Rudd's ETS - a dead horse with whiplash

As much as I wanted to believe the government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (ETS) would save Australia from the "climate change doesn't exist" idea of bygone days, it didn't. And it could never have. The policy was dead from the start. This 'dead horse' of a policy has been hung, drawn, quartered, minced through the media and whipped into a frenzy by Canberra. The outcome? A dead horse with whiplash, and a public being primed for an election. Considering the ETS policy's imminent death (or "delay", call it what you like), let us all revel in the bittersweet hindsight of what could have been.

It was the Kevin07 election that really got Australia governmentally, acting against climate change. With the years gone by of the Howard government still refusing to sign Kyoto, let alone admit that carbon pollution and climate change was a problem, Australia wanted change. Enter Kevin Rudd and his new government. First act by Mr Rudd, flying over to Bali and ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Finally, an Australia leader who took climate change seriously and was proactive! Next, Ross Garnaut was commissioned to produce the Garnaut report, outlining the best system that Australia could implement to reduce our carbon emissions and impact on the environment. From this, the report found an emissions trading scheme (ETS) was the best method. From within a year, there was action, vision, and a plan to tackle climate change. Everyone, including the media, was aghast at the pace the Rudd government was taking to solve climate change. Comments were even made that things were progressing too quickly. Oh, the irony now! 

As soon as the Rudd government started planning out the policy, Penny Wong (the climate change minister) was bombarded with lobby groups, the coal industry, the Liberals and Nationals, all attempting to water down the policy. The Greens, environmental lobby groups, along with the majority of the scientific and international community, were trying to set the policy to be inline with internationally accepted targets. The outcome? The coal industry, energy sector and Andrew Bolt won. A very weak, emissions target wise,  CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme), was produced. It was here the vision, action and policy died. The once galloping horse was now dead. But this aside, there was the challenge of passing the bill. The Greens wanted higher targets, the Liberals and Nationals lower targets, or no ETS, CPRS or any policy at all. Squabbling, name calling, numerous amendments, an economic crisis, 3 Liberal leadership changes, angry letters to the editor and many 7.30 report appearances later, an even more watered down, delayed, yet still un-passed ETS bill, hovered somewhat like a plague in Canberra. 

Ultimately Rudd could have called a double dissolution to try and pass the bill. Even though he didn't sell it to the public that well, he still would (most likely) have remained in government to be able to call a joint sitting of parliament if need be. From all opinion polls, public support was strong enough to carry the government through to another term if a double dissolution was called. But Copenhagen loomed and we waited to see what came of it. Nothing. Big surprise. Australia took nothing to the table but empty rhetoric, and so did everyone else. From here more squabbling, name calling, amendments etc, etc, etc, were made, until recently. The clocked turned over and it was 2010, an election year. With too much controversy and failings surrounding the Rudd government on numerous policies, including the CPRS, political salvation was needed. Hence the government has come out and "delayed" (scrapped) the CPRS bill, but on the bright side $2.5 billion has been saved. Rejoice! $2.5 billion is figure more easily represented on a graph than Australia's moral obligation to act on climate change. 

And here, the poor dead horse, which had now been flogged, whipped, damned, herald and abused, is used as fertiliser for this years budget. So, still reveling in the beauty of hindsight, what should have dear Rudd have done right from the start. 

First, be tough. A first term government with large reserves of political capital and public support should not be beaten around by a (then) fragmented and cannibalistic opposition, or wealthy and morally bankrupt coal and energy sector lobby groups. The policy would have had the Greens support, and a few progressive Liberals may have crossed the floor in the Senate, enabling the bill to pass. Even if not enough support in the Senate was reached, an early double dissolution would have easily seen the Rudd government back in office, and a double sitting of parliament would have easily passed the bill. Though even if all of this hadn't been done; an ETS, despite being watered down, should have passed to ensure that Australia is continually taking action, but mainly, to motivate the main emitters like the US and China to take action. New Zealand rapidly passed an ETS scheme hours before Copenhagen, just to prove that they too are taking action and that they will hold the larger emitters to account. This form of environmental foreign policy is something that is sadly missed across this side of the Tasman Sea. 

Even as Rudd said himself, "inaction costs more than action". So shake that sauce bottle again and take a bit of your own advice. Despite the unlikelihood of the Rudd government loosing office in the next election due to the major CPRS policy and election promise backflip, continuing on the historical path of inaction, will lead only to regret.

Links:

Poor political skills doomed Rudd's climate policy - The Australian (opinion and blogs)

PM left to stew in his own juices - The Age

Government admits failing to sell ETS - The ABC online 

Greatest moral challenge turns out to be Rudd's dearest folly - National Times

No progress on Indigenous Health

While Kevin Rudd wants Western Australia to sign up to his National Health reform package, Australian citizens who are in most need of healthcare reform are still waiting for change to occur. On February 13 2008, Kevin Rudd promised to bridge the heath and life expectancy gap between Indigenous Australians and Non Indigenous Australians. At a time where a National Health reform package is on the table for discussion, with an aim to improve the health of all Australians', Indigenous health has been practically ignored. It seems the most opportune time to bridge the gap has been sacrificed, for the sake of a government concerned with being re-elected. 

It's not only the Federal Government's fault for ignoring Indigenous health and social issues, but also the fault of the Australian public. Because the general public is not directly effected by the atrocious health and social well-being of Indigenous Australian's, there is little pressure put on governments to act decisively on this matter. The geographical remoteness of these broken communities prevents wide scale media attention, further pushing Indigenous health and affairs into the dark. While these are the main factors preventing Indigenous issues from being front page news, the political and social awkwardness that comes from making policy and dealing with Indigenous affairs, muddies this process. Ultimately it is easier practically and politically, to speak in general terms about "bridging the gap", rather than taking action.

When it comes to assisting these broken communities, an overarching policy must be put in place, combined with individual, town by town specific action. Some communities suffer from high rates of crime because of a lack of jobs, others alcohol abuse, others systemic health problems. The intervention was a necessary first step, but it wasn't and isn't going to solve the entire problem. What is needed is an overarching policy from the Federal government, committing funds to rebuild communities that have been neglected of government services for decades. It's not just throwing money at the problem, it's setting out a plan of action with legislation necessary to enact it.

One of the main reasons Indigenous health is so expensive is because Indigenous Australian's are over-represented in Australian hospitals. The cost of preventing chronic and serious health problems is cheaper than treating it. Thus without local preventative health measures, such as sanitation, local clinics and local GP's, the cost of Indigenous health will always be expensive (and wasteful). It is laughable that the Federal Government is promising 80 new Indigenous health officers, and believes this will make a meaningful contribution to closing the gap. Promising every remote Indigenous community a shower would be more effective, as only 30% s have a working shower. The lack of such basic sanitation has lead to a swine flu outbreak amongst the Indigenous community in the Northern Territory, with Indigenous Australian's 12 times more likely to be hospitilised for swine flu. This figure is compounded by the fact that access to the 'free' swine flu vaccine would have almost been almost impossible for communities that don't have a doctor or a healthcare worker. 

While Indigenous Health and "the gap" can't be closed overnight, making no policy, and taking no action is not going fix the problem either. Opportunities for reform are passed up on and the political capital for action just isn't there. Will it really take another "little children are sacred" before the government and parliament open its eyes? While the Australian government has apologised on behalf of all of Australia for the'stolen generation', Kevin Rudd might as well start writing his next sorry speech, on behalf of the 'Ignorant Generation'

Links:
Swine flu hit Indigenous people hardest: study - ABC Online

'Alcohol and indigenous violence linked' - The Age Online

NT says it will sign health deal if more money is offered - The World Today

Govt promises more Indigenous health officers - ABC online

Appearing to act on whales

It is an election year. Need I say more! And suddenly whales are on the Government's agenda. Kevin Rudd took to the 07 election, the promise to clamp down on Japanese whaling in the Antarctic. However during his time in office until now, the closest he got to Japan on the issue of whaling was, 'an agreement to disagree'. However despite this recent, very strong threat to Japan to take them to the International Court of Justice, effective action is unlikely to be taken.

With Tony Abbott creeping up in the polls, a dead ETS and Peter Garret about to fall of his political perch, this is not a safe time for the Labor Government. Rudd and Labor have the election this year in their sights (along with the opposition as well), and so they need to polish up their record of election promises. Hence, enter stage right, whales!

The Rudd government's inaction about Japan's whaling just outside of Australian waters and in the Antarctic is a 'small matter' that they want to easily fix. When it comes to an election, having the public faithfully believe that you are going to deliver on said promises is critical. As such, whaling is an unfulfilled promise that the Labor government is trying to quickly resolve (or appear to resolve), so it's fresh in the back of the minds in the public when the election really heats up. Delivering on promises about stopping Japan whaling is not going to be the hot election issue of the year. Instead, the government is hoping to use it as a platform to build up credibility. It's just ticking off the check list, so to speak.

Delivering on foreign policy right before an election is never advisable. Foreign policy is a slow, fickle process that can't easily be wrapped up by the time an election is to be called. However, appearing to be active and effective in implementing foreign policy, is relatively easy. Rudd is threatening to take Japan to the ICJ (International Court of Justice) in the next whaling season if it doesn't promise to stop whaling in the Southern Ocean. Firstly, getting to the ICJ and getting a ruling against Japan is a slow and difficult process (something that is going to take more than a year). Even if ruled against, Japan will still not adhere to the ruling (as all rulings by the ICJ are non binding - hooray to the effectiveness of international justice!). But secondly, Japan might win the case and increase whaling, or just as worse, loose, then walk out of the International moratorium on whaling altogether, allowing Japan to whale whatever, and whenever it pleases them. Taking Japan to the ICJ is a risky business, and one that could go horribly wrong just before an election

However Kevin Rudd's strong new rhetoric about taking Japan to the ICJ is not about stopping whaling, it's about appearing to be stopping whaling. The very process of filling out the paperwork, sending diplomats to Japan and the Hague, as well as Australia's Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, meeting up with Japan's Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada in Perth is enough. In an election, appearance is everything, and this is no exception. Whales are not the issue here, the election and appearance of being active is!

Kevin Rudd has been criticised for almost everything; pushing legislation through parliament too fast, being the political spin doctor, not spinning and being able to sell the ETS, not being able to manage the economy, being too concerned about the economy....etc. Politician's can never get every promise and piece of legislation they want through parliament just as they want it be. However, what differentiates a good politician from the rest, is not how grandiose their promises are, but how effective they are within office, dealing with legislation and all the other hurdles that come their way. Pity its called hindsight. 

LINKS:

Australia tells Japan: Stop whaling or face court - BBC news
Rudd issues whaling court action deadline - ABC online

Rudd sets whaling deadline for Japan - The Age