In one of the great betrayals in Australia’s history, Malcolm Turnbull today abandoned any pretense of support of small government and liberalism by throwing his weight behind the considerably corrupted Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
The CPRS as originally introduced by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong was fatally flawed. But following amendments forced on Labor by Malcolm Turnbull, the CPRS was horribly distorted with an obscene potential to embed rent seeking behaviour in most companies and build up crony capitalism.
In theory an emissions trading scheme can provide a sound market-based means of capping carbon emissions. But a necessary condition is for a world-wide trading scheme. It is clear that there is no such scheme. And it is clear that there is no possibility of such over the next decade.
Under these circumstances, for Australia to introduce a perfect ETS would be silly. But to pass the amended CPRS would be lunacy. It would be considerably superior to introduce an appropriate carbon tax, which would be more efficient and less prone to corruption and rent seeking. The dead weight cost of the CPRS is magnified with relatively low emissions reductions targets – the community bears this cost. It does not deliver least cost abatement – more likely it delivers maximum cost abatement.
Better still would be to be serious and allow nuclear power – after all, two of the new generation nuclear reactors would achieve the five per cent reduction in emissions as per the target signed on by both the Government and the Opposition and would allow for greater emissions reductions in the future. The future of energy is nuclear - fission at present and eventually fusion.
On 2 October 2009, at an address to the Foreign Correspondents’ Association, Turnbull said:
… the rush to legislate before Copenhagen is completely indefensible, and I have to say genuinely to you, I find it completely baffling. The summit will be in December. The Parliament sits again in February. For the sake of sixty days why would you not want to be better informed?
Well we are now better informed. Copenhagen was a disaster for those wanting common action across nations. It proved that Turnbull’s comments were right – but applied post Copenhagen too.
Today Turnbull said
The planet is warming because of the growing level of greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. If this trend continues then truly catastrophic consequences will ensue, from rising sea levels to reduced water availability to more heatwaves and fires.
Such statements amount to dogma not scientific inquiry.
He further stated that
The scheme will raise a substantial amount of revenue over the period to 2020, but it is not designed—nor should it be—to raise additional net revenue for the government, as taxes do, since the funds raised by the sale of permits will be returned to compensate lower income households and assist businesses
this shows he does not understand the nature of taxation – which is to obtain resources from the general community to fund government projects. Taxes are not designed to raise additional net revenue for the government – no government seeks to maximise surpluses.
But he correctly stated
All of us in this House know that industries and businesses, attended by an army of lobbyists, are particularly persuasive and all too effective at getting their sticky fingers into the taxpayers’ pocket. Having the government pick projects for subsidy is a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale, and there will always be a temptation for projects to be selected for their political appeal.
This applies in spades to the corrupted CPRS.
When Malcolm Turnbull crosses the floor to vote in favour of the CPRS, he should keep his seat on the right side of the Speaker. Then the Prime Minister can make him the new Climate Change Minister and allow him to passionately argue the case for the CPRS which he so strongly supports.
Isn’t he just being consistent?
TerjeP (say Tay-a)
8 Feb 10 at 8:38 pm
Probably a few more pollies on both sides should cross the floor, rather than fall into line. And it’s not as if Abbott himself is pushing a carbon tax option. He basically can’t now, as he’d look silly after all that talk about a ‘great big tax’. So Liberals now have a choice between a cumbersome CPRS, or Abbott’s embarrassing plan to amass a ‘Green army’ to plant trees.
THR
8 Feb 10 at 8:45 pm
No Prime Ministership for this hissy fit chucker. Another bullet dodged.
Infidel Tiger
8 Feb 10 at 8:46 pm
Australia’s Don Quixote? Yes, I see your point but if there’s one thing this green BoBo wouldn’t tilt against it’s a windmill. I nominate Petro Georgiou as Sancho Pansy.
C.L.
8 Feb 10 at 8:51 pm
Meanwhile, the man who destroyed the surplus in a panic and blew $42 billion on toilets and pink batts, is workshopping the latest attack strategy handed to him by his spin doctors. And it’s a doozy:
Abbott Fiscally Reckless, Says Kevin Rudd.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
C.L.
8 Feb 10 at 9:03 pm
Interesting. Two former Labor opposition leaders (Turnbull and Hewson) and Rudd all using the same line within 24hours. I’d say We’ll hear something from Mal Fraser soon, but he probably can’t find the strides he left the briefing notes in.
Infidel Tiger
8 Feb 10 at 9:07 pm
Please don’t sully the name of Don Quixote by comparing him to Malcolm Turnbull. If the latter had any principle he would have resigned from the Party rather than pretend to be a man of principle by crossing the floor.
dover_beach
8 Feb 10 at 9:11 pm
Isn’t he just being consistent?
.
yes, but that’s about all you can say in his defense.
His position was to support Rudd; even though there was a credible alternative position; even though the grassroots AND backbench of his own party were against it as well as the right-wing commentariat. That basically boils down to, he sold out his party.
.
Well you could defend that, too, I guess on the grounds of being a “man of principle”, but we now can see that the ETS is opaque and complex, and is one of many possible responses to global warming. (forgetting the sceptical angle for a moment). So even for global warming activists, the ETS isn’t a moral principle, it’s a politcal solution.
.
Plus, let’s talk about this “man of principle” thing. Remember the Godwin Grech fiasco? Well, let me remind you what it was about before it went pear shaped. It was about Turnbull trying to bring down Rudd, not through winning an election against him, but through character assassination. He didn’t want to defeat Rudd, he wanted to destroy him personally, – as in, destroy his life – and obtain the national leadership by default. That’s what the Grech thing was about. I didn’t like it one bit even when it was going well. That’s playing dirtier than anyone else I can think of in Australian politics, and it’s not exactly democratic.
.
So now, he’s going to cross the floor. Why do that? It’s so that he will be seen to be a man of principle. I’m not convinced.
daddy dave
8 Feb 10 at 9:12 pm
I’d say We’ll hear something from Mal Fraser soon, but he probably can’t find the strides he left the briefing notes in.
There in Mal Turnbull’s office.
dover_beach
8 Feb 10 at 9:13 pm
Always wrap a lie inside a truth – makes it easier to swallow…
Turnbull is right about subsidies of course, but pretending the CPRS (especially after his own “improvements”) isn’t many times more open to the same is pretty disingenuous.
Abbot’s scheme is annoying – but the lesser of two evils by a large margin. As was correctly observed on Insiders, Abbott’s plan isn’t meant to attract votes from greenies (he’ll never get them anyway), but simply to appease those in the middle – to give them an excuse not to vote ALP.
Fleeced
8 Feb 10 at 9:14 pm
Fellas come on. Malcolm is a decent dude. He can’t walk away from what he believed.
JC
8 Feb 10 at 9:24 pm
Fleeced, do you mean Abbott is ‘playing’ politics, oh, the shame.
You know what the most touching aspect of this Malcolm “Principled” Turnbull schtick is, the idea that his response, then and now, was principled when in fact it was pure politics; it always has been. Then, it was argued as necessary for the Coalition’s political survival; now, it is simply a dagger he can pierce and turn in Abbott’s back. Its nice, however, to recall, that this is the second time in which Abbott has outclassed Turnbull on the national scene.
dover_beach
8 Feb 10 at 9:27 pm
A decent dude? He’s as dodgy as they come – and has a bigger glass jaw than anyone else in Australian politics.
Has he accomplished anything decent in his short political career? Aside from freeing us of the scourge of incandescent light bulbs?
Fleeced
8 Feb 10 at 9:29 pm
He just get carried away with this stuff and ended up supporting an abominable policy.
By the way is there anyone that has read ETS policy statement and figured out how it’s going to work? I tried and for the life of me I can’t work it.
No wonder no one is talking talking about as they can’t make head nor hair of that crap.
There’s money flying everywhere. In fact V in the money supply would be affected by the ETS I’d say.
JC
8 Feb 10 at 9:29 pm
On Media Watch tonight, there was an item about Monckton – it showed a denial from former IPCC head John Houghton that he was a trustee of TERI-Europe as claimed by Monckton and demanding a retraction.
Well Houghton is dissembling. Here is the official TERI-Europe website and Houghton is listed as an adviser if not a trustee. http://www.terieurope.org/trustees.htm
It took me 20 seconds to find this – why couldn’t Jonathan Holmes and his team do a little research to refute Houghton’s claims?
Samuel J
8 Feb 10 at 9:31 pm
Fleeced;
he was ok. He wasn’t dodgy. lazy perhaps, bone lazy and out of his depth as he didn’t really get politics at this stage as he was too new. Blame the libs for that mistake, not him.
His tax policy he put on the table was quite good.
He ought to get Barn Door Joyce’s job as no one can do worse than that innumerate who doesn’t know the difference between 1 bill and a trill..
JC
8 Feb 10 at 9:33 pm
db: yes, I agree… I’d also agree that Abbott doesn’t have much choice – he has to appease the “do something” crowd – but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.
I agree about Turnbull as well. It’s not so much about being principled, as a desire to seem principled. Seeming is always more important than doing in the green faith.
Of course, it’s possible he’s a true-believer in AGW, but highly doubtful that he believes an Australian ETS will make the planet any cooler.
Fleeced
8 Feb 10 at 9:33 pm
It took me 20 seconds to find this – why couldn’t Jonathan Holmes and his team do a little research to refute Houghton’s claims?
.
Samuel, Houghton’s one of the good guys. Monckton is the bad guy. Get it right!
daddy dave
8 Feb 10 at 9:35 pm
JC – Malcolm Turnbull has consistently said Australia shouldn’t have an ETS if the rest of the world doesn’t move. He has changed his position – like Janus. See for example http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/speeches/the-carbon-pollution-reduction-scheme-bill/
Samuel J
8 Feb 10 at 9:35 pm
JC: You don’t seriously want Turnbull drafted back to the front-bench?
Fleeced
8 Feb 10 at 9:37 pm
Because Jonathon Holmes is a leftoid, smug faced, dick and BBC reject that isn’t concerned with the truth.
All the dick is worried about is scoring points against the right perched up there with his taxpayer funded salary projecting that really fucking annoying smug smile. Whenever I see the smug look of his I wish the TV lights fell on his head. He’s the most annoying presenter those jerks at the ABC force on the public.
Watch, Holmes won’t correct that crap. Email it to him and demand a retraction but he won’t change it.
JC
8 Feb 10 at 9:39 pm
It wasnt Turnbull that betrayed his principles it was Abbott. It wasnt Turnbull that back flipped when the polls went down, it was Abbott
Now that Abbott has stuck his hand up and neck out it will be the Libs climate change policy vs the ALP’s. Prior to Abbott climate change was all the ALP’s, now that the Libs have their own policy there is something that can be assessed and scrutinised and valued and discussed and ridiculed and shredded all the way to the next election.
rog
8 Feb 10 at 9:41 pm
Not yet Fleeced. Give him time to cool his heals but he would be a decent add eventually and would offer a more libertarian bent to that ship. He needs to cool his heals a little and learn some discipline in the wilderness.
Discipline would come first of course as he does have plenty of gray matter.
JC
8 Feb 10 at 9:41 pm
Rog:
Stop it with the rancor. Turnbull lost. He couldn’t carry the party with him and he had shocking management style.
Everyone walked out on him. Compare that to Howard when the guys stayed with him until the end save for Costello.
Turnbull never had it in him to lead a party. You don’t lead guys like that by screaming at them.
Abbott may have changed his tune, however he did so because Turnbull was r=wrecking the party and party discipline.
You need fuckers to love you as their leader , not hate you.
You may not like Abbott’s AGW policy but he’s a better leader for the party than Turnbull.
Live with it.
JC
8 Feb 10 at 9:46 pm
You may not like Abbott’s AGW policy but he’s a better leader for the party than Turnbull.
But Abbott is not a better leader for Turnbull, since Turnbull (and some other suburban Libs) may be at risk of losing his seat, due to redistributions, and Abbott’s apparent conservatism.
Extoling the virtues of virginity and ironing boards isn’t likely to play so well in Wentworth and Kooyong.
THR
8 Feb 10 at 9:48 pm
Turnbull as Mr Principle. What a joke. He was a lying, leaking dickhead who did everything he could to undermine and destroy Brendan Nelson. He banned a party room ballot on the ETS because he was afraid he’d lose. He has said the ETS is useless codswallop without the rest of the world Doing Something but now he’s backflipped.
Has he accomplished anything decent in his short political career?
Republic: fail.
Liberal Party leadership: fail.
Light bulb ban: win.
That’s it. He swaggered into Parliament House and outlawed the very symbol of the bright idea.
C.L.
8 Feb 10 at 9:48 pm
@rog When Abott went along with Turnbull – THAT was a betrayal of his principles. Thankfully, he finally came to his senses.
@JC It puzzles me (and always has, since even before the last election) why so many libertarians liked Turnbull. It puzzles me even more that some of them still do. I’ve yet to see anything from him that indicates a libertarian bent.
Fleeced
8 Feb 10 at 9:50 pm
The other annoying leftie is that Ticky Fullerton. I can’t believe she worked for the same firm I did but in the London office.
I can’t imagine what she did there other than doing the coffee/tea rounds under supervision.
As a pair Holmes and Fullerton are the most annoying of all on that rat box.
JC
8 Feb 10 at 9:51 pm
“He swaggered into Parliament House and outlawed the very symbol of the bright idea”
lol – love that line… consider it stolen.
Fleeced
8 Feb 10 at 9:52 pm
Prior to Abbott climate change was all the ALP’s, now that the Libs have their own policy there is something that can be assessed and scrutinised and valued and discussed and ridiculed and shredded all the way to the next election.
At last. Rog reveals his own idea of “principle.” It wasn’t about the environment, after all. It was about a small target strategy that would allow the Liberals to magically win because they weren’t being abused by the ALP on “climate change.” And it was working so well for Tunrbull that he gloried in the lofty approval rating of 14 percent. Just shows what a girle man you really are, Rog. You don’t want to be ridiculed “all the way to the next election.” Awww. You don’t want to fight for anything.
C.L.
8 Feb 10 at 9:54 pm
and would offer a more libertarian bent to that ship
If he has libertarian tendencies he’s kept them very well to himself.
.
Extoling the virtues of virginity and ironing boards isn’t likely to play so well in Wentworth and Kooyong.
Very true.
Abbott to Turnbull after talking about virginity: “Oops. did that make it hard for you to win your seat again? Oh dear. SOOO sorry about that, Mal.”
daddy dave
8 Feb 10 at 9:55 pm
THR:
Turnbull ended up agreeing with almsot every major policy by Rudd. At least Abbott believes in freer labor markets which is more than we can say about Turnbull who was always fearful of an election.
Dude, the next election is not a lay up for Rudd as he has a lot of head winds. I’m not saying the Libs can win, however you could carve a pretty decent campaign and put it right up to Rudd as there’s a lot to work with.
With a decent performance, the next election could be winnable by the libs.
These are pretty volatile electorates and who would have believed a nobody could have won the mass senate election.
If you can paint Rudd as a big spending economic illiterate who has no idea what the fuck is going on and wasting money on shitty things the Libs could take the fucker out with a 2% uniform swing.
The RBA sticks rates up another few times and straight way people with big mortgages get a little worried.
JC
8 Feb 10 at 9:58 pm
His tax policy was pretty decent and Costello should have listened to him.
JC
8 Feb 10 at 10:00 pm
Actually Abbott is far more libertarian than Turnbull. The reality is that our most prominent libertarians in public life are also mostly conservatives. As much as it pains some of the more modern-thinking libertarians to admit it.
daddy dave
8 Feb 10 at 10:00 pm
Turnbull was advocating a much flatter tax regime.
JC
8 Feb 10 at 10:00 pm
Dad’s
As I said I like Abbott, but he’s a big government conservative.
JC
8 Feb 10 at 10:01 pm
I agree that Rudd and co have to take Abbott seriously for the next election. And Abbott’s message may be getting through in some parts of the country. But Abbott isn’t the man to win over urban voters in Melbourne and Sydney. The margins for the Coalition in Wentworth, for instance, aren’t that big, and a seat like that is unlikely to be won over by Abbott’s conservative swagger.
Meanwhile, there are a few other factors against the Libs, like demographics and redistributions. Even if Abbott performs well, they could still lose seats like McEwen.
The interest rate rises probably won’t be blamed on Rudd, since Swan/Rudd always talk down any high economic expectations, and (unlike Howard) they never pretended to control interest rates. Economics is not Abbott’s forte either (still less Barnaby’s). We might have an election where the ALP is perceived as the better economic managers.
THR
8 Feb 10 at 10:04 pm
I’d be happy to lose Wentworth and pick seats in Sydney’s west.
Infidel Tiger
8 Feb 10 at 10:22 pm
Rudd is lying again, this time, on Q&A. He says that the IPCC is essentially 4000 (not 2500) humourless scientists walking around in white coats measuring things. He, like many others, have no idea what the IPCC is actually engaged in.
dover_beach
8 Feb 10 at 10:25 pm
Blah blah blah
Now Abbott’s glorious plan will be attacked by Libs, ALP, Greens and Joe the gadget man
Abbott has rejected a market based plan in favour of a Big Govt Big Spend plan – thats the neo-Lib policy
Abbott hasnt done the costing and Turnbull has.
rog
8 Feb 10 at 10:30 pm
the shorter Rog:
dover_beach
8 Feb 10 at 10:37 pm
A “market” plan, is it? A “market” spontaneously emerged as businessmen and citizens decided they wanted to buy and trade a harmless gas.
This is the kind of delusional, Orwellian world created by warmenist hysterics. Fortunately, the whole edifice of their lies is collapsing faster than Kevin Rudd can say Greatest Moral Challenge of Our Time.
Let me show you what a real market looks like and delivers.
Abbott hasnt done the costing and Turnbull has.
Mmm, we saw an example of his meticulous attention to detail in the Gordan Grech affair.
C.L.
8 Feb 10 at 10:41 pm
Of course Turnbull’s done the costings. He photo-copied Rudd’s. That the advantage of working for the government.
Infidel Tiger
8 Feb 10 at 10:45 pm
As an aside, I reckon someone has to tell Abbott not to start interviews with the narrow eyed look that he used on Insiders yesterday. Makes him look very defensive even before the interview starts.
CL – surely all leadership challenges involve subterfuge, probably in most cases with the consent and co-operation of the challenger. I frankly don’t understand the sympathy for Nelson you seem to display – he was by far the most unlikely of the 3 leaders since the election to be a threat to Rudd. I couldn’t wait for him to be replaced.
steve from brisbane
8 Feb 10 at 10:48 pm
As an aside, I reckon someone has to tell Abbott not to start interviews with the narrow eyed look that he used on Insiders yesterday. Makes him look very defensive even before the interview starts.
I thought Abbott was very effective on Insiders, whether or not his eyes looked “narrow” to begin with.
dover_beach
8 Feb 10 at 10:51 pm
steve, how do you explain Abbott’s improving poll numbers?
Infidel Tiger
8 Feb 10 at 10:53 pm
Steve is obsessed with eyes. First Monckton’s, now Abbott’s. Thank goodness Bill O’Chee left public life. If he was a “sceptic,” Steve would be saying he had Opium eyes. I mean, when people liken warmenists to phrenologists, they’re not far off the mark.
C.L.
8 Feb 10 at 11:00 pm
The suggestion that Turnbull stays on permanently once he crosses the floor would actually be beneficial to the ALP. They would then have someone who actually understood the ETS, and would perhaps have a fighting chance of explaining it.
Unfortunately it would be suicide for Australia if ever implemented.
Interesting scare ads by solarhart on TV tonight.
The pseudo newspaper cutting graphic displaying : “Power to rise from ETS”. I guess it’s factually correct, except that we don’t have and ETS.
THR, I picked up on Antony Green’s blog that electoral redistributions can’t be completed in time for the most probable election dates, so the boundaries will be unchanged this time around.
I don’t understand how labor can be seen as better economic managers with the panic button deficit they produced.
Keith
8 Feb 10 at 11:01 pm
Steve is obsessed with eyes. First Monckton’s, now Abbott’s. Thank goodness Bill O’Chee left public life. If he was a “sceptic,” Steve would be saying he had Opium eyes.
LOL. And I rarely do. Just brilliant, CL.
dover_beach
8 Feb 10 at 11:07 pm
Keith, looking at Green’s blog, my reading is that redistributions will go ahead in most states, but not Victoria, since they’ve left it too late.
As for the deficit – people may be aware that much worse is happening in the US, UK, Ireland. Australia’s gotten through relatively unscathed. The average voter hasn’t been hurt by the deficit in any way, and I don’t hear the business community campaigning against it.
THR
8 Feb 10 at 11:10 pm
As if Monckton’s eyes weren’t noticeable….
Of course Abbott was “effective” to you IT: you’re the “base” that he’s going over well with. But he’s done nothing to dissuade me that he’s not a polarising figure.
His polling? Rudd took a big holiday, Tony was popping up everywhere being Mr Action Man. And bear in mind, Rudd’s popularity has puzzled me right from the beginning. His fakery may finally be catching up with him.
steve from brisbane
8 Feb 10 at 11:18 pm
As if Monckton’s eyes weren’t noticeable….
Eye-eye, skipper.
C.L.
8 Feb 10 at 11:28 pm
JC – I basically agree with your analysis of Turnbull and Abbott.
I think Abbott has better political instincts (not to mention more experience) however he has done nothing to prove he is more libertarian than Malcolm. Both of them are middle of the road Liberals. As for party loyalty I don’t find the moaning on this count to be at all credible. One minute people demand principles the next minute they demand loyalty and then it’s political viability. In reality it’s always a balancing act. Sometimes loyalty, principle and political viability converge but more often something gives.
TerjeP (say Tay-a)
8 Feb 10 at 11:33 pm
he’s done nothing to dissuade me that he’s not a polarising figure.
.
Howard was described as “polarising”.
Actually, come to think of it, so was Keating!
daddy dave
8 Feb 10 at 11:33 pm
His fakery may finally be catching up with him.
Just like the IPCC and AGW in general.
Infidel Tiger
8 Feb 10 at 11:36 pm
This place is really becoming a hotbed… a hotbead of scepticism.
JC
9 Feb 10 at 12:01 am
Check out the ‘Hot Topics’ atop the right-hand margin of the ALP’s home page.
‘Abbott’ first.
‘Rudd givernment’ nearly last.
C.L.
9 Feb 10 at 12:31 am
CL – it’s sorted alphabetically. I’m not sure of your point.
TerjeP (say Tay-a)
9 Feb 10 at 7:10 am
@CL The topics are listed alphabetically.
Fleeced
9 Feb 10 at 7:45 am
In reality it’s always a balancing act. Sometimes loyalty, principle and political viability converge but more often something gives.
.
That’s a good point TerjeP.
daddy dave
9 Feb 10 at 9:20 am
Samuel J
Putting aside any ‘crimes against small government’ Turnbull might be guilty of, what is he is really, truly, madly, deeply sincere in his acceptance of AGW, and he thinks its dire consequences are nigh?
Peter Patton
10 Feb 10 at 7:17 pm
[...] Under these circumstances, for Australia to introduce a perfect ETS would be silly. But to pass the amended CPRS would be lunacy. It would be considerably superior to introduce an appropriate carbon tax, which would be more efficient and less prone to corruption and rent seeking. Malcolm Bligh Turnbull – Australia’s Don Quixote? [...]
Global Voices Online » Australia: Climate Change Election a Step Closer
11 Feb 10 at 2:57 pm
[...] Under these circumstances, for Australia to introduce a perfect ETS would be silly. But to pass the amended CPRS would be lunacy. It would be considerably superior to introduce an appropriate carbon tax, which would be more efficient and less prone to corruption and rent seeking. Malcolm Bligh Turnbull – Australia’s Don Quixote? [...]
Australia: Climate Change Election a Step Closer
11 Feb 10 at 3:07 pm