Prev
Next

Dinner with Malcolm, and how the Libs can regroup

Dan Cass

by Dan Cass

26 May 12:35pm

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Climate Change, Environment, Liberal Leadership, Liberal Party, Malcolm Fraser, Peak Oil

35 comments

Last July I had dinner with Malcolm Fraser and a small group in the Karagheusian Room in University House at the University of Melbourne. The dinner was in honour of my brother in law Gerry Simpson, who had just delivered his Inaugural Professorial Lecture, entitled “War Crimes Trials, Solemnity and the Problem of Evil”.

A man at the crossroads: Malcolm Fraser in 1978

The evening displayed symbols of ancient, privileged University traditions that clash with contemporary political life. Waiters served us pre-Master Chef dishes on good china, surrounded by walnut antique furniture from Paris and a Brueghel III oil painting peered down on us through the centuries. Mr Fraser was relaxed and comfortable.

Our conversations turned to climate change, of course. I said I thought the legal profession should do more to litigate against polluters and regulators. I understand that there is no climate law under which to run cases, but if the planet is burning, that is enough of a smoking gun for this bush lawyer.

Mr Fraser has considered opinions on climate change and at one point asked, rhetorically, why the environmental movement leadership is so close to the Federal Government, despite its weak climate policies. (This was back when PM Kevin Rudd still stood by his ETS).

Mr Fraser pointed to the feebleness of one particular environment group, but his point was really a general one; you cannot expect to push a government to make major reforms if you keep endorsing its compromises. Everyone nodded in agreement, but I felt it was a sentiment as out of step with these weak, Twittery times as the seventeenth century Flemish painting above the dining table.

After the Commonwealth car had collected Mr Fraser there was the debrief. His health seemed well, it was said. His driver is a good man. But why oh why is Malcolm Fraser still in the Liberal Party?

The Opposition’s recent Budget disarray spoke volumes in answer to this question. The light weight budget reply speech by Mr Abbott, the evasive National Press Club address by Mr Hockey and the half-answers by Mr Robb were not merely a string of misjudgements and mishaps.

There is no bigger mark of the intellectual failure of modern liberals and conservatives that their weak, pointless point-scoring against climate science. They could be writing a new vision of their values, which relates to reality of the contemporary world, but they are waging a losing war against science. Since science does not agree with political convenience, they want science to change! This is conservative in the stupidest sense of the word.

The Liberals have so little intellectual credibility left, with the departure of Mr Fraser, that they should admit defeat and re-invent. Ecology offers them a profound, dynamic starting point for articulating an alternative.

The contemporary ALP has no particular affinity with ecology, which means the Coalition can define an economic approach to “the greatest moral challenge of our time”, although not without a formidable challenger.  As Ross Gittins writes, “The most thought-provoking comment I’ve seen on the budget came from Senator Christine Milne of the Greens.”. There is no reason that the conservative parties could not define a liberal-conservative version of ecologically rational economics, in opposition to the left-progressive version of the Greens.

Here are the 3 obvious policy opportunities for the Opposition:

Energy Efficiency is the most economically rational way to cut emissions. The harvesting of wasted energy is actually so efficient in economic terms that these ‘nega-watts’ are a profitable new resource worth trillions of dollars over the next decade. This probably sounds to many in the Liberal and National parties like a deep green fantasy but it is the basis of the emerging scenario for Business As Usual.

Giles Parkinson writes that the global energy sector is ‘dull, regulated, protected and predictable’ and that it deserves to be crushed by the firms with EE ambitions. Who are these radical companies that threaten to bury old outfits like Victoria’s antediluvian Hazelwood power station? GE, Google & Intel.

Clean energy is profitable business in 2010, not a cottage industry funded by those scary inner city Latte-lovers. Michael Liebreich, chief executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance said recently: “We stick to our forecast that 2010 will see record overall new investment in clean energy.” Not much of this investment will be made in Australia while the Government-in-waiting refuses to grow out of its quarry mentality.

Carbon costs are going up globally, independently of the Copenhagen UNFCCC fiasco. Part of this rise comes from carbon prices imposed by Governments and the rest comes from a diverse range of commercial and civic factors that impose de facto prices on greenhouse pollution: technical standards, ExIm policies, consumer preferences, CleanTech competition, brand-bashing campaigns, climate litigation and ‘Acts of God’, such as the BP oil spill. It is no wonder that Joe Hockey admits Australia will put a price on carbon eventually.

Just over the horizon of mainstream economic commentary is ecological scarcity, which scares Tony Abbott so profoundly. Peak Oil is happening now [http://www.grist.org/article/2010-05-19-peak-oil-production-coming-much-sooner-than-expected/ ]and Curtin University’s Professor Peter Newman blames the GFC on it. The US’s current Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) puts Peak Oil and climate change firmly within the strategic planning framework for the army, air force and navy.

A strong Liberal thinker would have the courage to face Peak Coal, also. I do not have great confidence that there is anyone with the strength, confidence and backing in the party that would be required. But I think that anyone who did want to bring the Liberals into the new Millennium might find some value looking back to the past for inspiration. I wonder if Mr Fraser might be happy to provide some useful advice?

Most commented

35 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Sherlock says:

      01:11pm | 26/05/10

      Why are you criticising the opposition? They have an environmental policy that includes immediate action. Now you may wish to debate the effectiveness of this policy and I’m sure you would raise some valid points but you have to concede they do actually have an environmental policy.

      Now what about the actual government? Do they have a policy? To me it seems to be that we’ll sit on our hands for a couple more years and if by some chance someone else does something then we’ll have a bit of a think and see if we’ll do that to.

      Doesn’t that sum up Labor’s current climate change strategy? You’ll have to forgive me if I happen to think that you should be far more concerned with that rather than what the Libs are going to do if they just happen to score, what most pundits are still saying, would be an unlikely victory at the next election.

      Oh hang on. That would require you to actually return to live in the real world where making ridiculous statements like “The Liberals have so little intellectual credibility left, with the departure of Mr Fraser, that they should admit defeat and re-invent” just make you look foolish.

      Fraser was such a poor PM that even a supposed one eyed conservative fanatic such as myself couldn’t wait to vote Labor purely to get rid of him. (somehow after reading what you’ve written here I doubt if you’ve ever voted for the Libs)  Yet somehow he’s supposed to give the Liberals intellectual credibility? Pull the other one.

      If the Libs ever want to suddenly move to the left of the political spectrum they might call upon you for advice. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting though.

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      06:47pm | 26/05/10

      You can’t say that the Liberals have a policy for action now and the government doesn’t -  the government is acting now on initiatives to cut carbon emissions, many of which the Liberals say they will cut.

      The Liberals’ proposals are either half baked or wimpy - along the lines of ‘if you’d like to cut your carbon emissions, go ahead, we won’t stop you’, rather than either providing sticks or carrots.

      Labor is still committed to an ETS, still committed to a 5% minimum cut, and has vamped up its RET targets to compensate for the delay in delivering the ETS.

      Whatever your opinion of the success or otherwise of the insulation program, it will cut emissions for over a million homes on an ongoing basis. There’s still money for solar out there, and the program which was axed achieved far more than it originally aimed for.

      So it’s certainly not sitting on its hands and it definitely has a clear climate change policy.

    • Joan says:

      07:25pm | 26/05/10

      `Why are you criticising the opposition? ` That`s cos only Liberals turned turned up to a university dinner - Rudd and Co were probably having a nosh up of fairy sandwichis at some kindie answering questions about Cranky Bear

    • AdamC says:

      01:13pm | 26/05/10

      Thanks Dan, I can’t stress enough how valuable it is for the Liberal Party to receive advice from green activists who hate them. As the old saying goes, you receive the best advice is from those who dearly wish you to fail miserably. And you so accurately diagnose a need for the Coalition to ‘regroup’ – clearly a necessity given that is finally enjoying some traction with the electorate.

      But you know, you don’t really answer the question, the one about why environmental groups seem happy to die in a trench for a government whose green credentials are increasingly non-existent. Mind you, I guess the new mining tax should have the effect of reducing mine production and shaving a few basis points off Australia’s emissions. You gotta stay positive, I suppose.

      And you’ve given this ‘bush lawyer’ an idea. I am going to sue Kevin Rudd and his frontbench for incompetence. Sure, there’s no law against governments being shocking at everything, but there probably should be and, if we have learned one thing, it is that litigation solves just about everything.

      Reply

    • H of SA says:

      03:09pm | 26/05/10

      Try this Adam:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_think

      Check out the symptoms, one could suggest the coalition is already suffering from them:

      To make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms indicative of groupthink (1977).

      Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
      Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.
      Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
      Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
      Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”.
      Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
      Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
      Mind guards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
      Groupthink, resulting from the symptoms listed above, results in defective decision making. That is, consensus-driven decisions are the result of the following practices of groupthinking[5]

      Incomplete survey of alternatives
      Incomplete survey of objectives
      Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
      Failure to reevaluate previously rejected alternatives
      Poor information search
      Selection bias in collecting information
      Failure to work out contingency plans.

      Do you want your party to look like that? Because if won’t listen to its enemies..it will. I thought it was suppossed to be a “broad church”

    • steve says:

      01:31pm | 26/05/10

      At least the Libs have got a Climate policy
      What did he call it Oh yes
      ” an act of policy and leadership cowardice” to do what labor has done

      Reply

    • Thomas G says:

      01:38pm | 26/05/10

      Dan just to enlighten you and others… The opposition’s budget reply is just that - simply a reply and comment on the budget that the government puts forward.  Always has been!

      There is no onus to propose an alternative budget or policy.  This should be left until a suitable time before an election.  The opposition for a start has no access to treasury!

      Your analysis should have been on Swan and his crazy budget that was focused on 3 years into the future NOT on the coming 12 months as is supposed to happen.

      By the way what direct action have you taken as an individual to really help the planet?  Plant trees, permaculture, low water gardens, etc etc? 

      I agree with Fraser - I can’t understand the green groups rusted-on attachment to the ALP.  Pulp mills, water, whales, uranium - the ALP has taken the non-green option every time. 

      It does make people wonder about the true politics of the ‘green’ groups and their preferences to the ALP no matter what the green credentials of the other candidates - as per the SA state election.

      ‘Green’ in many minds conjours up hard line socialist now.  Seems to politics first and mother earth a distant second.

      Reply

    • Sherlock says:

      02:22pm | 26/05/10

      As I’ve said before. The only people that want policy from the libs this far from an election are those that already know they’re voting Labor.

    • H of SA says:

      02:04pm | 26/05/10

      There was one Federal Liberal MP who gave a “don’t use my name but print it” story about how during the Howard years one Liberal MP who argued in the party room that a University Degree was more valuable than a vocational certificate was laughed down by his collegues.

      The MP describer the anti-intellectualism in the party room as “Rabid”. Those same MP’s are the frontbench of the party at the moment. Hence the “vote for us not because of our policies, but because of our kick ass attitude” approach at present.

      Reply

    • Sam says:

      05:18pm | 26/05/10

      Ah, you do realise that Tony Abbott is a Rhodes Scholar, don’t you?  Joe Hockey has an arts/law degree from the university of sydney, Julie Bishop has a Law degree and went to Harvard Business School, Scott Morrison has a Bachelor of Science with Honours.  Even Kevin Andrews has a Masters in Law.  Turnbull is a Rhodes Scholar as well.

      The notion that the Liberal party is anti-intellectual is absurd.  Especially compared with the equal oppourtunity, union hacks that get handed the safe Labor seats.  The only form of anti-intellectualism the Libs oppose is the type that preaches to people and believes that they know better than the poor peasants in the suburbs.

    • H of SA says:

      10:28am | 27/05/10

      Ah yes but having qualifications does not necessarily preclude one from being an anti-intellectual, you can hear that in speeches like “I went to uni and there was all this theory crap and critical thinking rather than any focus on the actual job……”

      I remember the under-funding of higher education under the Liberals. I remember the dismissal of the eminent Australians signatories to an anti-Iraq war letter as “arm chair critics”. I remember the attacks on education for educations sake (If it doesn’t get you a job what’s the point). The attack on universities as black armband breeding grounds of out of touch elites.

      Look for it again this week as the 20 leading economists and academics who approve the mining tax will be dismissed as “out of touch” by the likes of Abbott and Barnaby. It does not speak well of the Liberal party that they consistently attack their critics for being “elites”. I know what happens to my own mind when I go too long without stimulating ideas from people much much smarter than me – without challenge it grows dull. Without growth there is atrophy. I wonder what happends to a political party with a closed mind?

    • Helena Handcart says:

      10:46am | 27/05/10

      It’s Mungo Macallum’s anecdote, and it was George Brandis who was howled down for praising university education in the party room by the class of 96 MPs really did believe a TAFE hairdressing certificate was the equivalent of a degree.

      And Sam, yes we’re all well aware of the educational credentials of these people.  One irony that they benefit from them while their previous administration decreased funding to some of the very institutions you trumpet. Another that there must be some Jesuits kicking themselves - look at the examples of the outcomes of their schools on the Opposition front bench.  Can’t be good from a marketing perspective.

    • nic says:

      02:58pm | 26/05/10

      So Dan, what exactly was it that Fraser himself did in office that was so ‘liberal’? Given that he was involved in Australia’s sending troops to Vietnam, I’m amazed that a few anti-Liberal Party comments and that old leftist dog-whistle, racism, is enough for him to now become the darling of ‘progressives’. Oh, I forgot, in leftyland supporting climate change initiatives is the trump, rock-scissor-paper style, irrespective of what the man may think/ have done about other areas.

      Reply

    • Christian Real says:

      07:00pm | 26/05/10

      Nic
      I think that you will find it was Liberal Prime Minister Harold Holt that sent Australian troops to Vietnam, not Malcolm Fraser.

    • Imogene says:

      03:16pm | 26/05/10

      Well I can’ t say I am shocked, no matter what your opinion of former Liberal Prime minister Malcome Fraser. He did a great service to this country in the era he was Prime minister. To those knockers, Mr Fraser will long be remembered in Australian history when you have turned to dust and are forgotten. I don’t blame him at all, you have a Liberal Party who’s leader admits he tells lies, Julia Bishop, who gets on tv and says way to much about what ASIO and our other secret service agencies are doing. I saw both those interviews on tv and I was disgusted, Julia Bishop is a 54 year old woman and she should know better. I wish Mr Faser all the best and hope we see him on tv often along with Mr Hawke and other loved PM’s of the past. I congratulate him for showing us the party to vote for.

      Reply

    • kuke says:

      03:17pm | 26/05/10

      “At least the Libs have got a Climate policy” That it’s absolute crap? [Tonny Abbott] Or that their policy is “bullshit”? [Turnbull].

      This comment on another blog summed it up well:

      “The political scene in Australia has descended to the level of farce. Neither major party has any credibility and, politically, Australia appears to be a rudderless ship without a captain.

      Australian citizens are bemused, confused and some, like me, are actually alarmed. Who wouldn’t be when people like Joyce and Fielding and Garret, etc, are in our Parliament.” [And they didn’t even mention Tuckey].

      Reply

    • Pete says:

      04:18pm | 26/05/10

      The political scene in Australia at the moment is a disgrace and yes quite scary. Neither party deserve to be in office, they are both a huge risk. It’s very sad,very disappointing and very alarming!

    • Dan Cass says:

      10:08pm | 26/05/10

      Satirists and cartoonists are becoming the most useful commentators to follow…so ‘farce’ is a good description of the situation.

    • nosthow says:

      03:18pm | 26/05/10

      Things are rotten in the state of Denmark when an ex Liberal PM quits the Liberal Party - laughable. A huge slap in the face for Abbott and the nutter right wing sections that have taken over the Liberal Party. To oblivion at the election !

      Reply

    • John says:

      01:41pm | 27/05/10

      Yes, and the Left is just as nutty in the same way. A curse on their both houses!

    • sweet chocolate says:

      01:41am | 13/07/10

      The Liberals need to regroup! Bring back the moderates, the progressive and enlightened ones. Bring back Turnbull (gutsy), Hockey (integrity), Fraser (compassion/justice), etal. There are heaps of educated, fair-minded, modern voters like me, my family and friends who are dying to vote the Liberals but can’t do so under the current extreme left Liberals

    • neil says:

      03:34pm | 26/05/10

      It’s strange how the descriptions used for the lib’s have become so skewed. They are no longer a liberal party they are a right wing party, they are not conservatives, there was nothing conservative about work choices, in fact it was quite radical. Rudd loves to brand them “Neo-Liberal” which is actually a better fit with Labor.

      Liberal actually means left wing, conservative means not following a set ideology but facilitating natural change driven by the will of the people. The Liberal Party is neither.

      Reply

    • TwistedEar says:

      02:53pm | 27/05/10

      Neil, *bzzzzt* wrong.

      Stop getting your buzzwords and definitions from the US. The Liberal part are Neo-Liberals, which is mistakenly called neo-conservatism in the States. This tag means a radical departure in ECONOMIC policies, and looking for ways to push the boundaries in how the world’s economies interact. You are refering to liberalism in a social sense, which is what Labor tries to sell itself as, but falls short. Maybe they could fit under a libertarian banner, but their ideals of big government controlling everything is actually not progressive (for all thier grandstandings), but a regression to immediate post-anarchic days of warlords.

      The Liberal party is conservative socially, and a neo-liberal economic party (hence their name).

      And Malcolm Fraser has been the Liberal’s private shame for decades - the party respected him for what he did, but felt he had gone insane over his life, embracing the most ridiculous propositions. (Some argue it was after the affair where he ‘lost’ his pants).

    • Crystal says:

      05:15pm | 26/05/10

      Did you have to pay to attend the dinner and gain access?

      I await the undecover pictures/video of your $$ being handed over to a slightly drunk and somewhat shady Liberal.

      And of course await the moral outrage from the public about this appalling situation.

      Reply

    • Dan Cass says:

      10:10pm | 26/05/10

      I think you have just defamed me but what you are saying is so bizarre and stupid, maybe you are being ironic?

    • Peter says:

      07:53pm | 26/05/10

      “Liberal actually means left wing” - only a complete idiot could possibly write that, or one who was enthralled by US culture.

      In fact, the 19th Century Liberals were the great free-marketeers of history, all those mills, mines and missionaries!

      Reply

    • Dan Cass says:

      10:12pm | 26/05/10

      If you watch enough Fox news then yes, Liberal = Socialist = Nazi = Obama = Malcolm Fraser…..

      Thanks for trying to keep the conversation in the realm of reality!

    • Daniel says:

      09:28pm | 26/05/10

      Look I think nearly all the Liberals gave away Malcolm Turnbull years ago. He was too compassionate and forward thinking for them. I remember Howard knocking the guy years ago.

      Reply

    • Delphic Oracle says:

      09:56pm | 26/05/10

      Your comment:When will you have dionner with the other Malcolm?

      Reply

    • vjiipw says:

      05:44pm | 27/05/10

      Dan why are you censoring so many comments?

      Reply

    • Joe says:

      04:12am | 28/05/10

      I thought you were talking about Turnbul at first. He should also quit the Libs as he is too left wing.

      Why would the Libs try and out green the left? Last year’s ETS debate showed how Rudd and Labor ETS policy (which extreme greens said realy was weak as) got lauded by the media and groups like getup as being green. While the Libs were painted as vandals when Howard said he would delay one year. And how many years has Rudd now delayed? 5 or 6 or something? This media/left wing hipocricy must first stop. Now which party actually has an environmental policy?

      Reply

    • David C says:

      02:32pm | 28/05/10

      It is not weak to point out issues with climate science. There are a whole host of uncertainties out there some quite significant. Anyone that doesnt acknowledge these uncertainties is being dishonest.
      The debate is finally moving on though and I believe this paper is a significant contributor

      http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/mackinderProgramme/theHartwellPaper/

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 25 May 13 12:12AM

@Bogans_Heroes @1fatbogan Ha! So Adelaide, so creepy. Gilles St, then Unley, then Pembroke.

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 13 10:23PM

@joekiely just beat the crus. No sweat eh?

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 13 10:03PM

@bolgo101 Stick ROG in front of the posts and you still have white knuckles

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 13 10:02PM

@joekiely how far out was he?

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter