federal election. In contrast, 36.5 per cent of university graduates voted for Labor and 24.6 per cent voted for the Greens.
The Australian National University survey has also found that 27.6 per cent of people who did not complete high school voted for Labor, while 47.1 per cent of this cohort voted for the Coalition.
Meanwhile, former prime minister Scott Morrison scored an average voter rating of just 3.6 out of 10, while former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce had a rating of three out of 10.
This means that 12.7% of degreed people voted Other, as did 25.3% of people without degrees.
Aversion to Morrison and Joyce seems a significant factor.
Interesting figures:
For the degreed, Labor ahead of the coalition and the Greens almost ahead of the coalition.
For the not completed high school the coalition well ahead of both the Greens and Labor. Looks like the poorly educated might have been attracted to the coalitions racism and other vilification.
I suspect that educated, affluent people may find the Greens even more attractive and/or struggle to bring themselves to vote Labor. (That is my Ryan take. The unpleasant lib candidate would not have helped the coalition in Ryan.
John, I agree with “…and/or struggle to bring themselves to vote Labor.”
The suburbs here are gentrifying with upper middle class people. I see them everywhere, every day. They are not natural Labor voters.
The unions are a big negative for many.
In Ryan the ALP vote actually fell, although it increased in Qld overall.
There are many reasons, but demographics play a part. The dispossessed in the regions in Qld tend to protest by voting Katter and One Nation, which also penetrates the city.
Labor is becoming more educated middle class.
Also, the Greens put a big effort in Ryan. At the one polling place I counted, they outnumbered us 4 to 1.
Now Albo has hit the minor parties and indies where it hurts:
‘Slap in the face’: independents furious at PM’s decision to cut advisory staff from four to one
Must admit, that surprises me.
Brian: In addition of the cuts to independents, “The Greens also claimed they have been given an effective staff cut, allocated the same number of staff as the last parliament despite their representatives growing from 10 to 16.”
The amount of money saved is negligible. What was Albo trying to achieve given that he has just given a kick in the guts to the people he needs to get stuff through the senate and combined support for the major parties is in decline? How does the support he is giving the LNP compare with the support Labor got when the LNP was in power?
Brian: I have spent hours on polling booths being ignored by by obviously upper class LNP voters rushing to smile in their swarmy way at the LNP poll workers.
(I have had interesting, friendly conversations with LNP candidates but found the man who just lost what used to be the LNP’s safest seat obnoxious and sneaky.)
Brian: “Also, the Greens put a big effort in Ryan. At the one polling place I counted, they outnumbered us 4 to 1.”
When I started with the Greens I generally worked at the chapel at chapel hill booth. I was almost always on my own just like Labor who had an old Labor bloke who was there every year. We used to hand out each others how to votes when one of needed a break. Then people like me got better at encouraging people to help on polling booths and other tasks. Sounds like the Greens have really lifted their effort. Micheal Berkman’s win in Maiwa really inspired people. (He put an enormous effort in door knocking for over a year before the election.
John, I have no idea what Albo was trying to achieve.
How does the support he is giving the LNP compare with the support Labor got when the LNP was in power?
I heard someone say on NewsRadio that under Morrison the independents had more staff than shadow ministers.
I believe they still have four staff in their electorate office, plus one in Canberra.
My speculation is that Albo believes one is enough to represent their electorate, and he doesn’t want them to become mini-parties. They should all join up and form a new liberal party.
In my best of all achievable worlds (we’ve been down this road multiple times) I’d have multi-party electorates, like Canberra and Tasmania, or failing that NZ or Germany. I don’t think independents exist in those systems.
Bottom line is that he’s made them all cranky, and if he wanted civilised discourse, he’s less likely to get it.
Brian: Comment on insiders today that was there are usually all sorts of deals made for staffing of members. Perhaps a bit of standardization would help?
John, thanks, I didn’t see Insiders. We had a party branch meeting, with vigorous discussion on climate change!
I heard somewhere along the way that Morrison gave them what he’d promised them, not expecting to win the election. An investigative journalist could give a better picture, but they are scarce these days.
John, I saw Insiders tonight on iview, plus there was stuff on the 7.30 Report.
I respect Rex Patrick’s view that an independent in the HoR needs two advisers and a senator needs three. However, Albo is right in stressing the services of the Parliamentary Library, which he intends to enhance. The previous mob probably cut it back.
The biggest user of its services is said to be Bob Katter.
If you take Katter on in a debate, and think he is uninformed and/or stupid, you’ll be in for a rude shock. He’s one of the best informed around. It’s just that his policy proposals are a bit weird.
Back around 40 years ago I paid them a visit. I remember well walking across a large expanse of lawn, only to find remotely controlled sprinklers come on under me! From memory, late winter/early spring, and not what you needed right then!
They had two kinds of unusual services. The first was to do summaries of news articles every day, probably 100 to 150 words per article, and have these on the desks of politicians by around midday.
Secondly, they had a range of subject specialists available to do research on relevant topics. Their reports were quite impressive. Probably still do.
The feeling seems to be that Albo will relent a bit when he gets back to Australia.
However, Adam Bandt seems to be spoiling for the fight, so my money is that climate targets will not be legislated. The LNP may break ranks, but it’s hard to see a dozen of them doing so.
John Menadue lambasts the Greens in Will the Greens be smarter this time. The Greens should think about the results of opposing what Labor plans to do. It would help to change the whole game, and have positive effects internationally if the targets became law.
On the other hand Labor should consider Nigel Howard’s Are Labor just coalition lite on climate?
The proposition that Labor is “Coalition Lite on the climate emergency – promising much but acting minimally” is offensive and wrong. The LNP policy is a fairy story. He has gone lite on what Labor proposes to do, but even what he mentions will be difficult to achieve in the next three years.
Also Labor has never said it will limit its efforts to what it took to the election. Otherwise why revamp the Climate Change Authority?
Certainly what he says is wrong, if true, and it probably is, should be condemned. But get behind and build on the good would be more constructive.
In the past the Greens tended to be OK with the what but not so good about the how. Worse still they seemed obsessed with their version perfect and blocked anything that didn’t meet this standard.
Past obsession with putting a price on carbon didn’t impress me particularly given that the ACT Labor/Greens government showed how effective contracting to supply can be.
The way you and Albo believe that the Greens role is to support Labor doesn’t help.
John, everyone I’ve met in Labor supports a carbon tax too.
Personally I think the situation is too urgent to let the markets look after it. Direct action is required.
John, I don’t expect the Greens and Bandt in particular to just support Labor. The first big action in both policies is to reconstruct the transmission network, and is practically identical. Bowen and the states have now asked the public service for a transition plan, and AEMO is landing their next ISP (Integrated System Plan) I think this week.
So things are proceeding. If the electricity emergency had happened with Angus Taylor in the chair we would be down the crapper by now, because he appears to be incapable of cooperative action.
So we are streets ahead of where we would have been under the LNP.
What peed me off iwas Bandt’s attitude during the election saying that Labor was just as bad as the LNP, which he did repeatedly and which is simply not true.
I would hope that the Greens will push Labor to do more, but in practical ways, based on what they actually plan to do, suggesting enhancements, alternatives or extras. Bowen has said he is always interested and open to new ideas, irrespective of where they come from.
It’s disappointing to me that Bandt does not understand climate science. At the meeting I attended he actually said so. He also said in his speech that the Great Barrier Reef would be OK as long as we stayed lower the 2C. This is so wrong it staggered me.
He also said the the Pacific Islands would be OK wrt sea level rise if the temp increase was held to 1.5C.
They are not OK now.
Albo and his front bench are in general showing that considered statement on issues rather than knee-jerk responses, and back door diplomacy rather than pulpit diplomacy tend to be more successful.
In this interview with Sir David King King says towards the end that what we do in the next 4 years or so will determine what happens to the human race for the next 2000 years. We need drawdown, which King suggests needs to be done at 30 to 40 GT pa to reach 350ppm by 2000. King himself is working on geo-engineering ideas, and has one where they suggest 700 specially designed vessels produce cloud of the Arctic ice for the whole summer to inhibit melting.
In the Greens policy before the election I noticed that they retained the aim of reducing CO2 to 350ppm, more or less as an afterthought. Can’t find it now. The policy was a coherent document, but seems to have been rewritten and presented in segments for election purposes.
The climate situation is desperate. However, instead of explaining how things really are the Greens prioritise taking political potshots at Labor.
At our last branch meeting we actually talked about how to have contructive dialogue with the greens. We have at least two members who were Greens for years – one ran as a candidate.
Having good faith dialogue with them is not easy.
Labor, going on the way Albo talks, he see Climate action as an economic opportunity rather than as an existential threat.
When Bowen put the policy together from the beginning of last year, net zero by 2050 was the only game in town. The latest IPCC report is a game changer in its urgency, directness, and implications for fossil fuels.
Labor needs to pivot. I just hope they can do it through respectful dialogue with the Greens and Teals, rather than shouty stuff in the media.
I’d like to think we have politicians in the appropriate portfolios to deal with climate change. I think Bowen is the best of the bunch in Labor, and there are indications he understands more than he is happy to talk about because he doesn’t want to start scare campaigns, and media highlighting differences in the camp.
Seems in portfolio allocations Adam Bandt has now taken the responsibility himself. My impression is that he will prosecute the brief, as a good lawyer, but I hope he puts the politics away for a bit. The Greens appear to get their science from the Climate Council, which is appropriate in the circumstances.
I think it is important who Labor puts on a reconstituted Climate Change Authority. Whatever advice they give will be critical.
John, after I finished this, at 12:30 I happened to tune into NewsRadio and heard Chris Bowen at the National Press Club. It’s here on YouTube, or you can watch it on Iview.
I was impressed – better than I would have thought.
He made it clear that they would be legislating what they took to the election, nothing more, nothing less and nothing different.
He said that he recognised that the Greens have a different mandate, so they can persist and not pass the legislation if they wish. He pointed out that this would mean less certainty for business, and hence less would be achieved.
On the matter of no new gas or coal, he said any new proposal had to pass environmental law. Labor is intending to update environmental legislation, plus set up an independent EPA, so I’m hoping the legislation will be strong enough to take into account inter-generational equity and the future of the planet.
So we’ll see how it falls out.
Bowen started with a reference to the Torres Strait Islands, where he is going, like now, with his assistant minister Jenny McAllister, who has special responsibility for adaptation, and two other politicians. He wants to hear and see what the sea is doing to chew away at their homelands.
On targets, he said he would take note of what the Climate Change Authority says, and take a 2035 target to COP27 this December. Clearly he sees 43% as a minimum, but reminds us that it is only 90 months away now, plus what he’s been left with is worse than expected.
So we’ll see what happens. Personally I agree with Bandt and the Greens on no new coal and gas, and there is an alphabet soup of international organisations telling us the same (IPCC, UNFCCC, IEA, WRI etc etc).
Greens federal election success saw votes from Liberal, as well as Labor, voters. Interesting data and discussion.
BTW: If we had a fairer voting system for the lower that made the number of seats proportional to votes received Labor would not have a majority on its own right and the Greens would have a lot more members.
Thanks for the link, John. There’s more detail and the an analysis is basically telling us what we already knew:
[Dr Sheppard] said the Greens have a natural advantage when trying to target “small-L” Liberal voters in the inner city.
“Something the Liberals and the Greens have in common is that they attract high-income voters, a lot of women, a lot of really well-educated voters who don’t feel comfortable in the Liberal Party,” Dr Sheppard said.
People with principles found it hard to vote for Morrison and his gang, which included Joyce and his mob.
I’m happy if the Greens campaign for a fairer election system. With 12.5% of the vote they should have 18-19 seats.
I’ve been reading AEMO’s new Integrated System Plan
Also:
“Rapid and irreversible:” AEMO says energy crisis is accelerating switch to renewables
RenewEnergy podcast with Baringa’s Alan Rai
Also Katharine Murphy talking to Jim Chalmers.
The Australian Unemployed Workers’ Union (AUWU) are cranky with the Labor government (Crikey – Pay-walled) for implementing the points system for unemployment relief designed by the former government:
Burke has committed to replacing the jobactive program with the Morrison-government designed Workforce Australia scheme, including its requirements for welfare recipients. Under the scheme, job seekers on welfare will be forced to earn “100 points” by completing activities like applying for jobs, training, studying, volunteering or taking part in the Work for the Dole program. If they fail to do so, their welfare payments will be reduced or stopped altogether.
Burke said, however:
“The previous federal government locked in the points system – and signed more than $7 billion worth of contracts with providers — shortly before the election,” he said in a media release. But he’s committed to implementing the new system, while making a number of concessions, including easing requirements and clearing past penalties.
The AUWU said the scheme was “cruel, demeaning and ineffective” and will cause pain and injury.
They wanted to talk to the present government, who knew they were coming on Friday, but locked the effing door. So they glued testimonials to the window facing inwards.
Burke’s media release is here. Perhaps most important:
It is important to note that people who continue to do exactly what they did under the old system – apply for 20 jobs a month – will still meet their points requirements and therefore satisfy their mutual obligation.
20 a month has always seemed to me completely ridiculous, and must be annoying for employers. Once upon a time I think it was about four.
Brian: From time I have posted articles such as “Is harassing the unemployed justified?” The thesis in all these articles is that our complex welfare systems actually discourages people from working and saving money. Part of the reason is the complexity of the rules that apply to various people. The other is government’s obsession with clawing back as much as that can. Sometimes clawback rules can mean that a worker can be out of pocket due to the amount welfare payments are reduced when people earning a piddling amout.
Universal Basic Income (UBI) makes a lot more sense. UBI might replace old age pensions, unemployment benefits, child allowances and possibly part of things like NDISS.
Under UBI everyone gets a payment that depends on age only and does not depend on income, marital status or assets.
Apart from being simple to understand people will have more incentive to get out and take a job.
John, I take your point, but I seriously doubt we’ll ever tax enough to pay a decent universal basic income.
Meanwhile, at Crikey again:
‘It isn’t working’: the government’s Workforce Australia launch derailed by outages and errors
Australians who risk losing welfare payments if they don’t fulfil Workforce Australia’s requirements were unable to access the service at launch.
The rollout of the federal government’s new unemployment services program, Workforce Australia, has been derailed by technical issues, with some of the 750,000 Australians who must use the system or face losing their welfare payments unable to access the service.
…
With their means to pay rent or buy food on the line, welfare recipients who had been transferred into the Workforce Australia program tried to log into the new system — but many were unable to.
Later on Monday Workforce Australia’s new Twitter account acknowledged they were having issues.
“There were some intermittent issues for some clients for a short time earlier today. The site is performing well,” the account tweeted optimistically.
However, on Tuesday:
Even those who were able to log in were confronted by issues. One user noted that the Workforce Australia system includes an individual’s legal name despite having supplied their preferred name, leading to situations where trans people are unnecessarily deadnamed.
Others were shocked at Workforce Australia’s seemingly redundant smartphone application that doesn’t allow people to apply for jobs or fulfil obligations within the app. One user who picked through the app’s code found that it had multiple programming languages used within — the app development equivalent of finding an abandoned restaurant hidden behind a wall in a mall.
Whatever it took to stuff up the services to the public, the conservative governments certainly succeeded.
Brian: “John, I take your point, but I seriously doubt we’ll ever tax enough to pay a decent universal basic income.”
Problem with the current system is that, for many people it is a disincentive to work because clawback is based on money earned and takes no account the cost of working. Last time I looked marginal clawback peaked at about 60% of earnings. We all know how the rich react to 60% marginal tax rates.
We have friends on part pensions have often decided not to start microbusinesses or work because they find the system incomprehensible and is not a good fit for microbusinesses that have variable expenses and income.
How variable are the costs and income from your business? Keep in mind that the dole works on very short timespans.
John, you ask:
How variable are the costs and income from your business?
By and large, not very, but of course it’s payment by the job or by the hour, and if you take a break, go for a trip, you get nothing. If you stay away too long you might be replaced.
The good thing is that the work grows up behind you, more so in the summer when the days are long.
The bad thing is that it isn’t very well paid, but does give insights into how many people live and how they see the world, people you would never meet socially.
And it is better exercise than going to a gym.
There can be unexpected expenses. I’ll give you three.
First there was the time I accidentally fell into a swimming pool. 10 seconds of inundation killed my phone and a step counter I was wearing. Luckily my car keys survived.
What did not survive was a brushcutter with a trimmer attachment.
The accident cost me about $1500 and changed my life. By necessity I moved to a 4G phone, and started down the journey of battery powered garden tools, of which I now have four.
Second, , the head of my Falcon ute blew up.
All the water ran into the oil.
Cost me thousands, I can’t remember how many.
The good news is that the value of the ute is going up, because people like the body type, which isn’t made any more.
Third, last November year when I put my mower in for minor repairs, I did not expect it to be still there in late February, when the place was flooded.
Cost me about $750.
Of course all the above was tax deductible, as is right and proper.
Not sure where this gets us in the discussion, John.
I will say that when I started on this gardening gig in 1991 the economy was in recession. Back then I was competing for work with young blokes who had borrowed their patents gear plus ute and were trying to make a few bucks. They were charging less than they should have, or would have if they had to by their gear.
That hasn’t happened anytime since to any noticeable degree. I keep getting asked to do more work, which I have to knock back.
Sounds like your + Margo’e earnings put you out of the range where you would get unemployment benefits or part pension.
Renew Economy”Integrated wind and solar still cheapest, and green hydrogen costs falling fast: CSIRO”
Worth a read. CSIRO concluded that”
Thanks, John. I heard about it several times on the radio today.
I suggest that any new development proposals for renewables should include firming.
I watch NemWatch quite a bit. Quite often SA is using quite a lot of gas and drawing power from Victoria, especially at night. Victoria burns quite a lot of brown coal, so SA renewables are mostly firmed by gas and coal.
Lately they have often had their diesel generators going too, although they don’t produce much.
Here’s the link to the CSIRO media release, where you can download the report. Giles Parkinson has done a good job summarising and commenting.
Hi guys, I’m still, just horribly distracted by, …….well, you know,…everything.
That CSIRO report looks interesting. I’ll read it later on. One thing Australia could be deploying is Scania’s 13 litre, 410 HP ED95 engine fitted to farm machinery.
My sister is coming to visit in 2 weeks for 3 weeks, and staying on the boat. I’m trying to get everything working properly.
Tanya Plibersek is going to address the National Press Club today.
She has a bit to think about:
An analysis by the Sunrise Project, a climate activist group, found 13 greenfield coalmines and 14 extensions of existing mines had been referred to the federal government for assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.
See also at The Conversation – Times have changed: why the environment minister is being forced to reconsider climate-related impacts of pending fossil fuel approvals:
A non-profit group is imploring the new federal environment minister Tanya Plibersek to consider the climate change impacts of 19 fossil fuel projects currently pending approval, drawing on a rarely used legal provision that will require her to reconsider the findings of her predecessors.
The minister will be forced to either confirm or revoke previous decisions that the fossil fuel projects – which propose to extract new coal or gas – aren’t likely to have a significant impact on Australia’s protected species and places.
The group that issued the 19 requests, the Environment Council of Central Queensland, argues the projects will contribute to climate change. This will, in turn, harm the threatened and migratory species, wetlands, heritage sites, and marine areas protected under Australia’s environmental law, the EPBC Act.
Sorry, I got Plibers a week early. She speaking on 19 July.
No I have not been abducted by aliens.
Meetings, rugby league State of Origin, Wimbledon tennis final and other important stuff!
There has been much public comment on this:
Queensland Audit Office highlights lack of modelling to address rising social housing demand
Here’s the actual Qld Audit report:
Delivering social housing .
I thought I had joined the Labor for Housing group, which is an official association affiliated with Qld Labor. The president is VPO and secretary of our branch. So I’m asking questions.
Meanwhile in Oz:
Australian homes are so cold that some are falling below the WHO’s recommended ‘safe’ temperature
A pity the Saturday Paper is pay-walled. Paul Bongiorno has a piece – What’s behind Tony Abbott’s return to the spotlight?
It seems:
One Labor MP wondered what had happened to make Abbott act like a responsible former prime minister and not adopt his more customary attack-dog stance. NSW Liberals have a few theories of their own. A popular one is Abbott has an eye to contesting the state Liberal Party presidency and is lifting his profile ahead of nominations, which close at the end of the month.
According to reports, Abbott has been sounding out supporters. His conservative factional allies are smarting over the way their hard-won democratic reforms of party preselection were ridden roughshod over by former prime minister Scott Morrison and his consigliere, Alex Hawke. If he is to take on the moderate faction’s Philip Ruddock, who is the incumbent, Abbott will need to work very hard. One well-placed party source says his chances would be “zero”. Nevertheless, an old warhorse like Abbott has never resiled from a battle.
Perottet, who has an election coming on, needs this like a hole in the head. The last thing he needs is an accomplished climate wrecker on the rampage when ‘teal’ candidates are eyeing off safe seats.
Bongiorno also reckons Peter Dutton thinks Albanese’s Labor government will stuff up and implode, allowing Dutton to pick up the pieces.
Two interesting articles on China relations:
Geoff Raby – The China threat industry and journalists who had never been to China, became sudden overnight experts
Jocelyn Chey – When words matter: Reviewing the Wong-Wang meeting
I think you could tell by the body language they were in a good place.
Pilbers performed well at the press club. Good to have a strong, competent, experienced minister on the environmental job.
Do you think she will be able to block new fossil fuel production?
Renew Economy is not impressed with what Labor is doing re climate change. See: Labor won’t act urgently on climate unless it’s forced to.
John, yes, she is impressive, and will make a difference.
I looked at the seniority of state environment ministers recently. Most of them are near the bottom of the pile, eg 18th out of 19 for Qld. I think NSW it was 22 out of 25, or something like that.
Do I think she will be able to block new fossil fuel production?
The short answer is “no”. And you may have noticed that she chickened out of saying climate change would be a consideration in environmental approvals.
She said the key words were that they were going to “protect, restore and actively manage” the environment.
How does that save the Great Barrier Reef or Kakadu and Torres Strait Islands from sea level rise.
These will not be saved by upping the 2030 targets to 75% either, as implied by Mr Bandt. We have to face up to the fact that the climate is dangerous now, and will be a whole lot more dangerous with 1.5°C , if we can park it there, and given that we can see cascading tipping points on the tele every night, I don’t think we can.
Plibers cited Samuels in saying that sea level rise was not a big deal. He wrote that a little while ago, and his audince was the COALition government.
In any case, if he wrote that, it was wrong!
You know SLR is a bit of a fixation of mine, but the Australia: State of the Environment 2021 report says this:
It is important to note that under all scenarios, sea level will continue to rise for centuries because of the long timescales of ocean warming and ice sheet responses but the amount of rise is strongly dependent of future emissions. Projections of rise by 2300 in the IPCC AR6 under low-emission RCP2.6 are for a sea level rise of 0.5 to 3 m, and under high-emission RCP8.5 a rise of 2 to 7 m. They also noted rises higher than 15 m cannot be ruled out (IPCC 2021).
So in her consultation period I’m hoping she will learn a bit.
To get back to your question, I think the better approach would be to mount an argument based on stranded assets, and also uncovering that corporates who say they have a net zero by 2050 vision are depending on say (just make it up) 30% coming from offsets through carbon capture, carbon farming and such.
David Spratt made a comment to that effect recently.
But the good news is that we have a person who is intelligent, and listens. More power to her arm!
Brian: What people need to understand is that when we reach zero emissions is not all that important.
What really matters is how much we emit between now and when we reach zero emissions. Things done now are a lot more important than those that may be deferred to closer to the zero emissions point.
Some of the quick fixes may be quite similar. For example, limit average commutes to 7 per fortnight for full time workers.
Testing
Testing OK, but won’t accept my comment. Getting “internal server error”.
I got your testing post.
I’m still getting ‘internal server error’ for longer comments.
I’m going to try deleting and reinstalling Firefox today.
Katherine Murphy is spot on apart from the fact that she does not mention the reconstitution of the Climate Change Authority to Murphy advise on targets – The best way to Dutton-proof climate legislation is to get it into parliament and get it passed
One of the things we need to keep in mind is that target dates for zero emissions don’t mean much at all without details.
What really counts is the emissions that occur between now and and when zero emissions is achieved is what counts, not when zero emissions is achieved.
What this means is that we should look for actions that will give quick reductions.
For example, partial electrical drive retrofitting of the existing car fleet ASAP will be much more effective that waiting until the existing car fleet meets the end of its life and people have no choice but to buy expensive electrical muscle cars with long ranges.. (My guess is that 75 km electric range will make most of the gain.) – Convert to hybrids where the existing motor drives generator.)
Here’s a podcast of Felicity Wade of LEAN with Katharine Murphy. Climate legislation comes towards the end, about 30 minutes in. She doesn’t want Bandt to blow the whole thing up!
Brian: Results for the may 2022 election: “Primary votes were 35.7% Coalition (down 5.7%), 32.6% Labor (down 0.8%), 12.2% Greens (up 1.8%), 5.0% One Nation (up 1.9%), 4.1% UAP (up 0.7%), 5.3% independents (up 1.9%) and 5.1% others (up 0.2%).”
The message is that Labor actually lost support in terms of primary votes and should be careful about dismissing the views of parties that helped give it a 2PP win and the importance of the environmental issue. The link gives other interesting results.
John, there are other ways of slicing and dicing the figures. Labor attracted 2.67 times the primary vote of the Greens, nearly 3 million more. In the HoR three Greens were elected on Labor preferences, only Adam Bandt (49.6) would have gotten there without Labor. Our electoral system is what it is, and in the HoR Labor has 19.25 times the seats of the Greens. The Senate is a house of review.
The negotiations will take place between the portfolio bearers, ie Chris Bowen and Adam Bandt. Bowen has said nothing negative about the Greens policies, and says he will listen to sensible suggestions. There was nothing about new coal or new gas in the climate policy. I think it is more appropriate to consider those issues where the development approvals are given, which comes under the environment law.
That comment posted OK, but I’m not out of the woods yet with computer problems.
Brian: How many Labor members got in on Green preferences?
BTW have you seen the figures that Labor/LNP is using to claim that Aus coal is cleaner than the alternatives? (Expressed as CO2 per kWh equivalents for extraction of coal from the coalface to power user input?)
In answer to your second question, yes, I think so, but may not be looking at the same material. Our coal is by and large cleaner than most, according to an ABC Factcheck of what Turnbull said in 2015. I don’t believe Labor has agreed with Morrison’s ridiculous claim.
In answer to your second, most if not all. Doesn’t mean Bandt can completely determine outcomes, though. He did not get balance of power in the lawmaking chamber. He does have it in the house of review, where you would expect a bit of respect for the people who are running the joint. It’s not his way or the highway. I’m hoping it will go off to a senate committee and everyone will learn a bit.
Brian: I had a look at the fact check link. Problem is that, in terms of climate change the only item of interest is total CO2 equivalent per kWh generated. It should take account of mining emissions, transport emissions etc. Fact check was trying to argue that high energy per tonne was important without looking at how much of the energy is due to combustion of carbon as distinct from combustion of the hydrogen in volatile matter.
There is also the issue of transport distances.
My take is that the claim is dodgy but it would take a lot of work to check the claim.
I’m still having trouble posting, John. Telstra say my internet is good, that it is a problem with the site software. I was reluctant to go to our webmaster, but I think I ‘ll have to.
I knew that volcanic eruptions over an extended period in the past (eg. 250mya) could change climate, but now it seem rain and melting glaciers can cause volcanic activity:
Climate change likely to trigger frequent and severe volcanic eruptions: Studies
I’ve been taken out of play for a few days, by an old man (well, 11 years older than I am) needing some help, a meeting of comrades, and the arrival at short notice of my elder bro, needing a repair job in medical facilities only available in the capital.
Big day also tomorrow! Climate/energy reports galore!
Wild weather is BAU somewhere on the planet. Now floods in Kentucky to balance fires in California. Meanwhile in Politico:
‘Holy s–t’: Surprise Senate deal sets stage for record climate change package.
The aim is to slash carbon emissions an estimated 40 percent from 2005 levels economy-wide by 2030, while:
it is likely to get support from Republicans eager to speed new pipeline approvals and quicker access to oil, gas and mineral deposits.
I guess that we should not be surprised that rain and ice meting may lead to changes in volcanic activity.
Adam Bandt is speaking at the National Press Club tomorrow. Maybe he will tell us which way the Greens are going to jump on the climate bill.
I heard today that they could not reach consensus, some willing to pass with the ratcheting mechanism clearly implanted, some holding out for higher transmission.
It was said that they were going to have one more crack at consensus, and if they fail they will resolve their stance by voting.
Brian: My take is that what really counts is what happens between now and the next federal election. (Due before May 2025.) Happen includes contracts started before then but does not include things like carbon taxes that can be dumped by the next government. Commitments for what will happen after may 2025 are not
Watched Bandt at the press club.
Impressive as usual. sounds like Labor and the Greens have sorted out what they will support.
A man with an industrial relations background would be good at negotiating.
John, he’s still a bit shouty for me. Seriously, he needs more calm. All the teals are calm so far, with the possible exception of Monique Ryan.
Actually Albo exudes calm now that he’s in the job.
I think it admirable that Bandt was able to achieve consensus within the Greens. Bob Hawke was good at resolving disputes because he was good at conflict resolution. However, it is a different skill set to get consensus as a leader, and Bob couldn’t do it.
If Bandt can do both, that will help.
Brian: I remember reading that Bob H never had an ACTU meeting go to a vote.
The Greens put a lot of emphasis on trying to reach consensus so I am not surprised that their recent decisions had consensus but do go to a vote if consensus cannot be reached.
False consensus where people vote for something they don’t support can cause problems when someone who disagrees is responsible for implementation.
Would agree that Adam was a bit “shouty” at the last press conference. He has to convert the unbelievers as well as inspire the true believers.
Just a test.
A. I’m still alive.
B. Albanese is going to be speaking at the National Press Club tomorrow. I think it is a kind of ‘first 100 days’ report.
Brian: Glad you are still alive.
Watched a bit of Albanese. Thought he did OK.
Would like the tax cuts cancelled but I can understand why he didn’t.
I guess the key question is whether he will find other sources of income to hep do things that really need to be done.
Last evening the Climate Council ran a Webinar with Joelle Gergis, who was an IPCC author for the chapter on the water cycle in IPCC AR6WG1, which was being written I think mainly 2018-2021, when the planetary system seemed to be falling apart, at it still is, from fire, heat, floods, storms, bleaching of the GBR etc.
Gergis grew up in the Northern Rivers District of NSW, still lives there when not lecturing at ANU.
I have not read her new book, but she clearly feels deeply about climate grief, and is, I think, a gifted writer. See her Friday essay: ‘I feel my heart breaking today’ – a climate scientist’s path through grief towards hope .
John, on Albanese, it seems they are completely rigid on doing what they said they were going to do before the election.
Importantly he pointed out that when the tax cuts were being debated he had said that it is ridiculous to think that you can tell what conditions are going to be like in 3-4 years time.
I think he wants to let the issue run in the community, then by the next election they they will have a new look at taxation. What happens might be something different, like a levy on the rich, or broader tax reform.
Chalmers has said we need to have a conversation about revenue.
$250bn over 10 years won’t do all the things Adam Bandt is talking about. However, the shame is that many people, eg on the dole, are really hurting and need help now.
Brian: Glad you are still alive.
Watched a bit of Albanese. Thought he did OK.
Would like the tax cuts cancelled but I can understand why he didn’t. He does, however, have some justification for saying things have changed and tax cuts for the rich should not be placed ahead of fixing some of the problems he has to deal with
I guess the key question is whether he will find other sources of income to help do things that really need to be done.
What Rudd did to deal with the GFC was the right thing to do at the time.
The other risk that Albo faces is that people who want change may thing voting Green would send a strong message.