I am confused, I do not understand

Post by: Catching up

I am a little confused about Australian politics today. The following is what I understand the situation to be.

We have a legit elected minority government that on all accounts is performing well. We have a strong economy, employment, trade balance and stable interest rates.

There are problems with a two or multiple speed economy. I believe the proposed tax on miners is important in bringing some balance to the economy.

We do have a problem with lack of confidence in the economy. I wonder how much of this lack of confidence can be sheeted home to the negative and down talking of the economy of the leader of the Opposition. There are concerns of what is occurring overseas, in Europe. The Asian region which we are a part of is still seen as going strong.

This government is not in coalition but has the support of the Greens and three independents. The Greens and Independents have given assurance not to support censure motions of the PM unless circumstances change dramatically.

The PM has gained the support of the Greens and Independents to bring in certain legalisation.

Two other independents are not aligned to either party. These two have given support to both the government and the Opposition. One, Mr. Katter has not voted on half of the divisions.

The government has bought down and it has been passed, a budget that most say meets the needs of Australia. There has been no dissent in getting the budget through parliament. It has been passed with no dissent and no opposition.

The Government has had over one hundred and sixty bills passed, with no amendments that they did not agree to.

The Opposition has shown little interest in the activities in parliament, except for the second half of QT where they regularly seek the suspension of Standing Orders to either censure the PM or move motions against her.

This gives Mr. Abbott the chance to speak unrestrained for I believe twenty minutes. The same topic is often in the MPI that the Opposition raises after QT. The quality of questions that the Opposition ask, show little planning and are generally of poor quality. It is as if Mr. Abbott was not interested in anything but the opportunity to perform his dramatics each day. This behaviour of Mr. Abbott has not been used by previous Opposition Leaders of either colour.

The government on taking office set up as a part of it agreement with the Greens and Independents a body to create an appropriate mechanism to deal with climate change. The result of this body is proposed legalisation that has been given thumbs up by the experts in this country and overseas.

The Government and the Opposition agree on the target for lowering carbon emission. The Government and the Opposition agree that the issue needs to be addressed. What is in dispute is the way it should be done.

The Government has proposed a cap and trade scheme that will begin with a fixed price moving to a cap and trade scheme. This is in line with the original Garnaut report. The Government has rejected a carbon tax as a method of dealing with carbon emission.

Five hundred of the countries heaviest carbon emission companies will be liable for to pay for the pollutant they emit.

The money from this carbon pricing will be used to assist the greater numbers of the public and industries affected by the pollutant companies passing on the cost they incur. Money will also be used assist industry to transfer to clean energy.

The Opposition has put forwarded what they call Direct Action. Money will be paid to selected select companies that emit carbon. The money to pay for this will come from the present taxation pool. The Opposition claims that saving can be found for this as well as rescinding the miners levy among other Labor schemes they also intend to rescind. The Opposition will also from this same pool of money, pay for the extensive planting of trees and soil sequestration.

There is little or no support for Direct Action from economists or scientists, here or overseas. It is said that the Opposition would have to plant enough trees that would cover Tasmania three times.

Soil sequestration is still in the research stage and what it will cost, if feasible is unknown. The Opposition as far as I can make out is supporting coal far into the future. The scientific basis for being able to burn coal cleanly is also unknown.

The Opposition leader has been unable to name one expert to support his scheme.

There appears still to be agreement in the community that carbon emission needs to be addressed. Both the Government and the Opposition is in agreement on this point.

It appears if we listen to what the public is saying, they will not support the PM as she lied. They are saying if what we read is to believe, they will not even listen to the PM. The problem to them is that the PM promised not to bring in a Carbon Tax. The PM has not proposed a carbon tax. The PM is proposing a cap and trade like scheme.

I have not read in the media of anyone who support Direct Action.

The confusion I have is that people want carbon emission addressed. They do not support the Opposition scheme. They are refusing to listen to the PM. The scheme the PM is proposing is being given credit by experts, here and overseas.

To add to the confusion is the misinformation that is being spread with very few in the media challenging what amount to lies.

It is true that there has not been universal agreement on a carbon pricing mechanism. It is also true that the rest of the world has agreed to lower their emissions. It is also true that most countries are taking steps to bring down emissions. Many countries, including numerous states in the USA already have similar schemes. What is true that there is no universal agreement to any particular scheme.

It is false that we are leading the world. I believe we are in about the middle. Some are doing more, some are doing less.

Mr. Bolt’s argument that no scheme will bring down the temperature is true. The problem is with Mr. Bolt’s assertion, is we are not attempting to bring down the temperature, as that is impossible to do.

Once the carbon and other pollutants are in the atmosphere, they are there for hundreds of years. What we are attempting to do, is to prevent increasing more carbon and other pollutants being released into the atmosphere. It is important that we act quickly. The later we leave it, the harder it will be on the economy and on the people.

The Opposition is saying that it is planned for coal powered electricity plants to only supply ten per cent of electricity. What he is glossing over, that this is to occur in 2050, nearly forty years away. I am sure most of the coal powered plants will be long redundant by that time and the miners employed in much cleaner and safer jobs.

There is also the possibility that the way to burn coal clean might be found. Today there are already being built, aluminium mills that use more than half the power of today mills, do not produce the same pollutants, and are cheaper to build and run. I am sure these will quickly replace the present aluminium foundries, whether we bring in carbon pricing mechanism or not. What the Opposition ignores that technology is changing every day. He is presenting a future where no change has occurred.

Coles are looking at putting what they call night blinds into their shops and turning off the lights while closed. I suggest they might save more power by ditching the acres of open refrigeration they have. The alternative is to store the frozen goods is freezer or cool rooms. They can limit the number of display units, which I believe use the power and pay people to top them up as needed. Maybe we need to move away from the giant shopping centres that require mass amounts of lighting and air-conditioning. That is also going to happen without a price on carbon as we move to the net to do our shopping. Maybe our groceries will be a little cheaper.

The only conclusion I can reach in regard of Australian politics today is:-

Australians are willing to dump on the government and the country because one alleged lie.

Australians are willing not to listen to the PM.

Australians are willing to take the Opposition on trust, in spite of him having very little to offer.

They are willing to take on trust, the Opposition magic pudding economics, or maybe the Opposition has been given powers similar to the loaves and fishes miracle. It is obviously he has the power to extend money further than anyone else on this earth.

Australians are not interested in the cuts that the Opposition would have to make to put their plans into operation.

Australians do not care about policy. They are willing to accept pragmatism against policy, whether it is good for the country or not.

They are willing to put their personal dislike of the PM above the policies that are being proposed.

Australians do not care what the Opposition Leader is proposing. They are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.

To conclude, I do not understand why people are willing to put their own future at stake because they believe their sensibilities have been injured. Have Australians become too lazy or disinterested, that they refuse to take the time or effort to listen for themselves and accept unquestioning much of what is written and said in the media.