• ZagorathOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    the “make it perfect or no deal” approach they’ve had on some issues/bills over the years

    I know they’ve got a reputation for often doing that, but it’s really not deserved. Take Kevin Rudd’s climate policy, for example. Treasury modelling suggested it would have no meaningful impact until well into the 2030s. It wasn’t a case of “not good enough, but better than doing nothing” like this seems to be. It was actually a case of “this is bad policy and we shouldn’t pass it”. Rudd was utterly unwilling to compromise, and ultimately that’s what cost him the Labor leadership.

    When Gillard came to the premiership, she was a far more effective leader. She worked with the cross-bench to get an exceptionally good policy passed. A policy that was world-leading and had a real measurable impact on our carbon emissions. A police that was reached because of compromise with the Greens.

    • cuppaconcrete
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      My argument would be that it was a better policy than any before and the Greens assisting the Libs’ effort to turn it into a political football inadvertently led to most of what followed. Specifically a leadership spill and a better policy that was doomed to be revoked by the free election win handed to the mad monk by the leadership instability within the ALP.

      • ZagorathOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        But it wasn’t meaningfully better. That’s the problem. If you’re proposing a change that’ll have such a small impact that you might as well not do anything, then it is worth blocking that in favour of pushing for actually meaningful policy.

        Remember, we’re talking about policy that even Labor’s own modelling claimed would not start benefiting us for 25 years. Labor could have helped themselves and the rest of the country by being willing to compromise. Unfortunately, their leader was a well-known egomaniac. It was his decision to stubbornly stick with the ineffectual policy rather than try and reach a deal. Or, of course, we could put the blame on the people who actually directly caused the later working policy to be undone: the LNP and the Murdoch press.

        • cuppaconcrete
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Good points, and good conversation, thanks 🙂 ❤️

          I think the policy needed to appear to be a lame duck or it just wouldn’t have passed in the political climate at that time, the backlash from the fossil fuel groups would have been biblical compared to just extreme. What was important was it was an emissions trading scheme - the pricing could be adjusted after becoming law in step with the increasing public appetite to address climate change. The billions of dollars worth of free emissions credits given to coal power plants and heavy polluters would have been fuel for future political fires lit right under their arses. I know it’s sneaky but so are the fossil fuel groups, you have to bring something to a knife fight. The scheme could have made significant progress by now but instead we lost yet another decade.

          I suppose the policy’s flexibility could have been abused by any future government too, so yeah that’s a problem. It’s possible the policy could have been making good money for the government by then so it would have been more politically/fiscally costly to reduce the price on emissions.

          • ZagorathOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            What was important was it was an emissions trading scheme

            Sure, but so was the Clean Energy Act 2011. The policy Gillard passed after negotiations with the Greens was a fixed-price period leading in to a cap and trade emissions trading scheme—the very same model being taught even in high school economics classes of the time.

            It really cannot be emphasised highly enough, too, that this is policy that had actually been proven to work. The period where the CEA was in effect is the only sustained period of reduction in carbon emissions in our history.

            the pricing could be adjusted after becoming law in step with the increasing public appetite to address climate change

            The thing is, as Adam Bandt said in this 2020 interview, ratcheting up the price at a later date would have put the Government on the hook for compensating polluters, as a feature written into the Bill itself.

            Plus, who’s to say that the LNP and the Murdoch press wouldn’t have campaigned just as hard against the CPRS as the CEA?

            good conversation, thanks 🙂 ❤️

            Indeed, it’s one of the things I’m really loving about this site so far. There’s so much more room for nuance and genuine discussion.

            • cuppaconcrete
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’ve changed my mind! Great interview, I wasn’t aware of their being a requirement to reimburse polluters on changes to the carbon price/cap. I should have done more homework. Rudd should have negotiated with the Greens and made better policy, he sabotaged himself.