Saturday, 1 March 2014

BIG WEEK FOR THE ENVIRONMENT IN CANBERRA

Media Release


Date:  28 February 2014

The last sitting day of the week in Canberra was grey and gloomy, ominously signalling the end to a very bad week for Australia’s environment.
In any other week, the Government’s rejection of expert advice, being elusive about policy details and playing Parliamentary games would have been big news in the Press Gallery. Unfortunately, with the loss of 5000 Qantas jobs, the Prime Minister’s questionable support for a junior minister and the Government’s gobsmacking mismanagement of the Manus Island riot information dissemination stole the headlines.
On Monday, the Senate Environment and Communication Committee held its first estimates hearing of the year. Labor looked forward to using this opportunity to obtain more information about the Government’s supposed climate policy. After four years, a Green Paper, months of consultation and a full day of grilling, we are still no clearer on how the policy will work – both on a day to day basis and how it will achieve its objective. What is clear is that not even department officials know this detail either. Staff from the Department of Environment and Clean Energy Regulator, the two agencies tasked with implementing and administering the Emissions Reduction Fund, were unable to answer any questions about the plan for the execution the Government’s policy. But, they could very easily outline the Government’s plan to dismantle Labor’s policy.
The Department was able to confirm Labor’s long-held fears that the Government is planning to include World Heritage Areas in the Delegations of Approval Memorandums of Understanding with the states and territories under the EPBC Act. Under questioning by Labor’s Senator Anne Urquhart, department officials confirmed World Heritage Areas ‘were in scope’ of negotiations for the development of the MOUs. This is, quite simply, devastating news. The Australian Government has the great honour and responsibility to protect Australia’s natural assets. This Government seems willing to shirk that responsibility by handing over approvals for projects that may affect areas like the Great Barrier Reef to the likes of Campbell Newman.
Earlier that day, Greg Hunt had signalled his intent to halt upcoming carbon auctions associated with Labor’s Clean Energy Act. Mr Hunt heralded this move as ‘the first step in repealing the carbon tax’. The voluntary carbon auctions were designed to allow businesses to buy carbon units at a fixed price before Australia’s existing fixed carbon price moved to an emissions trading scheme in 2015/16. Given the uncertainty in the industry created by the Government’s attempts to repeal Labor’s legislation in the Senate, we know businesses will not take part in this auction. Labor took the practical decision to allow the Government to stop these auctions from going ahead. The Government took the political decision to mislead Australians by claiming by doing so Labor is walking away from its emissions trading scheme policy. Mr Hunt’s comments were entertaining but not true. Labor’s pre-election commitment was to bring the emissions trading scheme forward to 1 July 2014. If we had done so, the existing carbon auction arrangement would have been significantly different. Our decision this week was purely practical and in no way impacts Labor’s rock-solid support for an emissions trading scheme.
Closing out the week, the Climate Change Authority – earmarked for abolition by the Government – delivered its recommendations for Australia’s emissions reduction targets. The previous Labor Government established the CCA to review Australia’s emissions reduction targets and provide independent advice on the suitability of these targets. The Government doesn’t believe in independent expert advice and as such is trying to scrap the CCA, without success in the Senate. The CCA recommends Australia aim to reduce its emissions by 15% of 2000 levels by 2020. Labor expects Greg Hunt and Tony Abbott to seriously consider the CCA report. The Government is required to provide a formal response to the report by 31 May 2014.

We will be back in Canberra on Monday, hoping for clearer skies and better news for the Australian environment. 

CLIMATE CHANGE AUTHORITY SAYS AUSTRALIA NEEDS TO STEP UP EMISSIONS REDUCTION EFFORTS


Media Release

Date:  27 February 2014

The recommendations announced by the Climate Change Authority today outline new challenges for the Abbott Government’s inadequate policy.
“The Abbott Government’s current policy con won’t meet its five per cent reduction target and that’s why it has refused to provide any detail for the public to scrutinise,” Shadow Climate Change Minister Mark Butler said.
“The Coalition’s Direct Action policy is nothing but a dressed up slush fund which will be ineffective and costly.
The CCA has recommended an increase in Australia’s emissions reduction target to a minimum 15 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020.
Under existing legislation, the Government must provide a formal response to the CCA’s recommendations by May. Labor calls on the Abbott Government to seriously consider the independent advice provided by the CCA in this response.
“To date, Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt have chosen to ignore independent expert advice. The Prime Minister and the Environment Minister should read this report, talk to the experts and reconsider their long held stance of rejecting the experts’ advice.”
The Labor Government established the CCA to provide independent advice on Australia’s emissions reduction targets and to regularly review these targets.
“Before the election, Tony Abbott committed to the bipartisan emissions reduction target range of between 5 and 25 per cent. The Prime Minister needs to indicate clearly whether he remains committed to this range and break with his tradition of ignoring the advice of experts,” Mr Butler said.
Labor has said it would seriously consider the recommendations of the CCA in setting its own emissions reduction targets for its proposed Emissions Trading Scheme.
“An ETS allows for targets to be more flexible.”
The world’s two largest emitters, China and the United States, are stepping up their efforts on climate change. Australia has a formal commitment to reduce its emissions and we need to participate in global efforts to address climate change.

“The rest of the world is going forwards, while Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt are taking Australia backwards,” Mr Butler said. 

COMMISSION OF AUDIT HUMILIATES ABBOTT ON PAID PARENTAL LEAVE

Media Release

Thursday, 27 February 2014

The Prime Minister’s signature election policy has been dealt a massive blow today with the Commission of Audit calling for the Prime Minister’s Paid Parental Leave Scheme to be scrapped.
“We didn’t need the Commission of Cuts to tell us that Tony Abbott’s paid parental leave scheme is unaffordable and unfair,” Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen said. 
“This is a huge embarrassment for the Prime Minister, who has repeatedly said he wants PPL to be one of the policies for which his Government is remembered,”
In Opposition, the Prime Minister repeatedly swore that his unfair and unaffordable Paid Parental Leave scheme was his “signature policy”:

The Coalition's paid parental leave scheme is a signature policy.
[Tony Abbott – Doorstop – Adelaide – 26 April 2013]

This is the settled policy of the Coalition.
[Tony Abbott – Australian Financial Review – 29 May 2013]

“The Commission of Audit has confirmed what Labor, the Nationals, business and community leaders and many within the Liberal Party itself have been saying all along: Abbott’s Paid Parental Leave is unfair, unaffordable and must go,” sShadow Minister for Families and Payments Jenny Macklin said. 
“The only person who continues to stand by this scheme is the Prime Minister himself.”
“The Prime Minister’s continuing commitment to this scheme highlights the hypocrisy of the Government’s calls for an end to the ‘Age of Entitlement,’” Mr Bowen said.
“This is the most extravagant entitlement this country has ever seen.”
“At the same time as the Government is preparing to introduce a massive $5.5 billion Paid Parental Leave scheme that will give $75,000 to wealthy women to have a baby, it is preparing for a massive round of cuts to support for people with disability, people on the age pension and the unemployed,” Ms Macklin said.

“The priorities of this Government are completely twisted”.

Anthony Albanese, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Subject: Qantas

Feb 28, 2014

Transcript of doorstop interview, Sydney Airport


ALBANESE: Well thanks for joining us. After Mr Abbott’s extraordinary backflip on providing a form of debt guarantee to Qantas, I want to make it clear to Australians exactly what the implications of Mr Abbott’s backflip are.
The major implication is for Australian jobs.
Mr Abbott wants to open the door for Qantas to cease to be an Australian-based airline with a board here, with the majority of jobs placed here, with the flying kangaroo as its emblem.
He has found a new Australian export – Australian jobs.
The implications of Mr Abbott having had his Treasurer and other senior ministers including the Transport Minister hint for the last three months that they would provide a guarantee for Qantas, only to see that rug pulled out from underneath them just yesterday, are dire indeed.
Mr Abbott wants to replace the flying kangaroo with the flying panda or the flying camel. If you remove the provisions in the Qantas Sale Act for Qantas to remain an Australian airline, the likely result of that is effectively a takeover from a foreign- based airline which is backed by a government other than Australia’s.
Now, I‘m not against foreign investment. I’m for foreign investment. But every nation in the world understands how important it is to have a national carrier.
That’s why in the form of Etihad, Singapore, Ari New Zealand – Qantas’s competitors internationally – they are all backed by their respective governments.
What we see yet again is that Tony Abbott had a plan to get into government but he doesn’t have a plan to govern.
No matter how big the issue, Mr Abbott shows how small his vision for Australia is. Here we have him playing politics with an issue where the Opposition have made clear since the downgrade on December the 6th of Qantas’s credit rating, that we would not play politics with this issue and we would respond constructively to any proposition by the government to ensure that Australian jobs here at Qantas were able to be protected.
It’s important because we’re not just talking about direct jobs. We’re talking about the jobs in the tourism sector as well as the freight and logistics sector – the jobs that rely upon aviation.
Other countries recognise the importance of their national carrier whether it be the protectionist regime that the United States has in defence of their carriers, whether it be the regime in Europe, whether it be the directly owned airlines. Eight out of the world’s top ten airlines of course are owned by governments.
Here, as an island continent with no land borders, aviation is more important for Australia than just about any country on the planet with the possible exception of New Zealand, where the New Zealand government have acted in their national interest.
This is about jobs. Mr Abbott will bear responsibility for what happens from this point on having teased the markets, having teased Qantas, having indicated in briefing after briefing what the conditions were for government action and support including the four criteria that Mr Hockey as the Treasurer put forward and said all of those had been passed.
Qantas is not just any other company. It’s an important company for Australia’s national interests and it’s important that the government not take a position of teasing out the issues, pretending that there was going to be some form of support and, when it came to crunch time, walked away from that yesterday because they’d prefer to engage in politics and political game-playing at the expense of the job security of Australians. Happy to take questions.
REPORTER: Is this the Labor gauntlet – no amendments to the Qantas Sale Act?
ALBANESE: We’ve said very clearly that the issues that are bottom line are that Qantas has to remain an Australian airline. If you don’t have majority Australian ownership, then what you will have is the possibility that a raider will break up the company, given that its total share value is less than the assets which Qantas holds with implications for regional Australia.
One of the issues that’s there in the Qantas Sale Act is a guarantee that Qantas will service regional Australia. If you remove that provision and get rid of the Qantas Sale Act then that goes.
The provision that says the majority of its activity in terms of jobs and maintenance must be here in Australia, that would go with those jobs going overseas. The board – that would go overseas.
Either that or you would have a takeover of a government backed airline from overseas.
The flying kangaroo, every time it is seen around the world, is an ad for Australia. It says come to Australia. It says that Australians are the best in the world when it comes to aviation safety in terms of Qantas’s exemplary record historically over such a long period of time – something that we can be proud of.
When we hear the song I Still Call Australia Home, one of the things that people think about is Qantas and its connections with this country. If we simply remove the flying kangaroo and replace it with a flying panda or a flying camel then we will not be acting in Australia‘s national interest. That is why this is a particular case and circumstances are there that warrant government action as the government indicated it would do.
REPORTER: What about a compromise though on the 25 percent and 35 per cent (inaudible)
ALBANESE: That we’ve said very clearly we’d be willing to discuss. That was a recommendation in the Aviation White Paper. At that time there wasn’t support for it across the Parliament so in terms of those issues we are prepared to look at those issues constructively. But you don’t defend the national interest by giving it up.
And that’s essentially what Mr Abbott is asking the Parliament to do. He knows that’s not the right way. He knows full well because he’s had discussions with the company and also advice of his departments I am sure.
He knows full well that the immediate issue is not the Qantas Sale Act. The current level of foreign ownership of Qantas is 39 percent.  It’s allowed up to 49 per cent. So there’s already scope there for increased foreign investment up to the 49 percent level. If that was the issue then you’d expect that that level wouldn’t be at 39 per cent. It would be at 49 percent butting up against that restriction.
REPORTER: What about the issue of the level playing field. Obviously Virgin has announced a loss this morning as well as John Borghetti has basically said if the government gives money to Qantas, he’ll be knocking on the door as well. Is that fair?
ALBANESE: Let’s have a look at what the issues are. There are two key dates. One, on December 6 you had the downgrade of Qantas’s credit rating. The second is that in November there was a capital injection from three airlines that are government-backed – Singapore, Etihad (backed by the UAE government) and Air New Zealand, backed and owned by the New Zealand Government. Virgin is a well-run company and an excellent airline and Mr Borghetti has done an extraordinary job of transforming Virgin into a much more significant player in the domestic and international aviation market and he deserves absolute credit for that. But there’s a distinction here. You have three government-backed airlines that have been prepared to back Virgin. What Qantas are asking for isn’t any taxpayers’ money. What they are asking for is support in the form of a debt facility that they would pay interest on to the government, therefore there being no input in terms of cash input from the Australian taxpayer.
They are not asking for a handout. What they’re asking for is government support in the form of backing that will reduce the cost for them borrowing and acting as a privately run company.
There’s been a lot of misinformation. But I tell you what, the Treasurer understands this issue because he put it on the record time after time, both on the record but also in the briefings that have taken place from senior ministers to just about everyone in the gallery and more significantly through the people in the media such as yourself. The markets know that they were informed that this (assistance) was going to come. So if the markets have borne that in mind and you’ve seen an increase in the share price of Qantas based upon that information and then that is withdrawn, then that of course will have a much more significant impact. So the circumstances here are gross irresponsibility. Mr Abbott, whether it was a thought bubble yesterday in Question Time or not, needs to reconsider his position and the implications for Australian jobs if he maintains this position. Australians understand that Qantas is an iconic company. It’s a brand that is synonymous with Australia and our national interest. Simply to say we will give up the flying kangaroo and replace it with the flying panda or the flying camel is not in Australia’s national interest.
REPORTER: John Borghetti has said that the best assistance the aviation industry can get is getting rid of the carbon tax. What do you say about that?
ALBANESE: You might like to think about it yourself. Wouldn’t you like to pay no tax next year? I think the smile tells me that the answer is yes. The fact is though that Labor has said we want to move to an emissions trading scheme. We want to move to a floating price. We believe that there needs to be action on climate change. It is the government that is being intransigent about its position with regard to climate change because it won’t outline what will occur. What the government wants to do is for taxpayers like your good self to pay through the pay-as-you-go taxation system and to then subsidise the big polluters. That’s what its plan is – to replace a system whereby the polluters pay according to market values – and any market oriented government would understand that that is appropriate in terms of an emissions trading scheme – that the market operates, the polluters pay and therefore the costs of carbon pollution are taken into account. What the government wants to do is to move to a system whereby average mums and dads pay their taxation every week so they can then give money to the big polluters. That’s not a sensible system. We support an emissions trading scheme. We said that at the election. We’ve been consistent about the need to act on climate change.
It is indeed the Liberal and National parties that have been all over the shop on this. Mr Abbott’s key mentor John Howard (apart from BA Santamaria of course) made it very clear that he supported an emission trading scheme when he was prime minister.

An interesting Train trip by the WORKER man

*THE WORKER*
Brisbane, February 9, 1895.



Interview with the Hon. Tommy Byrnes.


The day after the publication of our interview with Mr. Tozer, a Government emissary, with a face of the Pigott type, found his way into the WORKER office, and wanted to shout for the staff. We half anticipated his mission, but allowed him his own time. After a while he casually inquired, “Who did our interviews?” Our interviewer in his sanctum over hearing the conversation, sprang upon the scene with a bound. He and the emissary subsequently left the office arm in arm. Some hours afterwards the WORKER man returned somewhat hilarious, and announced the fact that he had received an invitation to accompany the Attorney General on a Ministerial tour to the West.

His version of the trip is here appended.

* * *

At 10 a.m. punctually Mr. Byrne's carriage drove up to the door of the WORKER office, with two accoutred flunkeys aboard. Wishing to let the public see I was “well connected,” I instructed the coachman to first drive up Queen street, but the servile flunkeys had evidently received prior instructions from their “owner,” for they drove me round through all the back lanes and byways imaginable. Ultimately we arrived at the railway station, where a special train was waiting to convey the Ministerial party westwards.
Mr. Byrnes effusively welcomed the WORKER man, and introduced him to his party as the representative of the Telegraph. At the same time slyly winking at the scribe, who grasped the situation.
I was heartily received by Nelson, Philp and Barlow who assured me they regularly read the funny bits in the Telegraph. Barlow proceeded to relate a virtuous little “story” about Mrs. Partington, which appeared some time ago in the Rev. Woolnough's paper, but Byrnes, observing my blushes, and fearing that I should indignantly disclose my identity, suggested that I should inspect the hampers provided for the tour.
We walked to the end of the train, where I saw with glad surprise one 7 ton truck full of luxuries. There were ten cases of Pomery and Greno, 5 cases invalid port, 5 cases sherry, 5 cases claret, 10 cases Hennessy's three-star brandy, 10 cases Usher's special reserve whiskey, 10 cases Walker's whiskey, 10 cases Brown's four crown divto, 1 quart water, 1 dozen cooked English hams, 6 dozen roast fowl, 6 dozen pigeons, a quantity of bread, 10 dozen cases of grapes, pineapples and other fruities; one portable electric fan, and one ice-chest; also several cases of eatables which Mr. Byrnes did not trouble to detail.

* * *

While we were examining the comestibles, a procession of five hundred unemployed, on whose throats the hand of starvation was gripped, made its way along a street near at hand. Said Byrnes to me: “Hello ! There goes a pack of loafing scoundrels. Now, look here ! I've no patience with these kind of men, It makes my blood boil to see strong, active men like these prefer to beg rather than to work. Pardon me a minute, “he said, the indignation mounting his face, “I must have them immediately dispersed,” whereupon he whispered something to a policeman standing on the platform, and ten minutes afterwards the procession came flying back pursued by a body of mounted police. The Ministerial party observing the rout, were carried away with enthusiasm, and on John M'Master calling for three cheers for law and order, the station buildings rang again and again, “It was a glorious victory.”

* * *

Mr. Byrnes then pressed me to sample the Pomery, which I found in every respect equal to that supplied by the Hon. Tozer.
“I hope you will give me a good notice in the WORKER next week,” said Tommy, “I wish to keep in touch with the masses. You know, I have a deal of sympathy with the people you represent. Don't mind my saying in the House the WORKER disgraces the honoured name of worker. That is mere talk, necessary to the existences of debate. Like my great prototype, Sir Samuel Griffith. I love the working classes, and I desire to keep sweet with them. You know (whispering), many of them have votes, and those who haven't can do you some harm if they take it in their heads.”

* * *

Hereupon the train began to move, and the WORKER man, propping himself safely in a corner, scanned the motley crew, and especially the Attorney General. Byrnes is a terribly vain man. If I gave his personal description he would not be flattered. There's neither shape nor make about him. To see him endeavouring to walk in a dignified manner to Parliament House his back reminds one of a bag of chaff with a walking coat drawn over it, his head like a round ball of black pudding surmounted with a bard-hitter, and his legs like two German sausages. If appearance goes for anything, Tom Byrnes was intended by nature for a dime museum.

* * *
The carriage contained a good many representative Parliamentarians, the leanest of whom must have weighed 13 stone. The brewing interest was also represented, to say nothing of the new theology. Before we had gone a mile most of the company found they had an important engagement at the refreshment end of the car, where the clinking of wine glasses and the clacking of bursting champagne bottles made merry music. At Ipswich a fresh supply of champagne had to be obtained. The water, however remained untouched. Here an unforeseen delay occurred. Battersby and Paddy Perkins were missing. It was said they had gone together for a walk round the town, and it was suggested they had been inveigled into some cul-de-sac by the members of the Ipswich Labour League. The suggestion found much support, and great indignation was expressed. The labour member for Ipswich appearing on the platform was greeted with Ministerial cries of “Shame! Shame !” in the midst of which the two missing gentlemen emerged from the refreshment bar, where they had been quietly enjoying a ham sandwich and a cup of cold water.

* * *

Crossing the Main range the scenery was sublime. As far away back as the eye could reach the golden heads of empty champagne bottles gleamed in the afternoon sun and contrasted with the tender pinks on the cheeks of the travelling Fat Men.
The tender pathos of the scene was not without its effect upon us all. A yearning desire for sympathy made itself felt in subtle ways amongst us – a desire to out pour into willing ears the innermost thoughts of one's very soul. Under this influence the attorney General again approached the WORKER man.
“The only truthful things Tozer said in his interview were that I had ability and that I aspired to the Premiership,” said Byrnes. I confess I have that ambition, and if ever I get the chance of forming a Ministry you'll see what I'll do.”
“You don't like Tozer?” said the WORKER man.
“Like him? I hate the humbug. He wants to be Premier himself, but he's got Buckley's show. Now you take it from me I have the greatest difficulty in getting along with him at cabinet meetings. You know when M'Ilwraith used to be present he used to be as mute and as servile as a senior-sergeant. Sir Thomas used to treat him like a dog, but now that M'Ilwraith is away there is no holding him. He actually has the audacity to question my opinions – MY OPINIONS!”
“And Barlow! What of him?”
“Well Barlow is the Orange representative in the cabinet as I am the Catholic, so you may depend we watch each other like cat and mouse, and there's precious little love lost between us. I'm glad to see you don't care for him. Keep at him! Set him every time. Give him the two-faced cartoon. That's the one he doesn't like. Lord! How we smile when Barlow takes the WORKER into his office, and tears it to shreds when anything appears concerning himself.”
“Nelson?”
“Oh! He's a silly old man. He would rather be out of the show; in fact he will be out soon unless he's more careful. He's a bit of a teetotaller, and I am afraid it don't agree with him. Watch him as we travel out west.” “You still incline to a political career, Tommy,” said the WORKER man, commencing to mellow under the influence.
“Well I should like both the political and the literary. There's no reason why I should not emulate Gladstone? You saw that the Review of Review said if I were not a lawyer and a politician I might easily win fame by enlarging the bounds of Australian literature? That was in connection with my paper on James Brunton Stephens, Excuse me!”
Byrnes rushed to Nelson and Paddy Perkins, who were at the provisions, “Steady there Nelson, we're getting near Toowoomba town.” “You be d-----d,” was Paddy's response.

* * *

Returning to the WORKER man Byrnes said; “That was a fine criticism I wrote. And didn't I read the quotation well. You should have heard me give that verse from 'Convict Once'”

Free again! Free again! Eastward and westward,
before me, behind me.
Wide lies Australia and free are my feet as my
soul is to roam.
Oh, joy unwanted of space undetermined. No limit
assigned me.
Freedom conditioned by nought, save the need
and desire of a home!

“Ah, he's a grand post, Stephens.”
“Do you ever write any yourself . Tommy?”
“Sometimes, “ said Byrnes, “Here's a few lines I wrote. Don't put them in the WORKER, please.”
(The WORKER man read the lines, and sent them to the editor anonymously. They were promptly suppressed as breathing a dangerous spirit of discontent. It was an Irish patriotic song calling on the oppressed people to rise and hurl the tyrants into the sea. They also contained reference to his bleeding country Erin-go Bragh, Faugh-a-ballagh, Killaloe, Gra Macree Ma Cruiskeen, &c., &c.)

* * *

By this time the train had travelled some distance, and the provisions were commencing to tell on the passengers. The capers of the Premier were indescribably funny, although at the same time somewhat disconcerting. The gay old man had divested himself of his town clothes, and put on a suit of pyjamas. With this rig on he crawled out on to the roof of the train where he swayed to and fro singing -

Pour out the Rhine wine, let it flow
Like a free and bounding river
Till sadness sinks and every woe
L'es drowned beneath its waves for ever.

There's nought to cheer the hearts that pine
Like a deep, deep draught of the good Rhine wine,
Like a deep, deep draught of the good Rhine wine.

* * *
All the efforts of the members of the party were absolutely unavailing as far as getting the old teetotaller to come in off the roof. Then to make matters worse Paddy Perkins stepped off the train, and positively declined to get on board again. A Cabinet meeting was held, and it was decided to leave the hon. Gentleman well provided for, and pick him up on the return journey.

* * *

When we arrived at Bungeworgorai station a crowd of spectators insisted on a speech. The Premier stepped forward in his pyjamas, Byrnes said, “Ladies and gentlemen.” Tozer insisted on his right to talk. While Tozer and Byrnes were disputing, Thargomindah Leahy, with a face like the rising sun, stuck his head out of the car, and said, “Min, oi come from the ould sod. Oill iddress ye. Oi ----” Leahy was pulled in by someone, and Matt Battersby commenced to gesticulate from the platform of another car. His remarks were inaudible. Barlow having induced the Premier to “go inside,” stepped to the front, and said, “It is with considerable pain _____
“That will do, Two-face,” roared a man in the crowd; and the crowd laughed.
Barlow commenced to sob, and retired, giving way to Jack Hamilton, who confined his remarks to the ladies.
“Woman, lovely woman!” said Jack.
“Hear, hear,” said the crowd.
“Woman, lovely woman!” repeated Jack, now addressing his remarks chiefly to a dark eyed damsel at the edge of the crowd. “Where would men be without you.”
“Oh! Hang it, give us the policy of the Government,” houted an old greybeard, whose days of admiration for the fair sex had long since passed away.
“They ain't got none,” interjected another.
“Ladies! if I'm to be interrupted in this fashion, I'm going to shoot,” angrily replied Hamilton, brandishing a revolver.
The ladies present screamed, and fled, followed by the men, thus abruptly terminating what was an interesting break in the journey.

* * *

Barlow induced the railway guard to leave at once, which he did, his whistle being accompanied by the sound of Hamilton's revolver fired at some imaginary foe in the heavens.
The party resumed operations, which were diversified by M'Master's rendering of “We're all Brittoners,” and an imitation rainbow ballet by Crombie, Groom, Morehead, and Philp.
Byrnes resumed his WORKER interview.
“I don't half like this business, WORKER.
These men ought to be more circumspect; but they are under the impression you represent the Telegraph, and that they are all right?”
“You are opposed to Socialism, Tommy.” said the WORKER. “How is that?”
“I recognise the weight of many of the Socialistic arguments, but it doesn't pay me to fall in with you just yet.”
“The Pope has altered his opinions concerning Socialism, you know,” said the scribe.
“Not altogether,” replied Byrnes. “Anyway, I can't see my way to go with you the whole distance yet.”
“You went part of the way with us when you were educated at a State school,” said WORKER.
Byrnes ignored the remark.
“And you believe in Home Rule for Ireland and Coercion for Queensland.”
No reply.
“And you drafted the shout-to-kill manifesto, did you not?” said WORKER, reddening with excitement.
“Yes, yes, I know,” said Byrnes, “I know all that. But you don't understand, Tozer was willing to father the dirty work, and it was necessary to comply with the wishes of the pastoralists and money-lenders.”
“By the way, you were in the milk business once, were you not?” continued the WORKER man, determined to “jar” the lazy Attorney-General.
Byrnes face flushed as he pretended to rush away to the assistance of M'Master, who had been knocked over by a champagne bottle which had fallen accidentally from a basket and which was pommelling the hon. Member to death in a corner of the carriage. Several other members of the party also rushed to the assistance of the member for the Valley. The champagne bottle was dragged from his prostrate body and led away amid Ministerial cries of “Shame!”

* * *

[ The WORKER scribe was approached at the next station by a railway guard who asked him for his invitation ticket. He referred the guard to Mr. Byrnes who said he knew nothing of the scribe – never saw him before in his life. The scribe was then immediately dragged out of the train. He was therefore unable to chronicle further the doings of the festive Ministers.]

Coalition 'must treble minimum emissions target to stay credible'

Extract from The Guardian website:


Climate Change Authority says Coalition needs to reduce greenhouse gases to 15% below 2000 levels by 2020
The Abbott government must treble Australia’s minimum 2020 target for greenhouse gas emissions from 5% below 2000 levels to 15% to have a “credible” role in international efforts to slow global warming, according to the independent Climate Change Authority.

The authority, which the government is seeking to abolish, says the costs of such an increase would be “manageable”, involving a reduction of only 0.02% in annual average income growth per person compared with meeting the 5% target, under “effective” domestic policies, especially if Australia bought some carbon abatement internationally.
But the government’s immediate priority is to abolish the former Labor government’s carbon pricing scheme and implement its own grants-based policy designed to meet only a 5% target.
The environment minister, Greg Hunt, said the government would meet its 5% target through its Direct Action plan and “any additional targets will be reviewed in 2015 in the lead-up to the Paris conference, as has been our longstanding position”. But the Paris conference will negotiate an agreement to take effect after 2020, not the 2020 targets discussed in the authority’s report.
Despite the Coalition’s pre-election bipartisan commitment to increase Australia’s 2020 emissions reduction target to up to 25% under a specific set of conditions for global action set down in 2009, the prime minister, Tony Abbott, has claimed since the election the government had made no commitments to go further than 5%.
“We have made one commitment and one commitment only, which is to reduce our emissions by 5% … we have never made any commitments, any commitments to any binding targets over and above that, in the absence of absolutely clear evidence that other countries are going to take a very serious like approach … and there is no evidence of that,” Abbott said last year.
But the authority says Australia’s 5% target is much weaker than targets set by countries including the US, Britain and Norway, and points out countries such as China are also stepping up emission reduction efforts.
It says all the 2009 conditions for moving above a 5% target have been met, as have many of the conditions for a 15% target.
The government is required to state by 30 April whether it intends to move beyond 5% for its 2020 target. A post-2020 agreement is supposed to be finalised by the end of next year.
The government has ruled out purchasing permits overseas, but the authority recommends it set up a special fund to buy international permits to meet a higher target, which are available at “historically low prices”. It says the government could buy all the permits needed to move from a 5% target to a 15% target by 2020 for between $200m and $900m.
The authority also recommends Australia “carry over” emission credits it accrued during the period of the Kyoto protocol, when Australia easily met a target allowing it to increase emissions slightly, largely due to a pre-existing policy of slowing the rate of land clearing. The authority says these “credits” should be added on to the national effort until 2020 – which would effectively take the national emissions reduction from 15% to 19% below 2000 levels.
Industry groups were quick to reject the report. The Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) said it showed the authority had “lost touch with reality” and demonstrated why “this climate policy relic put forward by the Australian Greens needs to be abolished”. The MCA said a 15% target would cause more job losses and should be ignored.
But the Climate Institute said the report should “shatter the wilful blindness amongst political and business leaders that the current minimum 5% 2020 reduction target is adequate or economically responsible”.
And Greens leader Christine Milne said the report “made a complete mockery” of the Coalition’s 5% target.
The Climate Change Authority is chaired by the former reserve bank chief Bernie Fraser and its board includes the chief scientist, Ian Chubb, and former head of the Australian Industry group Heather Ridout.
It says doing more between now and 2020 will also help Australia meet its fair share of a long-term global effort to slow global warming, which will require domestic emission reductions by 2030 of between 40% and 60%.
The authority points out that Australia’s emissions were about the same in 2012 as they were in 1990, despite a doubling in the size of the economy, an achievement it says was due both to “broader economic forces” and to “policy”. But it says if Australia does not have a carbon price or other “effective” policies from now on, emissions will grow to 17% above 2000 levels by 2020. That, it says, would leave an “improbably large task for future Australians to make a fair contribution to global efforts” to constrain global warming to 2C.
The Coalition’s Direct Action policy – so far allocated $1.5bn – is designed to meet only the 5% minimum target by offering competitive government grants to businesses, farmers and organisations proposing to reduce emissions.
Independent modelling has suggested it does not have enough money to meet even the 5% target, but the government insists it will easily achieve its aims. All analysis suggests it would be extremely difficult to “scale up” to a higher target.
Modelling has also found that cutting emissions further than 5% under Direct Action would be prohibitively expensive – the same charge levelled by the Coalition minister Malcolm Turnbull when he explained in 2011 that continuing to use a big government taxpayer-funded scheme to reduce emissions in the long term would “become a very expensive charge on the budget in the years ahead”.
Pre-election promises by the Coalition would consider higher targets than 5% were made by Hunt, in an article for the Australian Financial Review, in which he said “the Coalition is committed to a target of a 5% reduction in emissions and the conditions for extending that target further, based on international action” and in a speech to the Grattan Institute thinktank in July, when Hunt said “we also accept, and we gave support to the government for the targets, not just the 5% but also the conditions for change ... we accept the targets, clearly, categorically, absolutely”.
And Abbott stated the Coalition’s commitment in a letter to the former prime minister Kevin Rudd in December 2009, subsequently released under freedom of information laws, in which he requested information on the costs of the proposed emissions trading scheme, but also wrote “the Coalition’s position of bipartisan support for emissions reduction targets – subject to the conditions that were earlier outlined – remains unchanged”.

ASSET SALES PUSH SPLITS LNP

Media Release

THURSDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2014

Rockhampton MP Bill Byrne says the Newman Government’s push for asset sales is splitting the LNP with one Member already threatening to cross the floor and vote against a sell-off. Mr Byrne said it was now time for LNP MPs in all electorates across Queensland to stand up and tell their communities where they stand on  asset sales.

“Today the Member for Ipswich West, Sean Choat has declared that he will cross the floor and vote against asset sales but what he is revealing is that the government he represents is planning widespread asset sales if it is returned to office,” Mr Byrne said.
“Now it’s time for his colleagues to follow suit and say where they stand. “Where is the Member for Keppel on this issue – and will he tell his community whether he intends to vote for asset sales or not?" “The admission by this MP today underlines the basic fact that if Queenslanders want to vote against asset sales they need to vote against the LNP."
“And it’s abundantly clear from Mr Choat’s comments that the program of asset sales the LNP has in mind is far wider than they have indicated so far. “Mr Choat has revealed that water, transport and power industry assets are all in the LNP’s sights."
“If such a wide range of assets were not under threat of sale, Mr Choat would have no need to take the stand he has. “Clearly if the Newman Government is returned to office it plans to sell anything it can lay its hands on."
“The LNP will see a win at the next election as giving it the go-ahead to sell electricity, water, transport, health, education and any other type of assets. “Labor learned its lesson the hard way at the 2012 election that Queenslanders do not want state assets old." “The arrogant Newman Government is ignoring that sentiment despite the Premier’s promise to listen more."