Even Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott might want to wind down a bit on their competing carbon pricing campaigns, but we certainly think the general public need a break. Therefore, this will be the first and only mention in The Punch this week of the climate change contest. Hereafter for the week The Punch will give our readers a respite from what increasingly is becoming a circular debate. But first, this is where we leave the protagonists in that debate.
It was refreshing last Sunday week when a Prime Minister was interviewed on television.
The interview was with John Howard on Insiders. Of course, he isn’t actually PM, not even an MP, after being tossed out of both jobs at the 2007 election.
But he sounded like one with answers rather than slogans, confidence rather than diffidence, and a resonance of competence across a number of issues.
What he said could be challenged because it was self - and Liberal Party - serving. But it has been a long time since we heard someone speak with the authority of a national leader, or an alternative leader, even if they were not one.
The application of leadership has been swallowed up by the dominance of the debate over fighting global warming.
Julia Gillard has the real job of Prime Minister, which is infinitely tougher than being a former PM protecting a political record. But she struggles to sound prime ministerial.
Carbon pricing has grown to such an all-commanding issue Ms Gillard has been hostage to it in the climate change bunker, forced to concentrate almost exclusively on defending this single policy.
The Government is active in other areas, but most of its energy is being directed to the relatively exotic matter of managing carbon pollution.
Ms Gillard so far has committed herself to staying in the bunker for possibly the next six to 12 months, maybe longer.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has the same problem but in the other direction. He sounds more like a single issue activist than an alternative Prime Minister.
He is constantly on the offensive, perpetually mobilising troops and resources to attack carbon pricing in all its forms and manifestations and destinations.
There is no room for other things Opposition Leaders have to do, such as present the policy structure and detail of an alternative government. Mr Abbott is skittish when it comes to policy.
There is bipartisanship on the basic facts - human-produced carbon emissions are worsening global warming and should be cut back. This should just be a contest between the responses, the Government’s carbon pricing plan and the Opposition’s Direct Action option.
But it’s not, for two central reasons. One is that many voters do not trust Ms Gillard after she said before the 2010 election that a carbon tax would not be introduced by a re-elected government. They dislike her more than they dislike carbon pricing.
The hung Parliament and the need to negotiate minority government changed the circumstances and Ms Gillard did not bother to explain the switch, perhaps thinking it would disappear or be rated much lower than the policy debate.
It was a case of extraordinary neglect of a clearly-flagged political problem.
The Government hopes the discounted faith in the Prime Minister will ease as she goes out on the track to give personal assurances, and when the carbon pricing scheme starts and she is seen to deliver to families promised protections from price rises.
Not all senior Labor figures are convinced this will happen but have no alternative. And they also are noting the second problem, the association with the Greens.
The Government is not in coalition with the Greens as some argue, but they are close enough for comedians such as Lord Monckton to refer to “Prime Minister Brown”.
Out in the suburbs, whether they are in western Sydney or among the coal areas, the Greens are not readily considered to be allies, and the Labor Party is being devalued by the closeness with the party of Bob Brown.
Tony Abbott has problems, too, starting with Tony Abbott. The Opposition Leader knows what he doesn’t like but is vague about what he likes, and appears to contradict himself frequently.
The Opposition’s Direct Action is a general outline of a policy, not a substantial package, and there are valid questions about it which Mr Abbott will be pressed to answer.
Here’s just one. Mr Abbott says that if carbon pricing legislation was passed in the next few months, when he won government in two years time, he would tear up the plan.
That would mean companies which have paid for pollution permits would be entitled to ask for their money back. Having funded that process, the Abbott government would then invoke Direct Action which would require it to pay those same companies to reduce pollution.
This would involve huge amounts of taxpayers’ money and no one has explained where it would come from.
Increasingly Mr Abbott’s attack will be interrupted as he is put on the defensive over his own policy.
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
RT @bencubby: This Estonian chap is a bit of a superstar (has anyone ever said that before?) #SBSeurovision
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it
An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…
Our special forces don’t always need special treatment
We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…
A good holiday is about unrest, not rest
Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…
Nosebleed Section
choice ringside rantings
From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
Michael S says:
"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone
Change Up! says:
I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]Gentle jabs to the ribs
They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more
Most commented