Centre for Policy Development's Blog, page 118

Interested in helping out?

Are you interested in helping Australia develop a practical, positive policy agenda for an environmentally and socially sustainable economy?

We are always keen to hear from experienced professionals and interns who are interested in contributing to our work. If you have expertise or a strong interest in environmental economics, policy or law we'd love to hear from you.

So if sustainability is more than just your shopping bag, send us an email outlining your skills and interests – admin[at]cpd.org.au

Ben Eltham | Winter Starts Early For Abbott Coalition

First published in New Matilda here

As juicy tidbits about internal strife in the Coalition emerged this week, Malcolm Turnbull kept his cool. Julia Gillard would be well advised to do the same, writes Ben Eltham

Success in politics is a funny thing. Something of a zero-sum game, a politician's popularity can often cause suspicion or even hostility from her colleagues. Voters can be pretty fickle types too: many politicians have their moment of public affection but not many sustain it.

Few politicians know this as well as Tony Abbott, who is currently enjoying his most popular moment in two decades in politics. Despite this, Abbott remains a polarising leader. Conservative voters love him, but many in the electorate do not. On one recent measure, Abbott was less popular at the 2010 election than Paul Keating was on the occasion of his landslide defeat in 1996, as Mike Steketee observed recently after carefully reading the Australian Election Study.

Perhaps this is why Tony Abbott warned his colleagues in the Coalition party room that "success can be fleeting and ephemeral". Telling the assembled conservative parliamentarians that, despite a strong run of polls, the Opposition should not get ahead of itself, Abbott tried to caution his troops against "self-inflicted wounds".

But barely had the message gone out than a wound was self-inflicted.

The issue was a blunt email from Coalition Whip Warren Entsch, admonishing a number of MPs for missing votes on the floor of Parliament. Top of the list was none other than Malcolm Turnbull.

There is no doubt that Turnbull remains a source of considerable tension in the Liberal Party. The mercurial former leader does not appear to be overly enjoying the success of the man who replaced him, and has made no effort in recent weeks to hide his scorn for the Coalition's so-called "direct action" climate change policy. It doesn't help that voters have consistently preferred Turnbull to Abbott as prime minister, even as the Coalition maintains an election-winning lead over the Government in the opinion polls.

This inherently unstable situation was aggravated by a Lateline interview last week in which Turnbull allowed the ABC's Tony Jones to paint him into a corner over his support for Greg Hunt and Tony Abbott's climate change policy, openly admitting some of the policy's less attractive features.

"It is what it is," he told Jones, as groans issued from dozens of Coalition lounge rooms. "It is a policy where, yes, the Government does pick winners, there's no doubt about that, where the Government does spend taxpayers' money to pay for investments to offset the emissions by industry."

Oh dear. Politicians aren't supposed to speak quite so frankly about their own policies, even ones as obviously flawed as the Coalition's policy on climate change. The Gillard Government was predictably delighted — and several opposition MPs were reportedly furious.

Now the email from Entsch has placed renewed focus on the Coalition's internal difficulties. Both Abbott and Turnbull have been forced to publicly declare their support for each other, as reports emerge of a disagreement (or, as the media loves to put it, a "clash") between Abbott and hardline South Australian Senator Nick Minchin over whether to support an increase in the federal fuel excise.

In the scheme of things, such divisions are normal in any political party, particularly one that has to accommodate egos as large as those of Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull.

But the internal divisions are about more than merely personality. The blow-up over climate policy is beginning to expose concerns within Coalition ranks about the extent to which the Opposition can continue its relentless negativity — particularly when it comes into conflict with established conservative principles. Minchin, for instance, was defending a Howard-era policy to increase the fuel excise, which Abbott has decided to block for pragmatic political reasons.

Some in the Coalition party room also appear to be getting edgy about the Opposition's continued inability to put credible costings to any of its policies, an anxiety that would not have been allayed by Abbott's numbers-free budget reply speech.

The Coalition remains deeply divided over the existence of global warming itself, with backbenchers like Dennis Jensen vocal in their scepticism and shadow minister Greg Hunt struggling to convey any sincerity as he attempts to explain the significant fiscal implications of "direct action".

For the Government, the Liberal divisions offer a welcome ray of sunshine in a bleak political winter. Labor is of course doing everything it can to keep the attention on internal divisions within the Liberal party — and away from border protection and carbon taxes, issues which are hurting Labor. Most of Labor's problems are entirely its own fault, but the ruthless discipline shown by Abbott and his team since has played no small part in Labor's misfortunes. Most governments would struggle against a communicator as effective as Abbott — and this government struggles more than most.

It has been a tough time for Labor true-believers — however many of them are left. But if the Government can enjoy another few weeks of Coalition disharmony, better times may lie ahead. As the asylum seeker issue begins to fall off the front pages and the carbon tax inches slowly forward, the political atmosphere for the Government will improve. July sees the new Senate take its place, with the opportunity to cut deals directly with the Greens to pass legislation.

If the Government can hold its nerve — always a big if, with this lot — then maybe, just maybe, spring may bring a long-desired bounce in the polls.

Simon Longstaff | Move over Melbourne….Sydney's Got More Subtance Than Sparkle

Sydney might be unconsciously transforming into Australia's new 'city of ideas'. Recent years have seen intellectual life flourish with events like the Sydney Writers Festival and Festival of Dangerous Ideas attracting international attention.

Sydney-based think tanks have also been credited with an increasing contribution to the world of ideas in both Australia and overseas.

So is it time for Melbourne to step down as Australia's centre for substance? An article in the Sydney Morning Herald, in which CPD is acknowledged, suggests it's only a matter of time.

Ben Eltham | The Australian Film Industry

The Australian film industry has seen better days. The idea of competiting against Hollywood features is unrealistic and the high Australian dollar is making it difficult to attract foreign production.

Whilst we are 'punching above our weight' in the independant film market, this market suffers from a lack of exposure and funding.

So how should the industry proceed?

CPD Fellow Ben Eltham joins industry insiders Alan Finney, Jenn Cornwell and Brian Rosen on ABC Radio National's Australia Talks to discuss the future of Australian films.

Ben Eltham | Time To Stop Talking About Climate

The release of the Climate Commission report shows how poorly Labor has prosecuted the case for action on climate change, writes Ben Eltham. And yes, the report confirms an urgent need to act.
This article was first published in New Matilda here.

Australia has a new government agency dedicated to advancing the public understanding of climate change. It's called the Climate Commission and yesterday it handed down its inaugural report.

Entitled The Critical Decade, the report lays out in clear but rigorous detail the scientific understanding of global warming and the urgent need for action — now. Take home message? We're in the critical decade. If Australia and the rest of the industrialised world can't stop greenhouse gas emissions from growing, and begin to rapidly decrease them, the planet is going to cook.

"Our Earth's surface is warming rapidly and we can already see social, economic and environmental impacts in Australia," the Commission writes.

"Failing to take sufficient action today entails potentially huge risks to our economy, society and way of life into the future."

In other words: nothing that we didn't already know. The Climate Commission is not actually doing any new science, merely collating and contextualising the latest and best science as it has progressed since the IPCC's 2007 assessment.

Despite this, the release of the Commission's report yesterday dominated news headlines and had a major impact on the media cycle. This is important, because the last few years have seen a growing public apathy about climate science, as sceptics have won important battles for the hearts and minds of western citizens. Indeed, it's a measure of just how skewed the reporting about climate has become that a report such as this should even be considered news. Scientists have been warning of huge risks from catastrophic global warming for a generation now.

Of course, there is a political aspect to the role of the Commission. It was set up by the Gillard Government to try and patch up the fraying public consensus on climate change and carbon reduction policy. And given the coverage of the report yesterday, it must be judged a success so far.

The Commission's two leading figures, Tim Flannery and Will Steffen, both performed calmly and substantively in media interviews, patiently explaining the strength of the science and refusing to be drawn into policy debates — for instance about the dubious merits of the Coalition's laughable "direct action" policy. Flannery, for instance, showed admirable restraint last night on 7.30 as the ABC's Chris Uhlmann asked a series of irrelevant questions about tropical cyclones.

It might sound strange to talk about the media reception of a scientific report, but that's where we're at in climate policy in 2011. In the era of what in the United States has been calledpost-truth politics, the opponents of change and the proponents of pollution have so successfully muddied the waters that it is still common to hear Liberal and National Party politicians running discredited denialist talking points on the steps of Parliament. They were at it again yesterday, with prominent Liberal sceptic Dennis Jensen mumbling nonsense about the mediaeval warm period.

In this turbulent confusion, the ability of a gifted communicator like Tony Abbott to cut through the debate with his scalpel-sharp slogans about the evils of a carbon tax is all the more devastating. No wonder Labor has struggled to get its point across. After all, if there is one thing that nearly everyone can agree on, it is that this government is an exceptionally poor communicator.

The Climate Commission report hints at what Labor might have achieved since 2007 if it had approached climate policy with the sort of resolve that was always going to be required of such a major economic reform. In the early days of the Rudd Government, soon after signing the Kyoto Protoocal at Bali, the government enjoyed huge popular support in the opinion polls. So did strong action on cutting emissions.

But despite the extremely sensible (if moderate) proposals put forward by Ross Garnaut, Rudd and his government squandered its political capital, preferring to use climate policy as an instrument to divide the Liberal Party than as an imperative for its first-term policy agenda. As a result, we're back to square one, with the government having to slowly rebuild a consensus for climate action.

Throughout its time in government, Labor has shown a puzzling inability to grasp the tactical battlefield on which climate politics is played out. The opponents of climate change include some of the wealthiest and most ruthless corporations on the planet, as well as many their captive proxies among the key business lobby groups, and even some on Labor's side of politics, for instance in the union movement.

On the other side of the debate lies the environmental movement, most scientists, the Greens, the renewable energy, insurance and superannuation industries, and many citizens in the progressive political spectrum. But Labor has consistently refused to mobilise this potential power base for reform, preferring instead to pretend it can somehow play both ends against the middle as some kind of impartial arbitrator.

Throw in some astounding unforced errors, like Kevin Rudd's decision to abandon the CPRSand Julia Gillard's broken promise about the carbon tax, and you have a government which can martial few friends in support of what should be a popular and politically advantageous reform. Mealy-mouthed attempts at "getting the balance right" only underline the government's inability to recognise its friends and resolutely face up to its enemies.

Many have been writing off Julia Gillard's government. Yesterday, Bernard Keane in Crikey even asked if it was terminal — a strange question given this government has two years left to run and precisely zero incentive to return to the polls early. But a run of seriously bad polls — much worse than those that confronted the party at the end of Kevin Rudd's prime ministership — can do that to jumpy backbenchers and excitable political observers.

The time has come for this government to take up the fight on climate change. If not, now, then when?

The government must quickly announce the rough details of the carbon price. $26 a ton is the price that has been mooted several times, so why not go with that? Greg Combet should be given carte blanche to promise whatever it takes in terms of complementary measures and regional electorate bribes to get Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott and the Greens to sign on. Then Labor must mobilise every available remnant support base to rally around the carbon tax proposal. I've addressed the media strategy Labor should adopt in a previous article.

And if it does this, the government might just find that voters will be prepared to give it another go. Perhaps my daughter may even grow up on a liveable planet.

Ben Eltham | The Minefield of a Second Mining Boom

There is little doubt that mining and resource extraction will grow to dominate Australia's economy ever more completely, but at what cost and to whose peril? As everyone knows a persistently high exchange rate is good news to some but crisis for others.

The mining boomis likely to leave behind many previously important sectors of the economy, writes Ben Eltham, but there are few in either political party willing to make the structural changes our economy needs.

Do we need a public debate over the merits of "mining boom, mark two"? Or are its benefits so firmly established to render such an effort futile?

Ben Eltham discusses this problem and more in ABC's The Drum Unleashed.

Ben Eltham | It's the End of the World As We Know It

The most important big picture issue of this budget is not the "middle- class welfare"  nor the deficit or surplus. It's the rise of China and India, write Ben Eltham. This transformation goes beyond the urbanisation and industrialisation of these two nations. The critical issue is the fact that this will bring billions of people out of poverty and into the global capitalised world.

Read Ben Eltham's article, published at ABC's The Drum, here.

The Wheeler Centre Intelligence Squared Debate Tuesday May 24: Public Funding of Private Education is Unconscionable

Tuesday 24 May, 6:30-8:30pm at Melbourne Town Hall, 90-120 Swanston St.

CPD's Chris Bonnorwill be arguing for the affirmative in this provocative debate about whether public funding should be used to finance private education. Alongside Chris will be Beatrice Duong, a top high school debater and novelist Shane Maloney.

Arguing against this proposition will be Amanda Vanstone, former federal education minister, Dr Kevin Donnelly, one of Australia's leading education commentators and year 12 student Andrew Elder.

This event is part of a series of debates run by the Wheeler Centre aiming to give important issues the attention and consideration they deserve.

For more information visit The Wheeler Centre here.

John Quiggin | Gillard is Howard, and Abbott's Ben Chifley. Confused yet?

From a social democratic perspective, one cannot find much to praise in the 2011-12 budget yet neither can one find much to criticise, writes John Quiggin. This article published in The Drum highlights the contradictions of our current political leaders.

Read John Quiggin's article at ABC's The Drum here.

Ben Eltham | Bob Brown vs The Press

Journalists don't respond well when the boot's on the other foot. Bob Brown's gentle goading of the Canberra press gallery evoked some savage reactions, writes Ben Eltham

First published in New Matilda here.

Politicians and the media are often at each other's throats, but yesterday's press conferencewith Greens Leader Bob Brown was something else.

It started on a warm and fuzzy note, with Brown speaking about the important work of the Senate inquiry into koala conservation. "The koala is in a massively worrying situation of decline," warned Senator Brown.

But koalas were not the chief topic of the press gallery's questions who wanted instead to ask Brown about carbon taxes. Taking a question from The Australian's Sid Maher about why the Greens didn't vote for the CPRS in 2009, Brown also took the opportunity to do some editorialising of his own.

"The Australian has a position of opposing such action [against climate change]," Brown said pointedly. "My question to you is: why is that?"

"Well," Maher replied, "as they said the other day, when you're on this side, you ask the questions."

Brown responded by calling the Murdoch press "hate media".

"I'm just wondering why the hate media — it's got a negative front page today from top to bottom — I'm just asking you why you can't be more constructive … I've answered your question, your commentary I'll expect to see again in tomorrow's paper."

And so the mild-mannered spray continued.

"The Murdoch media has a great deal of responsibility for debasing that maturity which is informed by scientific opinion gathered from right around the world.

"Some heat needs to go back onto those sections of the media which are trying to drag this process down, and that's very clear that that's what's happening. You look at the front pages of some of the papers today, and the commentary on this process [the multi-party committee on climate change], and it's not balanced, it is opinionated, it's not news in terms of having both sides of a story. It's not what you read in other countries in the world … yes, The Australian.

"We need news in our papers, but we're getting opinion, far too much, and that needs to be debated and nobody needs to get upset about it."

Fairfax Radio's Michael Pachi seemed to take particular umbrage, repeatedly accusing Brown of "bagging out the Murdoch press". "Why are you so obsessed with this?" he asked the Senator.

"Well that's an opinion, you see, you're now asking me a question based on a very loaded opinion. I'm not obsessed with it."

"You are!" insisted Pachi.

"Thank you," a smiling Brown replied. "You're taking it badly."

The highlight of the exchange came when a clearly amused Brown suggested Pachi might be being defensive.

"I'm not being defensive!" Pachi replied, with a rising inflection that suggested exactly the opposite.

So how has the Murdoch press respond to this gentle goading?

"STOP THIS MAN RUINING THE NATION" thundered the Herald Sun's editorial today. Lapsing into the second person, the editors at News Limited directed their address directly to Brown: "It is you who is debasing the national debate," they roared, "not the Herald Sun, which is concerned about Australian families facing soaring power bills and seeing their jobs threatened under a heavy carbon tax and uncertain compensation."

In The Australian, James Massola covered the press conference with, amazingly, a quote from his own boss. "I believe we have probably done more to give honest scrutiny to the carbon tax than any other newspaper and, of course, we have long supported a market-based mechanism for dealing with climate change," Massola quoted editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell as saying.

Meanwhile Dennis Shanahan wrote a commentary piece arguing that "Bob Brown is under pressure and he's showing it." Really? I thought Senator Brown looked rather composed.

Why is it that the Australian political media takes a bit of mild-mannered criticism so badly? Today's coverage, and the riveting footage from yesterday's presser, confirms Brown's suggestion that the media likes to dish it out, but struggles to stay in good humour when criticism is directed back at them.

Bob Brown's comments are not the first time the media has reacted uncomfortably to some home-truths. Tim Dunlop had a nice piece in the ABC yesterday in which he pointed out that the media's reaction to Lindsay Tanner's well-articulated criticism in his new book Sideshow has been defensive and resentful. Far from using the book as an opportunity to reflect on how news might be better reported and analysed, Dunlop perceptively observes that "the almost universal reaction from journalists to Tanner's book has been one of defensiveness and blame shifting."

In many respects, the robust character of the Australian political media has its democratic advantages. Politicians and policy makers must indeed be held to account, and hard questions deserve to be asked. The press corps here has never been backward about coming forward, particularly in comparison with some of our Anglo-Saxon cousins, for whom the level of courtesy shown to political leaders is often much greater than that on show here. You will never hear President Obama being addressed as "Barack" by a journalist or radio host, for instance. And, British tabloids aside, you will rarely hear elected representatives publicly assailed in a press conference in the manner in which Brown was yesterday by Pachi.

But there is a darker side to the culture of entitlement that seems to grip the Australian political mediascape. Indeed, it could be argued that the media in Australian enjoys some special privileges, such as access to power and certain legal protections on its speech, that it is not altogether clear that it deserves.

Journalists might respond that they are only as good as their last story, and that the democratic duty to "speak truth to power" excuses some discourtesy at times. But the disease is much widespread than this. Some commentators and media outlets really do seem to believe they are political players themselves. As Peter Botsman observed here last week, Exhibit A is The Australian, with its sycophantic interviews with its own editors and self-righteous crusades like the self-proclaimed mission to "destroy" the Greens.

The self-righteousness of many journalists is passing strange at the very time that demand for their product is collapsing. Dunlop may be right when he argues of the media that "it is hard to think of an industry more entrapped by what it considers the untouchable verities of its craft, or one that thinks it can so blithely ignore complaints from its customers."

And let's look at the content of what Brown said yesterday. In most respects, his criticisms are telling. Much of what is presented to Australian citizens as "news" is, in point of fact, opinion. Newspapers are far from the only offenders. The ABC also routinely skews its stories in subtle ways, as for instance in the way it has pejoratively covered successful government programs like the Building the Education Revolution schools stimulus package — a program which the Auditor-General found to be highly effective with a very low complaint rate. Indeed, it's worth asking if 7.30's Chris Uhlmann can be thought of as truly a political "reporter", when arguably the substance of his nightly bulletins is in effect pure opinion.

In recent history, few have been prepared to publicly attack the Murdoch media — with well-founded fears about a savage reaction. But Bob Brown was already at war with the Murdoch newspapers, and will lose few votes of committed Greens supporters for his stance. Further, he might even pick up some new supporters. I suspect many citizens, tired of the constant arrogance of reporters and the daily distortions of their morning newspapers and nightly news bulletins, may just be cheering Senator Brown on.