There's been a real beatup in Australia's media in the past few weeks.
Part of the problem is opinion polls. The standing of Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been poor for a long time. Correspondingly, that for the conservative opposition leader Tony Abbott has been comparatively strong - for a long time.
Enter Kevin Rudd, who was deposed as PM by Gillard, but still served as foreign minister - until recently.
The stir factor lies in the fact that Rudd does well in opinion polls - better than Abbott, even. And so he resigned his post and the leadership's up for a vote tomorrow.
But Rudd was quite unpopular at the time he was deposed. And Gillard fared better in the polls.
I think opinion polls have a lot to answer for. When you aggregate people's opinions, they often get contradictory.
I remember back in the 1980s in New Zealand, when the government had an anti-nuclear policy. As a result of the US "neither confirm nor deny" stance on whether their warships had nuclear weapons, the NZ government felt obliged to refuse access to NZ ports to those warships. In retaliation, the US threatened to exclude New Zealand from ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, U.S.), which was NZ's most important military alliance.
Opinion polls? They firmly affirmed the non-nuclear stance, but in contradiction strongly desired to keep the ANZUS alliance.
The point being that when you aggregate people's opinions, you can easily get rubbish.
On the basis of past experience, should Kevin Rudd become PM again, I'm quite sure his poll ratings would plummet after a few months.
In any case, the numbers are clearly against Rudd. And the numbers that count are the ones that vote: those in the parliamentary caucus who will vote tomorrow for their leader. Rudd doesn't stand a snowball's chance. In large part this is because past experience has taught them that Rudd is particularly difficult to work with as a leader. Authoritarian and micro-managing.
But the media has been in overdrive on the matter. They don't care that the outcome is clear: media outlets are driven by the desire to be popular and to fill space with content.
But there have been people who have been media junkies around this stoush - one person even deviated from his usual Sydney Morning Herald diet to buy a Murdoch as well, to get additional field. Despite the outcome being tantamount to pre-ordained.
Lessons: beware contradictory poll results; pay attention to the real signs - and really, that's no reason to buy a Murdoch.
Showing posts with label Kevin Rudd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kevin Rudd. Show all posts
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Saturday, April 09, 2011
In defence of Kevin Rudd on climate change
Listening to ex-PM Kevin Rudd on ABC's Q And A recently, some meaningful insights emerged, on the political process and the sometimes opaque approach governments have to communication.
Yet the subsequent media storm seemed to focus on the more trivial, obvious revelations.
Rudd was talking over the events that lead to his downfall.
His period as Prime Minister, 2007 to 2010, came after 11 years of conservative rule. As PM, he characterised climate change as the greatest moral challenge of our day - yet he apparently fluffed it, and shelved the planned emission trading scheme.
This led in no small part to his drop in popularity, and thence to his being deposed as Prime Minister.
Inter alia, Rudd said:
He also mentioned some cabinet division on the way forward, but the implication was clear: they simply needed to wait for a change in Senate. [In Australia, senate terms are twice that of the lower house, so only half need to face the voters each electorate. A change in government thus means the first term is often not long enough to get through reformist legislation, particularly after a lengthy reign of a previous government.]
Rudd said that his mistake was not ploughing through. However, there came a cogent response from a member of the audience:
Rudd: "I think the response to that question is that, guess what, political leaders are not perfect."
Of course, the subsequent media furore focused on the internal cabinet divisions, and the part played by the current Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.
It remains that the current government intends to move forwards on climate change, and should be able to do so, with the impending senate makeup. Instead of an emissions trading scheme, they're now working on a carbon tax. Yet the government's popularity is quite low; again, the media is focusing on the wrong end of the stick: giving vent to those to whom the word 'tax' is ideological anathema. Still, it's the government's fault for not emphasising that households would be sufficiently compensated, and there will be no nett revenue increase.
Full transcript of Q And A available here.
Yet the subsequent media storm seemed to focus on the more trivial, obvious revelations.
Rudd was talking over the events that lead to his downfall.
His period as Prime Minister, 2007 to 2010, came after 11 years of conservative rule. As PM, he characterised climate change as the greatest moral challenge of our day - yet he apparently fluffed it, and shelved the planned emission trading scheme.
This led in no small part to his drop in popularity, and thence to his being deposed as Prime Minister.
Inter alia, Rudd said:
"we'd already put the emissions trading scheme to the senate twice... the Coalition voted it down twice... Following the next election there was no way the Coalition was going to maintain dominance in the senate, as it's proven. The Greens now control the senate as of 1 July this year. So a basis for delaying the implementation two years was mindful of the fact the senate would change."
He also mentioned some cabinet division on the way forward, but the implication was clear: they simply needed to wait for a change in Senate. [In Australia, senate terms are twice that of the lower house, so only half need to face the voters each electorate. A change in government thus means the first term is often not long enough to get through reformist legislation, particularly after a lengthy reign of a previous government.]
Rudd said that his mistake was not ploughing through. However, there came a cogent response from a member of the audience:
"You've certainly admitted your first mistake on the ETS. Surely now your second mistake is actually not articulating what you've just said to this audience to the Australian people about a year ago. At least we would have had a better handle on what was driving your decision to back flip on an issue that you'd fundamentally been given a mandate to push through. I mean here we are now 12 months later and you're umming and ahing but at least you've engaged us on a fraction of probably what the story is. Isn't your second mistake that you actually didn't tell us - and you didn't give the Australian people the respect to actually articulate the story 12 months ago?"
Rudd: "I think the response to that question is that, guess what, political leaders are not perfect."
Of course, the subsequent media furore focused on the internal cabinet divisions, and the part played by the current Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.
It remains that the current government intends to move forwards on climate change, and should be able to do so, with the impending senate makeup. Instead of an emissions trading scheme, they're now working on a carbon tax. Yet the government's popularity is quite low; again, the media is focusing on the wrong end of the stick: giving vent to those to whom the word 'tax' is ideological anathema. Still, it's the government's fault for not emphasising that households would be sufficiently compensated, and there will be no nett revenue increase.
Full transcript of Q And A available here.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Australia’s great leap forward:Julia Gillard
Today, Australia will get its first female Prime Minister, when the government caucus votes Julia Gillard to replace Kevin Rudd as its leader.
That’s by no means a global precedent. Nor is it a precedent that she’ll be sworn in by a female Governor General (Australia’s first).
But it is a milestone. One that is necessary to a sophisticated society, and one that is overdue, in world terms. Although history suggests it can make little practical difference, nevertheless it remains a meaningful symbolism.
The nature of the leadership change demonstrates one very real point of difference between a parliamentary and a (typical) presidential system. In other respects, Australia’s political processes have come to represent a de facto presidency inasmuch as a large proportion of attention is focused on the leader, at least informally.
In that sense, Australia was moving towards an election with both leadership options – Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott – facing significant public disapproval. Rudd in particular seems to have lost much of his expected support base due to delaying the implementation of an emission trading scheme, despite his own characterisation of climate change as the “most significant moral issue of our time”. In likelihood, part of the erosion of support would have been due to the intrinsic outcome, and part would have rested with the obvious gap between his words and his actions.
Broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings clearly demonstrate Gillard’s ability in that setting. How she will manage the transition to full-fledged leadership – and how the votiung public will react on a gut level – is something that has historically proven very hard to predict. Although Gillard had been a core part of the Rudd administration’s decisionmaking processes, leadership is another matter.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The world is going to the dogs. Discuss.
Australia's largest carbon polluters are back on comfortable ground, spending big on advertising to persuade enough Australians that "jobs" is a better motherhood concept than "global warming" or "brace yourself for very disruptive changes".
My memory tells me that the last time the coal-based industries stomped in to defend their patch, they focused on their political muscle rather than a public campaign. Still, they retain that in their arsenal if they aren't already using it.
And Kevin Rudd, as Australia's "more conservative than thou" Prime Minister, is gearing up for the climate change battleground by persistent abrogation of international principles on asylum seekers:
1) Continuance of the evil John Howard policy of excision of Australia's territory (to whit, Christmas Island) from the geopolitical State;
2) fear-mongering over the Sri Lankan asylum seekers sitting in on the Australian Customs ship Oceanic Viking. -again, attempting to follow Howard's lead.
And not only does Rudd perpetuate another disastrously short-sighted Howard policy of incentives to parents to participate in a renewed population boom; he also claims Australia can fit in many millions more people over the years. (the unspoken parameters: population is okay if it us, not them; we don't want a great influx of people who are too far removed from our culture; and - purportedly - baby booms protect us from our own ageing population, and provide the economic growth that makes us richer - that, perish the thought - asylum seekers couldn't do.
Which is all a load of alarmist claptrap, of course.
Meanwhile, the Government and Opposition are preventing implementation of any carbon emission policy by both arguing variants of the same weak stance on climate change.
Facing the pressing problems of the world... the wrong way.
This is just Australia. You can fill in the gaps for the rest of the world. Despite some valiant policy efforts from the European Union, nobody is going to the Copenhagen climate change talks with anything like the necessary power and will.
Brace yourself for decades of instability. If the world's governments can't cope with prevention, how will they fare with the effects of rising sea levels? The least of their worries will be the rich retirees already complaining about their crumbling coastline properties.
My memory tells me that the last time the coal-based industries stomped in to defend their patch, they focused on their political muscle rather than a public campaign. Still, they retain that in their arsenal if they aren't already using it.
And Kevin Rudd, as Australia's "more conservative than thou" Prime Minister, is gearing up for the climate change battleground by persistent abrogation of international principles on asylum seekers:
1) Continuance of the evil John Howard policy of excision of Australia's territory (to whit, Christmas Island) from the geopolitical State;
2) fear-mongering over the Sri Lankan asylum seekers sitting in on the Australian Customs ship Oceanic Viking. -again, attempting to follow Howard's lead.
And not only does Rudd perpetuate another disastrously short-sighted Howard policy of incentives to parents to participate in a renewed population boom; he also claims Australia can fit in many millions more people over the years. (the unspoken parameters: population is okay if it us, not them; we don't want a great influx of people who are too far removed from our culture; and - purportedly - baby booms protect us from our own ageing population, and provide the economic growth that makes us richer - that, perish the thought - asylum seekers couldn't do.
Which is all a load of alarmist claptrap, of course.
Meanwhile, the Government and Opposition are preventing implementation of any carbon emission policy by both arguing variants of the same weak stance on climate change.
Facing the pressing problems of the world... the wrong way.
This is just Australia. You can fill in the gaps for the rest of the world. Despite some valiant policy efforts from the European Union, nobody is going to the Copenhagen climate change talks with anything like the necessary power and will.
Brace yourself for decades of instability. If the world's governments can't cope with prevention, how will they fare with the effects of rising sea levels? The least of their worries will be the rich retirees already complaining about their crumbling coastline properties.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
First defeat of bad climate change legislation
Today the Australian Senate is expected to knock back the government's key climate change bill, which sets up an emission trading scheme.
The scene would then be set for a re-introduction of the bill in November, potentially to be followed by a double dissolution snap election.
The opposition, scheduled to knock it back ostensibly via a raft of amendments, is opposing the bill for the sake of opposing. The government doesn't have the numbers in the Senate unless the Greens are on side.
Which they're not, because the bill is a thorough travesty. Despite Al Gore's backing (on the basis that taking something to the end of year climate change conference is better than nothing), this bill is seriously regressive.
Under the bill, large polluters are obliged to cut back carbon emissions, but any action by individuals means the large corporations don't have to do as much. In effect, individual action only benefits the corporations (see Ross Gittens here). In fact, this encourage people to engage in greater carbon polluting activities, simply to force the corporations to become more energy efficient. After more than a decade of paying higher electricity prices for green energy, as soon as the bill is passed I should move to brown electricity (as Gittens points out).
Kevin Rudd should be thoroughly embarassed to present such a perverse message to Australians.
The scene would then be set for a re-introduction of the bill in November, potentially to be followed by a double dissolution snap election.
The opposition, scheduled to knock it back ostensibly via a raft of amendments, is opposing the bill for the sake of opposing. The government doesn't have the numbers in the Senate unless the Greens are on side.
Which they're not, because the bill is a thorough travesty. Despite Al Gore's backing (on the basis that taking something to the end of year climate change conference is better than nothing), this bill is seriously regressive.
Under the bill, large polluters are obliged to cut back carbon emissions, but any action by individuals means the large corporations don't have to do as much. In effect, individual action only benefits the corporations (see Ross Gittens here). In fact, this encourage people to engage in greater carbon polluting activities, simply to force the corporations to become more energy efficient. After more than a decade of paying higher electricity prices for green energy, as soon as the bill is passed I should move to brown electricity (as Gittens points out).
Kevin Rudd should be thoroughly embarassed to present such a perverse message to Australians.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Two Hus, and China's hardball trade game
China's form of economic hardball is possibly unique in these times, a game that has emerged from a specific set of temporal factors, including their culture and their current global economic status.
The immediate context for this is the arrest in China of Stern Hu, an Australian executive of mining conglomerate Rio Tinto. Hu has been accused of, but not yet charged with, espionage. The Chinese government said Hu and three other Rio Tinto employees arrested "have already broken Chinese law and have violated international business ethics".
This was preceded by pricing negotiations that ended up being more favourable to Australian resource companies than had been generally expected. Further, on 5th June Rio Tinto backed out of a $AU25 billion deal with Chinalco, and instead joined forces with rival BHP Billiton. China's burning need for raw materials makes major dealings with resource companies extremely sensitive. Upon the deal's collapse the Chinese immediately convened a high-level political task force to "assess the political and economic risks" of large outgoing investment deals.
Yet: "This is certainly not 'revenge' for the Chinalco deal not going through," said a Chinese Government source. "It is part of a considered, all-of-government response to the general resources question that was made after considering the likely international response."
Maybe not specifically, but it could well be a tactical manoeuvre underpinning the Chinese government's overarching strategy on resourcing.
What happened is not clear yet. But it's obviously tied to the dangerously tricky nature of doing business in China.
The Sydney Morning Herald's John Garnaut noted : "Rio Tinto has strong rules and a strong corporate ethos that should mean that China's 'conclusive evidence' about the company paying bribes turns out to be unsubstantiated." But between Rio's official policy and China's "enormous system of laws that are seldom enforced", there is the traditional Chinese way of business. Another Herald journalist commented:"The immediate very public escalation of the arrest issue makes discreet high level use of guanxi - the uniquely Chinese concept of personal relationships - extremely difficult".
There is thus a wide chasm between the customary way of doing business, and how it should be done if legally enforced. That chasm constitutes an enormous manouvering space under the direct control of the Chinese government. So they are deciding when to enforce practices that would usually be seen to be corrupt or involving undue personal influence.
The deliberate revelation that President Hu Jintao personally approved the "investigation" that led to the arrest, signals an escalation in the politics of trade. Until the Chinese government becomes obliged to close the gap between customary practice and law in a uniform way, they control the playing field. Internation economic and political pressure will force the issue, but until then the Chinese government will be taking full advantage of it.
16-Jul-09 Update: Although PM Kevin Rudd's (public) response to the arrests has been characterised as lukewarm to date, as a sinophile ex-diplomat he is probably better versed than most in the intricacies of communication at that level. But his public words are now somewhat stronger: the world is watching. Meanwhile, a Chinese newspaper quoted an unnamed industry source that Rio had bribed executives of 16 steel mills to get access to industry data "which has become an unwritten industry practice" - which begs the question why those executives weren't also arrested. Lastly, the incident has caused a spike in the spot price for iron ore. Whilst economists can always give explanations for a sudden price jolt in either direction, in this case it could be said to reflect perception that the cost of doing business (with China) is higher than previously expected.
The immediate context for this is the arrest in China of Stern Hu, an Australian executive of mining conglomerate Rio Tinto. Hu has been accused of, but not yet charged with, espionage. The Chinese government said Hu and three other Rio Tinto employees arrested "have already broken Chinese law and have violated international business ethics".
This was preceded by pricing negotiations that ended up being more favourable to Australian resource companies than had been generally expected. Further, on 5th June Rio Tinto backed out of a $AU25 billion deal with Chinalco, and instead joined forces with rival BHP Billiton. China's burning need for raw materials makes major dealings with resource companies extremely sensitive. Upon the deal's collapse the Chinese immediately convened a high-level political task force to "assess the political and economic risks" of large outgoing investment deals.
Yet: "This is certainly not 'revenge' for the Chinalco deal not going through," said a Chinese Government source. "It is part of a considered, all-of-government response to the general resources question that was made after considering the likely international response."
Maybe not specifically, but it could well be a tactical manoeuvre underpinning the Chinese government's overarching strategy on resourcing.
What happened is not clear yet. But it's obviously tied to the dangerously tricky nature of doing business in China.
The Sydney Morning Herald's John Garnaut noted : "Rio Tinto has strong rules and a strong corporate ethos that should mean that China's 'conclusive evidence' about the company paying bribes turns out to be unsubstantiated." But between Rio's official policy and China's "enormous system of laws that are seldom enforced", there is the traditional Chinese way of business. Another Herald journalist commented:"The immediate very public escalation of the arrest issue makes discreet high level use of guanxi - the uniquely Chinese concept of personal relationships - extremely difficult".
There is thus a wide chasm between the customary way of doing business, and how it should be done if legally enforced. That chasm constitutes an enormous manouvering space under the direct control of the Chinese government. So they are deciding when to enforce practices that would usually be seen to be corrupt or involving undue personal influence.
The deliberate revelation that President Hu Jintao personally approved the "investigation" that led to the arrest, signals an escalation in the politics of trade. Until the Chinese government becomes obliged to close the gap between customary practice and law in a uniform way, they control the playing field. Internation economic and political pressure will force the issue, but until then the Chinese government will be taking full advantage of it.
16-Jul-09 Update: Although PM Kevin Rudd's (public) response to the arrests has been characterised as lukewarm to date, as a sinophile ex-diplomat he is probably better versed than most in the intricacies of communication at that level. But his public words are now somewhat stronger: the world is watching. Meanwhile, a Chinese newspaper quoted an unnamed industry source that Rio had bribed executives of 16 steel mills to get access to industry data "which has become an unwritten industry practice" - which begs the question why those executives weren't also arrested. Lastly, the incident has caused a spike in the spot price for iron ore. Whilst economists can always give explanations for a sudden price jolt in either direction, in this case it could be said to reflect perception that the cost of doing business (with China) is higher than previously expected.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Turnbull performs as expected
Former Prime Minister Paul Keating offered current Prime Minister Kevin Rudd some advice about the then-new opposition leader: He's brilliant, he's fearless... and he's got bad judgment.
(Reported by Peter Hartcher in Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald.)
Keatings words could easily be Turnbull's epitaph. If you're going for the PM's jugular, it pays to have more evidence than a single email - as Turnbull found out, it could be forged.
The fact that Turnbull pushed it so hard - and with such personal arrogance in one or two conversations - is fully reflected in the three opinion polls released today, which show a plummet in support for Turnbull and the Liberals. Of course, he'll survive this... and could well lead the Liberals to defeat at the next election - for precisely the reasons I expected when Turnbull was on his way up.
(Reported by Peter Hartcher in Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald.)
Keatings words could easily be Turnbull's epitaph. If you're going for the PM's jugular, it pays to have more evidence than a single email - as Turnbull found out, it could be forged.
The fact that Turnbull pushed it so hard - and with such personal arrogance in one or two conversations - is fully reflected in the three opinion polls released today, which show a plummet in support for Turnbull and the Liberals. Of course, he'll survive this... and could well lead the Liberals to defeat at the next election - for precisely the reasons I expected when Turnbull was on his way up.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Climate Change Australia: bad policy goes worse
Having Kevin Rudd as a Prime Minister has meant an era of management rather than leadership. Evidence is the revised but still tragic climate change policy: the Emission Trading Scheme is being delayed past the next election, emission prices are to be set at a low $10 per tonne, and industrial polluters are compensated even more.
Activist organisation GetUp! has the facts of the new policy. The Sydney Morning Herald gave an environment perspective and a political perspective on this change, which has been variously characterised as a backflip or a watering down of action over climate change.
The original plans were fundamentally flawed from an environmental perspective, such that Ross Garnaut, author of the government-commissioned report on the subject, said it might be better to hold off on implementation - in the hope that public pressure will yield better policy. Be careful what you wish for, Ross. Public opinion has had a long tradition of clamouring for contradictory outcomes, effectively leaving key issues up to those they vote for.
Rudd was juggling a number of balls over the issue: industry concerns (peak bodies had been holding the previous labour government to ransom on this specific issue, even before Kyoto), economic crisis, and pressure from environmental voices. That last was the weakest pressure, because traditionally the ALP has the environment vote in the bag (would you rather vote for something even more conservative, hey?). They also figured that the buildup of pressure on climate change remained weak despite the mammoth publicity over the last three years. Some justification for this view exists in the voting record at the last election, where green votes did not surge to reflect the apparent level of interest. Again, the public agrees there is a problem, but want "someone else" to do "something". How to break this toxic nexus? Same as ever, I guess: hope for good leadership, participate in public pressure (via GetUp!'s campaign, for example), and vote right. Political vision entails hard choices for the right reasons, and persuading the electorate to follow. Rudd was elected for a raft of reasons other than that, unfortunately. I have little confidence in anyone on Australia's political horizon (whilst holding judgment on Julia Gillard and Peter Garrett, who may well be hamstrung); fortunately, there remains hope in Obama.
06-Sep-09 Update: Two important points I mention in a later post:
1) There is a truly evil effect of the government's plan: any attempts by individuals to reduce their carbon emissions is used to offset the burden of the large corporate polluters, thus rendering individual action worse than useless.
2) The original bill for the Emission Trading Scheme was knocked back by the Senate; to date the government intends re-introducing it with little substantive change.
Activist organisation GetUp! has the facts of the new policy. The Sydney Morning Herald gave an environment perspective and a political perspective on this change, which has been variously characterised as a backflip or a watering down of action over climate change.
The original plans were fundamentally flawed from an environmental perspective, such that Ross Garnaut, author of the government-commissioned report on the subject, said it might be better to hold off on implementation - in the hope that public pressure will yield better policy. Be careful what you wish for, Ross. Public opinion has had a long tradition of clamouring for contradictory outcomes, effectively leaving key issues up to those they vote for.
Rudd was juggling a number of balls over the issue: industry concerns (peak bodies had been holding the previous labour government to ransom on this specific issue, even before Kyoto), economic crisis, and pressure from environmental voices. That last was the weakest pressure, because traditionally the ALP has the environment vote in the bag (would you rather vote for something even more conservative, hey?). They also figured that the buildup of pressure on climate change remained weak despite the mammoth publicity over the last three years. Some justification for this view exists in the voting record at the last election, where green votes did not surge to reflect the apparent level of interest. Again, the public agrees there is a problem, but want "someone else" to do "something". How to break this toxic nexus? Same as ever, I guess: hope for good leadership, participate in public pressure (via GetUp!'s campaign, for example), and vote right. Political vision entails hard choices for the right reasons, and persuading the electorate to follow. Rudd was elected for a raft of reasons other than that, unfortunately. I have little confidence in anyone on Australia's political horizon (whilst holding judgment on Julia Gillard and Peter Garrett, who may well be hamstrung); fortunately, there remains hope in Obama.
06-Sep-09 Update: Two important points I mention in a later post:
1) There is a truly evil effect of the government's plan: any attempts by individuals to reduce their carbon emissions is used to offset the burden of the large corporate polluters, thus rendering individual action worse than useless.
2) The original bill for the Emission Trading Scheme was knocked back by the Senate; to date the government intends re-introducing it with little substantive change.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Stern, Obama, Wong on climate change
Overnight on BBC radio, I heard an interview with Nicholas Stern, author of the landmark report on the economic ramifications on climate change (the programme, One Planet, can be listened to here).
Stern was discussing in a less formal sense the outlook for climate change. What he had to say was little different to the thoughts expressed here. The situation is urgent but the outlook somewhat pessimistic; and it's in the hands of people to take action and world leaders to show leadership. The interviewer then asked opinions of his son (about 10 years old, from memory) and from a taxi driver. The responses were not entirely surprising. The boy was aware that everyone wasn't looking to the long term, and that people may care about their own kids, but don't see much beyond that. The taxi driver professed to be a global warming skeptic, but said he put energy efficient lights in the house (why? to do his part). On the one hand the problem was in his mind enough to do something simple, but on the other hand, it was too big for him to feel empowered to do more than that.
The answer is to vote, and to vote for someone sufficiently visionary.
In the same broadcast, I heard President Obama had announced plans to develop 100 very fast train links in the US. I didn't appreciate the import until I heard him speak, holding up European examples such as a train link between Madrid and Seville that was so good that more people travelled between those cities by train than by car and plane combined.
That is what I mean by visionary. Obama has the will and capacity to reshape the global political landscape.
Meanwhile in Australia, the Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is forced to defend the planned emission trading system from attacks from all quarters, right left and centre. The Senate inquiry also drew comment from Ross Garnault, who had been commissioned by the government to report on the issue and options for action. Even he said it was touch and go whether it was worth entirely scrapping the current plan - and incurring the consequent period of inaction while a new proposal was formulated. The present scheme is so hopelessly flawed that none of the non-government senators will support it - so it is doomed in its current incarnation. In any case, it sounds like government backbenchers are pressing for change, such that the efforts of individuals aren't co-opted by corresponding rewards to large industry. That is the least that could be changed. But it is unlikely to be enough to save it, and something better is needed.
Stern was discussing in a less formal sense the outlook for climate change. What he had to say was little different to the thoughts expressed here. The situation is urgent but the outlook somewhat pessimistic; and it's in the hands of people to take action and world leaders to show leadership. The interviewer then asked opinions of his son (about 10 years old, from memory) and from a taxi driver. The responses were not entirely surprising. The boy was aware that everyone wasn't looking to the long term, and that people may care about their own kids, but don't see much beyond that. The taxi driver professed to be a global warming skeptic, but said he put energy efficient lights in the house (why? to do his part). On the one hand the problem was in his mind enough to do something simple, but on the other hand, it was too big for him to feel empowered to do more than that.
The answer is to vote, and to vote for someone sufficiently visionary.
In the same broadcast, I heard President Obama had announced plans to develop 100 very fast train links in the US. I didn't appreciate the import until I heard him speak, holding up European examples such as a train link between Madrid and Seville that was so good that more people travelled between those cities by train than by car and plane combined.
That is what I mean by visionary. Obama has the will and capacity to reshape the global political landscape.
Meanwhile in Australia, the Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is forced to defend the planned emission trading system from attacks from all quarters, right left and centre. The Senate inquiry also drew comment from Ross Garnault, who had been commissioned by the government to report on the issue and options for action. Even he said it was touch and go whether it was worth entirely scrapping the current plan - and incurring the consequent period of inaction while a new proposal was formulated. The present scheme is so hopelessly flawed that none of the non-government senators will support it - so it is doomed in its current incarnation. In any case, it sounds like government backbenchers are pressing for change, such that the efforts of individuals aren't co-opted by corresponding rewards to large industry. That is the least that could be changed. But it is unlikely to be enough to save it, and something better is needed.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Climate change: losing the pivotal moment
The Australian government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is deeply flawed, and in fact discourages individual pollution-saving measures by individuals - the benefits gained will be captured by polluting industries under this proposed emission trading scheme.
Legislation reached the Senate, which has sent it off to enquiry. Public submissions are called.
On current evidence of government and global response, I am very pessimistic about turning back this tide. There are three ironies here:
1) At a time where there is great willingness on the part of governments and electorate to spend large re-stimulating the economy, the government is not grasping the opportunity to target spending and industry incentives to avoid significant climate change;
2) When the sums are done, warming will be seen to slow down (albeit a temporary blip) specifically because of the global economic downturn - and this will lead to greater complacency about the urgency of the problem.
3) The confluence of crises reaches us just at the point where there is broad consensus that global warming is real and serious. Any student of history reading up to this point might make the automatic assumption that action would be taken, because the way forward is so clear.
Via GetUp, I put together a quick submission for the Senate enquiry, as follows:
Legislation reached the Senate, which has sent it off to enquiry. Public submissions are called.
On current evidence of government and global response, I am very pessimistic about turning back this tide. There are three ironies here:
1) At a time where there is great willingness on the part of governments and electorate to spend large re-stimulating the economy, the government is not grasping the opportunity to target spending and industry incentives to avoid significant climate change;
2) When the sums are done, warming will be seen to slow down (albeit a temporary blip) specifically because of the global economic downturn - and this will lead to greater complacency about the urgency of the problem.
3) The confluence of crises reaches us just at the point where there is broad consensus that global warming is real and serious. Any student of history reading up to this point might make the automatic assumption that action would be taken, because the way forward is so clear.
Via GetUp, I put together a quick submission for the Senate enquiry, as follows:
Current Australian climate change targets truly do not reflect the gravity of the situation.
1) Human-induced change would be more catastrophic than any in history;
2) Upfront economic costs alone are trifling compared to later costs - verified by international reports;
3) Requisite change calls for economic upheaval; it is currently an ideal time to introduce change, for governments to back economic and industry restructure - at no other time will there be such opportunity and willingness for governments to invest - so this investment can be made in meeting both challenges at once;
4) Governments need to display leadership; show the electorate that long-term stability and prosperity is the aim, rather than short-term attempts at propping up dying industries.
It is clear to all that the government's climate change map is both weak and insufficient to effect the necessary change.
Why are we not taking action at the very best point where change can be achieved?
Economic stimulus can achieve both the long-term and short-term goals if it is specifically and entirely directed at initiatives - and industry-adjustment incentives - that protect the environment, species, and biodiversity that we currently have stewardship over.
Generations will otherwise remember this time as a pivotal moment of lost opportunity.
Regards
Stephen Simmonds
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Aus Politics: waiting for the great leap forwards
An informal Herald poll asked which politician people would like to have to dinner:
Julia Gillard (deputy PM): 35%
None of those mentioned: 21%
Kevin Rudd (PM): 20%
Peter Costello (opposition pretender): 12%
Malcolm Turnbull (opposition leader): 11%
The results are not surprising.
Julia Gillard (deputy PM): 35%
None of those mentioned: 21%
Kevin Rudd (PM): 20%
Peter Costello (opposition pretender): 12%
Malcolm Turnbull (opposition leader): 11%
The results are not surprising.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Environmental crisis (#3 of 2008)
The eye was off the ball this year, distracted by the global financial crisis.
In the last two decades, habitat destruction has been recognised as the biggest threat to biodiversity - but recognition has not sufficiently translated into action. That very narrative was compounded and magnified by the complete wrenching of the global ecosystem, simply because we vote for leaders who are too lacking vision to grapple with the large-scale industrial revolution needed to counter global warming.
The European Union has been - by and large - a bastion of sensible policy. However, their approach remains far too evolutionary and not revolutionary enough. China and India are slow to respond, but are not helped by lack of leadership from the industrialised nations. In America, we have to wait for George W Bush's pathetic body to be shovelled bit by bit out of the Whitehouse - and then have to wait for Obama's plan to translate vision into action.
Which, as it happens, is where Australia has tripped up in a big way. While espousing mantras on the absolute imperative of combatting global warming, Kevin Rudd's leadership has been characterised by lengthy inaction and delaying investigation - trumped by the release of a policy raft that demeans all Australians in the smallness of its vision - so much so that it has been said to actively encourage dirty carbon emitters to ramp up their destructive practices for some time to come - whereupon they will be handsomely rewarded with government handouts, and have plenty of room to make token improvements.
Kevin Rudd was characterised by a Canberra insider as being especially indecisive. His deputy - and frequent acting Prime Minister - Julia Gillard was in turn described as being particularly intelligent and action-focused. I have heard her performance in parliament several times, and her ability is clear and strong. Waiting for the great leap forwards.
In the last two decades, habitat destruction has been recognised as the biggest threat to biodiversity - but recognition has not sufficiently translated into action. That very narrative was compounded and magnified by the complete wrenching of the global ecosystem, simply because we vote for leaders who are too lacking vision to grapple with the large-scale industrial revolution needed to counter global warming.
The European Union has been - by and large - a bastion of sensible policy. However, their approach remains far too evolutionary and not revolutionary enough. China and India are slow to respond, but are not helped by lack of leadership from the industrialised nations. In America, we have to wait for George W Bush's pathetic body to be shovelled bit by bit out of the Whitehouse - and then have to wait for Obama's plan to translate vision into action.
Which, as it happens, is where Australia has tripped up in a big way. While espousing mantras on the absolute imperative of combatting global warming, Kevin Rudd's leadership has been characterised by lengthy inaction and delaying investigation - trumped by the release of a policy raft that demeans all Australians in the smallness of its vision - so much so that it has been said to actively encourage dirty carbon emitters to ramp up their destructive practices for some time to come - whereupon they will be handsomely rewarded with government handouts, and have plenty of room to make token improvements.
Kevin Rudd was characterised by a Canberra insider as being especially indecisive. His deputy - and frequent acting Prime Minister - Julia Gillard was in turn described as being particularly intelligent and action-focused. I have heard her performance in parliament several times, and her ability is clear and strong. Waiting for the great leap forwards.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Australian's weak carbon emission targets
A smart, visionary government, with a lot of hard work, could come up with a major industrial restructure package that could go a large way towards addressing climate change. For major emitters, a carrot-and-stick approach could include:
a) large financial incentives to move towards carbon-neutral technology;
b) large taxes - yes, taxes - on a sliding scale based on carbon emissions, which would pay for the above.
In general, those initiatives could be supplemented by:
c) major incentives for meaningful research and investment in clean technologies, particularly relating to energy generation and efficiency, coupled with equivalent large disincentives to research and investment in high-carbon-emission activities;
d) a clearly-flagged, steady increase in carbon emission taxes.
It's hard to get it right, and disruption (read: change) is always politically painful. But it is an ideal time. the government is consistently very high in the polls, and can afford to spend some of that political capital - ie it can afford to lose some favour. And economic downturns are accompanied by significant capital and industrial restructure, as companies are forced to adapt, change, or go under. If managed well, the government could direct that restructure process.
But Kevin Rudd is not a great visionary - only a minor one - and he is more managing the affairs of government than propelling Australia forward. He doesn't want to squander his political capital, and he doesn't want to given the blame - fairly or not - for any of that inevitable pain of industrial restructure. Today's announcement on carbon targets maps out a paltry 5% carbon reduction by 2020, with an option of progressing to 15%. And it positively panders to the vested interests that have held Australia back. Although there are elements of my suggestions above, the overall package is designed to follow a path of least resistance rather than lead. Pathetic. It's a tragedy that the announcement has no relationship to the government's frequent declarations of the absolute urgency of the issue.
It has to be said that this issue has never brought out the best in Australian governments, and that could have something to do with our great reliance on the dirtiest of energy generation - coal, in particular, alongside other high-carbon sources such as oil and gas. As Environment Minister in the Keating government, the left-wing John Faulkner was effectively reined in by the large coal producers and consumers. For successive Howard governments, of course, it wasn't even an issue.
But history does not excuse a lack of vision and political will. Those with vision break from the past.
I retain some optimism, however, in looking to Obama for that vision and will. His tasks are Herculean, but he has displayed some of the leadership the world needs right now.
a) large financial incentives to move towards carbon-neutral technology;
b) large taxes - yes, taxes - on a sliding scale based on carbon emissions, which would pay for the above.
In general, those initiatives could be supplemented by:
c) major incentives for meaningful research and investment in clean technologies, particularly relating to energy generation and efficiency, coupled with equivalent large disincentives to research and investment in high-carbon-emission activities;
d) a clearly-flagged, steady increase in carbon emission taxes.
It's hard to get it right, and disruption (read: change) is always politically painful. But it is an ideal time. the government is consistently very high in the polls, and can afford to spend some of that political capital - ie it can afford to lose some favour. And economic downturns are accompanied by significant capital and industrial restructure, as companies are forced to adapt, change, or go under. If managed well, the government could direct that restructure process.
But Kevin Rudd is not a great visionary - only a minor one - and he is more managing the affairs of government than propelling Australia forward. He doesn't want to squander his political capital, and he doesn't want to given the blame - fairly or not - for any of that inevitable pain of industrial restructure. Today's announcement on carbon targets maps out a paltry 5% carbon reduction by 2020, with an option of progressing to 15%. And it positively panders to the vested interests that have held Australia back. Although there are elements of my suggestions above, the overall package is designed to follow a path of least resistance rather than lead. Pathetic. It's a tragedy that the announcement has no relationship to the government's frequent declarations of the absolute urgency of the issue.
It has to be said that this issue has never brought out the best in Australian governments, and that could have something to do with our great reliance on the dirtiest of energy generation - coal, in particular, alongside other high-carbon sources such as oil and gas. As Environment Minister in the Keating government, the left-wing John Faulkner was effectively reined in by the large coal producers and consumers. For successive Howard governments, of course, it wasn't even an issue.
But history does not excuse a lack of vision and political will. Those with vision break from the past.
I retain some optimism, however, in looking to Obama for that vision and will. His tasks are Herculean, but he has displayed some of the leadership the world needs right now.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Bali bombers and the brutality of execution
Sometime in the next few days - if it hasn't already happened - Indonesia will execute three Bali bombers. They were found responsible for the deaths of 202 people in Kuta in 2002.
Australia's media always mention in the same breath that the toll included 88 Australians, but 38 Indonesians also died. The bombers were quite willing to kill their own kind for their cause.
None of this excuses execution in any circumstances. It meets brutality with brutality, and it further brutalises society. It sends the wrong message to children, to those contemplating violence, to everyone.
Australians seem to be divided on the matter, with about as many favouring execution as disfavouring it. I'm sure the results would be rather different if the polling included the fact that Indonesia also plans to kill some Australian drug traffickers - yet in an ethical world, that should make no difference.
Our Prime Minister should show leadership on this. But Kevin Rudd has been quite reticent, to his discredit.
There are many reasons to not execute. If one condoned life imprisonment, for example, those people would have a lifetime to live with their deeds, and to contemplate atonement.
If polls were conducted with sufficient consideration, people would inevitably prefer atonement to brutalisation.
Australia's media always mention in the same breath that the toll included 88 Australians, but 38 Indonesians also died. The bombers were quite willing to kill their own kind for their cause.
None of this excuses execution in any circumstances. It meets brutality with brutality, and it further brutalises society. It sends the wrong message to children, to those contemplating violence, to everyone.
Australians seem to be divided on the matter, with about as many favouring execution as disfavouring it. I'm sure the results would be rather different if the polling included the fact that Indonesia also plans to kill some Australian drug traffickers - yet in an ethical world, that should make no difference.
Our Prime Minister should show leadership on this. But Kevin Rudd has been quite reticent, to his discredit.
There are many reasons to not execute. If one condoned life imprisonment, for example, those people would have a lifetime to live with their deeds, and to contemplate atonement.
If polls were conducted with sufficient consideration, people would inevitably prefer atonement to brutalisation.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Climate Change Australia: 450 ppm?
A ray of hope in a recent comment from the Prime Minister.
Kevin Rudd said 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide is a "necessary" goal. This contrasts with the recent government commissioned Garnaut report, which posited 550 ppm, which would likely lead to the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef, as well as the critical Greenland ice shelf.
A good signal, although it would still face a rough ride implementing in practice, especially with an obstructionist Senate.
Kevin Rudd said 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide is a "necessary" goal. This contrasts with the recent government commissioned Garnaut report, which posited 550 ppm, which would likely lead to the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef, as well as the critical Greenland ice shelf.
A good signal, although it would still face a rough ride implementing in practice, especially with an obstructionist Senate.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Australia to remain a climate change laggard
Ross Garnault, who the Prime Minister has tasked with delivery of a series of reports mapping out Australia's climate change response, has delivered his latest, and the news is not good.
In an outcome that can only be described as strongly politically influenced, Garnault has re-claimed Australia's status as a special case amongst developed nations, and posited only a 10% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. Unsurprisingly, industry groups have railed against even this low figure, with one of them wailing that this was equivalent to Australia's entire electricity generation industry. Well boo hoo. That industry could do with radical overhaul anyway, since most of it is coal-fired and so quite carbon-dirty. Unfortunately there are no signs such an overhaul will happen.
The 10% figure could have meaninful context in the Government's lack of control of the Senate, with timing perhaps also being an influencer, as implementation of carbon cap-and-trading was flagged for close to the next election (2010). Rudd doesn't seem to be the kind to relish a head-on stoush, possibly a relic of the nature of Labor's election loss at the hands of Keating, and the subsequent decade in the wilderness.
If John Howard had not been booted out of office, Australia's position would have been even worse - but not by an awful lot, at this rate. PM Rudd has consistently retained climate change high on his list of pressing issues, but that does not seem to guarantee optimal outcomes.
In an outcome that can only be described as strongly politically influenced, Garnault has re-claimed Australia's status as a special case amongst developed nations, and posited only a 10% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. Unsurprisingly, industry groups have railed against even this low figure, with one of them wailing that this was equivalent to Australia's entire electricity generation industry. Well boo hoo. That industry could do with radical overhaul anyway, since most of it is coal-fired and so quite carbon-dirty. Unfortunately there are no signs such an overhaul will happen.
The 10% figure could have meaninful context in the Government's lack of control of the Senate, with timing perhaps also being an influencer, as implementation of carbon cap-and-trading was flagged for close to the next election (2010). Rudd doesn't seem to be the kind to relish a head-on stoush, possibly a relic of the nature of Labor's election loss at the hands of Keating, and the subsequent decade in the wilderness.
If John Howard had not been booted out of office, Australia's position would have been even worse - but not by an awful lot, at this rate. PM Rudd has consistently retained climate change high on his list of pressing issues, but that does not seem to guarantee optimal outcomes.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Keating's wide-ranging speech of ideas
Paul Keating gave a speech to the Melbourne Writers' Festival on Sunday. He took the opportunity to wrestle with the shifting sands of world power in our era.
As I read it, I was reminded of the time, now more than ten years past, where national debate took place in a more robust, colourful atmosphere. He was Prime Minister for a scant three years, sandwiched between the reigns of Hawke and Howard, who by comparison each ground down the weighty issues of the day, made public discourse itself rather moribund, and certainly didn't contribute to outcomes as momentous as, for example, the Wik and Mabo decisions (His 'Redfern speech' - available here - strongly signalled his sympathies with these issues, and directly set the context for Kevin Rudd's impressive apology speech in Parliament).
Although I find much of the speech quite insightful in the issues and perspectives canvassed, there's a fair bit that I disagree with (eg the significance of the EU) - I'm sure most would say the same, although the points of departure will differ. Also, I find the closing stages about as weak as the beginning is strong.
But for me, the value of Keating's speech is in a welcome sharpness and turn of phrase, and the breadth of ideas presented. Again, a call for vision.
Full text is available here.
As I read it, I was reminded of the time, now more than ten years past, where national debate took place in a more robust, colourful atmosphere. He was Prime Minister for a scant three years, sandwiched between the reigns of Hawke and Howard, who by comparison each ground down the weighty issues of the day, made public discourse itself rather moribund, and certainly didn't contribute to outcomes as momentous as, for example, the Wik and Mabo decisions (His 'Redfern speech' - available here - strongly signalled his sympathies with these issues, and directly set the context for Kevin Rudd's impressive apology speech in Parliament).
Although I find much of the speech quite insightful in the issues and perspectives canvassed, there's a fair bit that I disagree with (eg the significance of the EU) - I'm sure most would say the same, although the points of departure will differ. Also, I find the closing stages about as weak as the beginning is strong.
But for me, the value of Keating's speech is in a welcome sharpness and turn of phrase, and the breadth of ideas presented. Again, a call for vision.
Full text is available here.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Climate change: Rudd is not buckling - and nor is Garnaut
In the leadup to today's release of the Garnaut report, PM Kevin Rudd talked to Kerry O'Brien on The 7.30 Report (here) last night.
O'Brien tried hard to pin down Rudd on the issues. Action is urgently needed, yet the voting public is clamouring for an easy way out on petrol prices. They don't want more pain instigated by climate change action.
Rudd came out of the election with a sizable mandate, particularly in terms of his popularity level, which has remained high. That political capital can be used to invest in longterm vision, yet to date, Rudd has largely avoided the harder calls.
However, he came to the party last night: for every point pressed by O'Brien, he showed he was going to do the hard yards. And coming out of the Howard era, where misleading and lying was the order of the day, Rudd has shown himself to be scrupulously honest.
This is the best hope so far that Australia will indeed act on climate change.
(my take is that the only viable course is to trade carbon emissions, cap the totals, and then reduce allocations over time - focusing on the biggest emitters first. This will force industry adjustments; they don't have to be that painful if the industries know what's coming, so it needs to be announced soon.)
Postscript: The report is out now - available here. The language is strong and impressive, about the need to act. Emission trading is, of course, a central plank. Rudd has hitched his future on this report, and it looks good.
O'Brien tried hard to pin down Rudd on the issues. Action is urgently needed, yet the voting public is clamouring for an easy way out on petrol prices. They don't want more pain instigated by climate change action.
Rudd came out of the election with a sizable mandate, particularly in terms of his popularity level, which has remained high. That political capital can be used to invest in longterm vision, yet to date, Rudd has largely avoided the harder calls.
However, he came to the party last night: for every point pressed by O'Brien, he showed he was going to do the hard yards. And coming out of the Howard era, where misleading and lying was the order of the day, Rudd has shown himself to be scrupulously honest.
This is the best hope so far that Australia will indeed act on climate change.
(my take is that the only viable course is to trade carbon emissions, cap the totals, and then reduce allocations over time - focusing on the biggest emitters first. This will force industry adjustments; they don't have to be that painful if the industries know what's coming, so it needs to be announced soon.)
Postscript: The report is out now - available here. The language is strong and impressive, about the need to act. Emission trading is, of course, a central plank. Rudd has hitched his future on this report, and it looks good.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Politics: Australia's election analysed
Some new analysis of last year's federal election has given some interesting insights into the reasons for the change of government.
A team from ANU (Australian National University) conducted the Australian Election Study, reckoned by the Herald to be the most definitive exit poll, and one that seems to have been conducted for some years. It was a postal survey of 1873 voters.
Voter decisions are based on a rather disparate set of reasons, most of which to my mind are far more about bread and circuses than fundamental values or ethics. Sometimes on issues of the day, but like interest rates, they are often issues for which there's little difference between the two sides. Often, too, there is is too much presidential emphasis on the personality of the leaders, which doesn't per se speak to the basic value differences between the ALP and the Coalition. All this seems to result in rather an amount of cognitive dissonance, not just for the aggregate of voters, but for individuals.
Here's some of the findings.
Industrial Relations
This was the most important issue in voting decisions: 70% said it had been important in their decision-making. Of those, 62% disapproved of the Coalitions WorkChoices legislation. Interestingly, 17% of those who disapproved of WorkChoices actually voted for the Coalition.
Global Warming
This was the second-biggest issue. 67% of voters wanted the Kyoto protocol ratified (ALP policy); 8% said no (Coalition policy), while the remainder had some ambivalence. Of those supporting ratification, 30% voted for the Coalition.
Interest Rates
This is an issue for which effective difference between the two sides has eroded over time, as ALP policy has become more economically rationalist, and interest rates are now independently set purely on the basis of their effect on inflation. There remains a marginal difference between the two - the ALP's social justice bent would result in slightly higher rates - but this is not something that most voters could tell if it were possible to subject them to a double blind test. For this reason, where half of the electorate was concerned about interest rates, 47% of those voted ALP, while 42% voted Coalition - simply an attack on the incumbent's record of rate rises.
Prime Ministers present and past
Leadership
Support for Howard was quite divided, with 49% liking him and 41% disliking him. Rudd had 63% approval, with a nett approval rating of 43 points, compared with Howard's eight points. Rudd's rating was the highest in the 20 years of the survey; Howard's rating was his personal lowest in that time. By contrast, Costello's nett rating was -18, which might suggest a late change in leadership would not have made any difference. However there was no indication how much of a vote-changer this point was. On the other hand, when Keating lost the 1996 election, his nett approval was -15, not as bad as Costello's.
The Election Campaign
The Coalition opted for an extended campaign, which seems to be somewhat typical for a government on its way out. Yet 70% of the electorate had already decided before the campaign; those who made up their mind in the heat of the campaign were pretty evenly split.
Battlers
In 1996, John Howard made a perverse - and successful - pitch for the "battlers", effectively those less-well-off workers. This time around, 51% of unskilled and semi-skilled workers voted for the ALP, and 37% for the Coalition, effectively the reverse of 1996's result. If you roll in One Nation's temporary electoral success, the "battler" vote had stayed fairly consistently with the Coalition over their four election victories - until this time around. It's plausible that these voters were more convinced by the ACTU's "Your Rights At Work" campaign over the year leading up to the election, rather than the Coalition's scare ads about "union heavies" in the workplace and "union bosses" in the ALP front bench. It was, after all, rather brash of the Coalition to try to tell these people what was happening in their own workplace.
A team from ANU (Australian National University) conducted the Australian Election Study, reckoned by the Herald to be the most definitive exit poll, and one that seems to have been conducted for some years. It was a postal survey of 1873 voters.
Voter decisions are based on a rather disparate set of reasons, most of which to my mind are far more about bread and circuses than fundamental values or ethics. Sometimes on issues of the day, but like interest rates, they are often issues for which there's little difference between the two sides. Often, too, there is is too much presidential emphasis on the personality of the leaders, which doesn't per se speak to the basic value differences between the ALP and the Coalition. All this seems to result in rather an amount of cognitive dissonance, not just for the aggregate of voters, but for individuals.
Here's some of the findings.
Industrial Relations
This was the most important issue in voting decisions: 70% said it had been important in their decision-making. Of those, 62% disapproved of the Coalitions WorkChoices legislation. Interestingly, 17% of those who disapproved of WorkChoices actually voted for the Coalition.
Global Warming
This was the second-biggest issue. 67% of voters wanted the Kyoto protocol ratified (ALP policy); 8% said no (Coalition policy), while the remainder had some ambivalence. Of those supporting ratification, 30% voted for the Coalition.
Interest Rates
This is an issue for which effective difference between the two sides has eroded over time, as ALP policy has become more economically rationalist, and interest rates are now independently set purely on the basis of their effect on inflation. There remains a marginal difference between the two - the ALP's social justice bent would result in slightly higher rates - but this is not something that most voters could tell if it were possible to subject them to a double blind test. For this reason, where half of the electorate was concerned about interest rates, 47% of those voted ALP, while 42% voted Coalition - simply an attack on the incumbent's record of rate rises.
Prime Ministers present and pastLeadership
Support for Howard was quite divided, with 49% liking him and 41% disliking him. Rudd had 63% approval, with a nett approval rating of 43 points, compared with Howard's eight points. Rudd's rating was the highest in the 20 years of the survey; Howard's rating was his personal lowest in that time. By contrast, Costello's nett rating was -18, which might suggest a late change in leadership would not have made any difference. However there was no indication how much of a vote-changer this point was. On the other hand, when Keating lost the 1996 election, his nett approval was -15, not as bad as Costello's.
The Election Campaign
The Coalition opted for an extended campaign, which seems to be somewhat typical for a government on its way out. Yet 70% of the electorate had already decided before the campaign; those who made up their mind in the heat of the campaign were pretty evenly split.
Battlers
In 1996, John Howard made a perverse - and successful - pitch for the "battlers", effectively those less-well-off workers. This time around, 51% of unskilled and semi-skilled workers voted for the ALP, and 37% for the Coalition, effectively the reverse of 1996's result. If you roll in One Nation's temporary electoral success, the "battler" vote had stayed fairly consistently with the Coalition over their four election victories - until this time around. It's plausible that these voters were more convinced by the ACTU's "Your Rights At Work" campaign over the year leading up to the election, rather than the Coalition's scare ads about "union heavies" in the workplace and "union bosses" in the ALP front bench. It was, after all, rather brash of the Coalition to try to tell these people what was happening in their own workplace.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
New ethics in Australian government?
It's easy to postulate that there's a clear pattern to the practical ethics of a government: when newly incumbent, it's easy to create distance with the previous administration by instituting a raft of new measures that speak to the ethics of rule. Later, as the government finds itself somewhat hamstrung by its own rules, it relaxes those standards. By the time the government is ready to be turfed out, it can be seen as positively venal, and an easy target for the next administration.
In 1996, although I don't recall any strong lapse in ethics of the Keating government, incomer John Howard promulgated a Ministerial Code of Conduct, only to relax it after seven (!) Ministers (Jull, Sharp, etc) were obliged to resign due to undeclared conflicts of interest and misuse of allowances. Peter McGuaran, for one, made it back to the cabinet.
Kevin Rudd sounds like a very principled man. He is sticking to a number of electoral promises that he'd probably rather not keep (eg tax cuts), and that others would prefer he didn't keep (eg retaining superlatively generous funding for a number of private schools as instigated by Howard).
His appointment of Harry Jenkins as Speaker of the House of Representatives made a stark departure from the previous office-holder, the partisan David Hawker. It could even be said that Rudd didn't know what he was in for: Jenkins has been particularly rigorous in keeping his own government in line (for example, requiring Ministers to answer the actual question that was asked of them!). Against that argument is the fact that Jenkins was Deputy Speaker in the last Keating government.
It remains that Rudd is highly principled. An article in today's Herald gives some insight into the man, which speaks of a significant break from the previous Prime Minister, and not just due to this "early days" syndrome.
And his government is also set to sign the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture, which Howard balked at, probably because the consequent laws may apply to "Australian officials overseas who co-operate with foreign intelligence agencies known to engage in torture".
I still have strong reservations about Rudd's ability to handle the reins of government. Of overriding importance is the setting of carbon emission caps as soon as possible - providing industry with clarity and leadership. And the commitments to tax cuts and those special private schools were wrong to make in the first place, campaign or no*.
Yet... it's early days.
Postscript 3-March: I've heard rumours from high-level public servants (across departments)that Rudd has been very difficult to get to commit to decisions. This would jibe with his apparent propensity to set up committees on a welter of issues. But it doesn't make sense in the context that it's his ministers that should be making the specific departmental decisions. One example given was in relation to the budget - yet I wouldn't be surprised if these ones take time to sort out. Still, something to watch out for.
*In mitigation is some analysis on the decreased commitment over time of the Australian public to a particular side of politics (mentioned last year). I would expect this to lead to an increased "what's in it for me" vote, which would make it hard to opt out of a tax cut auction at election time.
In 1996, although I don't recall any strong lapse in ethics of the Keating government, incomer John Howard promulgated a Ministerial Code of Conduct, only to relax it after seven (!) Ministers (Jull, Sharp, etc) were obliged to resign due to undeclared conflicts of interest and misuse of allowances. Peter McGuaran, for one, made it back to the cabinet.
Kevin Rudd sounds like a very principled man. He is sticking to a number of electoral promises that he'd probably rather not keep (eg tax cuts), and that others would prefer he didn't keep (eg retaining superlatively generous funding for a number of private schools as instigated by Howard).
His appointment of Harry Jenkins as Speaker of the House of Representatives made a stark departure from the previous office-holder, the partisan David Hawker. It could even be said that Rudd didn't know what he was in for: Jenkins has been particularly rigorous in keeping his own government in line (for example, requiring Ministers to answer the actual question that was asked of them!). Against that argument is the fact that Jenkins was Deputy Speaker in the last Keating government.
It remains that Rudd is highly principled. An article in today's Herald gives some insight into the man, which speaks of a significant break from the previous Prime Minister, and not just due to this "early days" syndrome.
And his government is also set to sign the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture, which Howard balked at, probably because the consequent laws may apply to "Australian officials overseas who co-operate with foreign intelligence agencies known to engage in torture".
I still have strong reservations about Rudd's ability to handle the reins of government. Of overriding importance is the setting of carbon emission caps as soon as possible - providing industry with clarity and leadership. And the commitments to tax cuts and those special private schools were wrong to make in the first place, campaign or no*.
Yet... it's early days.
Postscript 3-March: I've heard rumours from high-level public servants (across departments)that Rudd has been very difficult to get to commit to decisions. This would jibe with his apparent propensity to set up committees on a welter of issues. But it doesn't make sense in the context that it's his ministers that should be making the specific departmental decisions. One example given was in relation to the budget - yet I wouldn't be surprised if these ones take time to sort out. Still, something to watch out for.
*In mitigation is some analysis on the decreased commitment over time of the Australian public to a particular side of politics (mentioned last year). I would expect this to lead to an increased "what's in it for me" vote, which would make it hard to opt out of a tax cut auction at election time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)