Sparliament : Politics In Action

I entirely admit that this should have been posted a while ago, but better late than never!


So I've been working for a client these last few days who is very interested in issues of climate change and a carbon emissions trading scheme, and that has allowed me to hear a lot of perspectives (some more informed than others) in regards to the scheme. I get to hear political commentary, news bulletins, talk back programs, announcers rabbiting on about how God'll take care of the weather, you name it!



So what's all the fuss about? Well basically, the new Australian Government, led by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, is fulfilling one of its election promises in regards to fighting climate change, which is bound to have a drastic effect on Australian economic and social factors, particularly in terms of agriculture. So Rudd commissioned a report from his Climate Change Advisor, Ross Garnaut (pronounced GARR-NO), in order to establish what industries should be included in an emissions trading scheme, what goals should be set, and who will be most effected.



The trading scheme is bigger than the GST, and represents probably the largest economic policy this government will make. The first step of the carbon emissions trading scheme involves collecting information from businesses about how much carbon they release at this time - this is the step being undertaken now, as businesses are required to keep records from July 1 2008. This information is then used to cap (or limit) the amount of carbon to be released throughout the country. Businesses pay for carbon credits to be given to them, basically giving them permission to pollute to a certain point. Some will obviously get more credits than others, and should a company fall short of using up all their credits, they are allowed to sell those credits to other businesses, who basically want to pollute more than the government thinks they should. As a result, businesses are punished for polluting more (as they need to pay more) and rewarded for polluting less (as they get money back from their credits). In this way, not only are carbon levels capped, but they're actively reduced as the capitalist system seeks to build profits and cut expenses as best it can. Basically it allows the environmentalists to exploit capitalism, as opposed to the other way around.



The problem which has arisen is that the federal opposition, which originally supported an emissions trading scheme, seems to be coming up with whatever excuse it can to get the Australian public to turn against the idea. This is despite former Prime Minister John Howard supporting plans for emissions trading at the release of the Shergold Report during his time in power. Let's have a brief look at some of the main opinions, oops I mean 'problems', to do with carbon trading:

1. Prices will rise: Naturally! When businesses pay more, these costs are transferred on to the consumer. The thing is that the industries in which we'll see most price rises are those which we should be discouraged from using! Most notably, energy and petrol. Both of these are, of course, necessary for everyday use, however one of the basic principles of economics is that prices change behaviour. If we really are going to commit ourselves to cutting the carbon levels of this country, we need to both change corporate behaviour (through emissions trading) and change person behaviour. Yes it hurts, but the truth is that ever since global warming became a big issue in my mind, and ever since petrol prices started going through the roof, I have been actively not asking as much from the car, using more public transport and foot power, and turning off my computer at night, as well as lights and heaters. As the Garnaut report confirms, the poor will be those worst effected by a trading scheme, but if the Government follows Garnaut's suggestions, they will also receive compensation drawn from the extra money made by the carbon tax. Similarly, public transport investment would increase under the system, allowing for those who previously relied on cars to take a train or bus and help reduce carbon emissions personally.

2. We should wait until other competing export economies such as China and India adopt a similar system: The basic premise behind this argument is that Australia's export economy will suffer under an emissions trading scheme. This, I believe, is true. What this argument does not address, however, is the fact that Garnaut's report suggests investment and support for export industries so as to allow Australia to remain competitive. I heard a very good analogy from economist Peter Martin, in which he told the following story: A town decides one day that it wants its dry and empty well to bring up milk for just one day, so all the townsfolk agree to place a cup of milk in the well during the night. So the night passes and in the morning all the townspeople flock to the well for the novelty of seeing the bucket come up with milk, but all that comes up is water, because every family has thought either "nobody will notice if we don't put in a cup of milk" or "we'll just wait to make sure the other families do it first before we put milk in, because otherwise we'll lose our milk and nobody else will". The point is that if we just sit around waiting for other countries to take action, and those countries are sitting waiting for other countries to take action, then what ends up happening is that no action is taken at all. As one of the big players in the Australasian region, we need to take a leading role and show that we are committed to combatting climate change. This in turn will lead to other nations understanding when we make climate change requests as part of our diplomatic discussions, as we have already shown our dedication to the issue. Furthermore, it is important to add that most European nations have already committed to an emissions trading scheme more rigorous than that which is being proposed by Rudd. Also, the state of California has also implemented such a program. India and China already have rates below those of Australia for most exports - the reason people choose to import from Australia is because of quality, not price. If they had simply wanted the cheaper product, their business would already be with one of the lesser developed nations.

3. Climate change isn't even happening anymore: There are numerous scientific studies showing a continued increase in global temperatures as carbon output increases, and this is not just correlation but causation. For more details from people much smarter than me on meterological and scientific issues, see the World Meterological Organisation's website or skip to their 2007 climate report.

4. It's such a complex system that it will be too easy to get it wrong: This is the most upsetting and frustrating of all claims. If governments were to shy away from complex policy, then policy would not exist at all. The tax system? Complex. Education system? Complex. Health system? Complex. Stupidity and an 'easy ride' should not be embraced - so let's look at what the 'complex' issues are, address them, and get on with turning climate change around. We've already waited long enough.

5. Australians will lose jobs: The Garnaut Report, as well as numerous studies have shown that job loss will not be an issue under emissions trading so long as the appropriate levels of education and training are provided to switch 'dirty energy' workers into the new 'green collar' jobs. In a Sydney Morning Herald article of September 7 this year, the Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union (CFMEU) stated that carbon emissions would change such industries, but "there will be other technologies deployed along the way and our members ... have got every reason to have a bright future across a range of different energy sources". So even those in mining are feeling positive about carbon emissions trading.

All in all, this is an issue that can't have us sitting on our hands humming "God Save the Queen". Rather, we should take some time to assess the different options, use the recommendations of the Garnaut report, and start up the program in 2010. I am also very passionate about his suggestions to utilise some of the extra revenue gained from carbon emissions to go back into assisting those who will be hardest hit such as single-parent families and pensioners. Furthermore, investing in public transport is something which is desperately needed across Australia, particularly in Sydney where the situation is, well, bad to say the least. Hopefully new Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull will take a different approach to Brendon Nelson and embrace the idea of tackling climate change ASAP. If we could have bipartisan support of such measures, then things would move a lot faster and effective change - as opposed to needless and unhelpful 'opposition for opposition's sake' - could finally eventuate.

So let's get moving, no more waiting!

Labels: climate change, emissions trading, Garnaut report, Kevin Rudd

It seems a bit strange that my first post should be about something that's not technically a political issue, but I was so disgusted when I read this article that I felt I needed to have my say about it.

CHRISTINE HODDER, 38, was a much-loved woman with a husband and a three-year-old daughter, and had almost completed her Bachelor of Nursing degree when she killed herself in her backyard.

Ms Hodder, after enduring years of bullying by male colleagues at Cowra ambulance station, where she was the first and only female officer, hanged herself on her child's swing in April, 2005.

The article goes on to talk about her frustration, and how despite approaching the issue with a sense of humour at first (I'm sure everyone knows how it feels trying to "laugh off" insults), she started questioning herself, doubting herself, and basically talking herself down. She took multiple bouts of stress leave and lodged two formal complaints.

She could not even leave her car at work because the tyres were let down, her toilet at work was urinated "all over" and she was constantly ridiculed by fellow officers in front of patients...In a five-page complaint dated February 20, 2005, which has been made public, Christine Hodder said she felt she had never been accepted there because she was a woman.
"In the past six years I have been badly treated as other staff members collectively bullied, belittled and intimidated me," she said.
"The staff in this station has constantly alienated and attacked my character and physical appearance since my arrival."

The harassment and bullying of women in male-dominated workplaces is something which must be addressed. So after an investigation finding that bullying had indeed taken place in Cowra, what did the report suggest?

It recommended staff receive training in workplaces free of harassment and bullying, that the service should explore how to change the behaviour of staff, and that no female officer be appointed to Cowra for six months. No officer was disciplined.

Hmm.. not particularly effective, I would argue. How about instead of stopping women from entering a workplace, you show the bullies that there are consequences for their actions. Even if this doesn't involve firing those involved (peer pressure can, after all, turn most nice people into bullies), but at least making them take anger management or anti-harassment classes, reducing them to a lower pay bracket, or even officially charging them. Three strikes should mean that the officers involved are fired. I don't mean three incidents against different female officers, I mean ANY three incidents.

If we were talking about your average office environment, with a 50/50 split of men to women, then behaviour like this would never be tolerated. Instead, we find a male-dominated workplace happy to scare and intimidate women at work, which has led to keeping women out of that work! If anything, the opposite stance should be adopted - bring in more women and ensure that management is there to support them rather than simply maintain the status quo.

However, thanks to inactive management, no disciplinary policy, and an investigative report which effectively suggests nothing, a good woman who was helping to save lives has taken her own. Good work, fellas.

Labels: bullying, harassment, sexism

Hi there and welcome to the first post for Sparliament : Politics in Action, a political blog aimed at informing, expressing opinions, and letting you in on why all this stuff should matter to you. I'll also be aiming to provide you with as much objective, fact-checkable information as I can, complete with links (and wikipedia entries!) so that you can form your own, probably-different-than-mine opinions in an intelligent and informed way. First a bit about myself: My name is Anna Jean McDougall and I'm currently a student of Media and Communications (with a minor in Spanish and Latin American Studies) at the University of Sydney, Australia. I've been working casually in the media industry during my studies for almost two years, and my current job is at Australian Associated Press as a Broadcast Monitor. As such, my work allows me a lot of time listening to news headlines, reports, interviews and discussion panels on a variety of political issues. Also a warning: I have a tendency to get distracted so at time the posts may veer off from the course of mainstream politics and delve into a philosophical theory, an event or issue that ticks me off, or simply the cultural and social landscape of other parts of the world or other problems ranging from human rights to vegetarianism to something funny I've noticed about the differences between Spanish and English. It's free range opinion day, every day, here at Sparliament. As such I always welcome comments involving constructive criticism, and I don't mind a nice clean debate that doesn't debase itself with insults or a closed mind. So all in all, I hope you enjoy Sparliament and all it (eventually) has to offer! Yours truly, Anna McDougall P.S. If you feel there's a topic you would like me to look at, or an issue you're currently dealing with, you can send it to me at anna.mcdougall@optusnet.com.au

Labels: First post, Introduction