Green Chaos Down Under – Battle Over Climate Policy May Bring Down Aussie Government

Newsbytes from Dr. Benny Peiser of The GWPF

Kevin Rudd has declared he will challenge Australia’s prime minister Julia Gillard as leader of the Labor party on Monday, saying he wants to “finish the job” he began before she ousted him. Mr Rudd, dumped as leader in 2010, attacked Ms Gillard as treacherous and untrustworthy and insisted she would not be able to win the next election. Mr Rudd attacked Ms Gillard’s political record, saying she urged him to dump his carbon pricing scheme as prime minister – a move that is credited as initiating his decline. –Jonathan Pearlman, The Daily Telegraph, 24 February 2012

KEVIN RUDD commissioned advice on ”repositioning” his ill-fated climate change policy, including scrapping it, two months before he dumped it, leaked documents show. Mr Rudd yesterday placed the blame squarely on Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan for forcing him to drop the policy but the Herald has obtained a departmental briefing commissioned by Mr Rudd showing he began the process that led to the policy being deferred indefinitely. –Phillip Coorey, The Sydney Morning Herald, 25 February 2012

The bloodletting inside the Labor Party is nothing short of animalistic. This week, many of the parliamentarians of the federal ALP have cast aside any semblance of unity and torn at each other in unrestrained frenzy. Australian Labor makes the US Republicans look almost charitable to each other by comparison. Labor, at its lowest standing in the public eye in the 40-year history of the Nielsen poll, does not seem well-placed to afford the luxury. — Peter Hartcher and Phillip Coorey, The Sydney Morning Herald, 25 February 2012

Labor’S chances of salvaging anything from the current leadership debacle are receding as fast as you can say “disunity is death”. This is not garden-variety disunity, it is a full-scale nuclear war that, almost uniquely, is taking place within the party of government. It is as crazy as the military acronym suggests – MAD, or “mutually assured destruction”. –Mark Kenny, Adelaide Advertiser, 25 February 2012

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

113 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
klem
February 25, 2012 3:00 pm

Oooh this is too good! I’ve got the popcorn and beer ready, this is going to be a brawl. Wahoo!

February 25, 2012 3:42 pm

johanna said February 25, 2012 at 2:36 pm

PG, I spent many years working in the Commonwealth government and reading letters to the PM and Ministers containing this ‘magic formula’. They tended to be written (later typed) with lots of CAPS and exclamation marks, with bits underlined in red.
Legal advice consistently said that this was bunkum, from nutters, like the people who entertained wild theories about the dire constitutional implications of taking EIIR off post office boxes. I kid you not, we got hundreds of letters about this from the same tribe of conspiracy theorists.
If it were remotely true, do you not think it would have gone to the High Court by now? Oh wait, they are probably in on the conspiracy too.
The fact that an obscure former MP believed this and wrote about it doesn’t make it true. But if you think it is, knock yourself out. Sadly, it will just ensure that the content of your letters is devalued as the ravings of the mentally challenged.

The fact that “conspiracy nutters” latched on to this is not evidence that what they latched on to was incorrect. I was first led to read Chresby’s book when visiting the parliamentary library in Hobart. Not being a conspiracy nutter, I asked a friend who has a keen interest in matters constitutional what he thought of it. His response was that it would need to be tested in the High Court. Chresby also mentions that his thesis would need to be tested there, so we seem to be in agreement on this aspect.
I think the main reason it has not been so tested is that there has been no majority of electors writing such missives.
As for letters to ministers being ignored, while secretary of the Huon Branch of the ALP I wrote many letters to members of the PLP on the branch’s behalf. They were routinely ignored despite not being of the nature prescribed by Chresby. This cost the party some considerable loss of membership at the time, the Git included.
I will also add that legal advice can be quite contrary depending on who one questions. I remember well that many Labor lawyers’ opinions at the time of Whitlam’s sacking that what Sir John Kerr had done was “unconstitutional”. That was when I first read the Australian Constitution and concluded from a common-sense reading of it (rather than as one educated in law) that his act was in keeping with the Constitution.
BTW, I would rather not be called PG these days given that Peter Gleik is being referred to by that acronym.

Jon at WA
February 25, 2012 5:02 pm

This discussion of constitutional law is a discussion of which paragragh to use from the bundle of papers. When both houses of Parliament were dissolved by the Sir John Kerr, the Australian people were handed Malcom Fraser and John Howard, the slide away from rational government continued from the racism of Land Rights, the amazing retrospectivity of the “Bottom of the Harbour”, the four pillars which allows Australian banks to lend even now at over %7 to business, through to a carbon tax with a goods and service tax stuck on top of it.
To have a logical discussion about how to resolve a symptom when the cause is in my opinion a disconnect with the knowledge and aspirations of the people the politicians purport to represent is amusing, but there needs to be an understanding that this disconnect exists.
For instance, do the people of the US know our candidates election campaigns are funded from the public purse after a certain portion of the vote has been achieved. There isn’t any ‘shrimp on the barbie’ style fund-raising and I have been unable to find a public notice of any such event. The candidates are party apparatchiks annointed by political parties, often to seats they have little if any connection with.
In other words we are arguing here about the operation of a democracy where it exists in name only. Australia is a one party state and operates, complete with useless windmills in the true Orwellian Animal Farm tradition. If you think the demise of Rudd, Gillard or the labor version of politics will bring renaissance, just listen to the debate of the carbon tax from both sides of the trough.

Jeff
February 25, 2012 5:14 pm

Peter Walsh says:
February 25, 2012 at 2:12 pm …
Don’t know where you’re from, but in the US (at least in the south), greens are wild plants,
generally nutritious when added to salads, etc. (and usually don’t cost much, if anything).
The wild human type generally consume a lot of other people’s money, and appear to
be anti-nutrition (or anti-plant) by virtue of their war on CO2 plant food…

johanna
February 25, 2012 5:45 pm

The Pompous Git, I sincerely apologise for any suggestion that you should be confused with the odious Peter Gleick. I will certainly use your full nom de plume in future, if the occasion arises.
Three quick points:
– The book was in the Parliamentary Library because it was written by a former MP. Any book by a current or former MP, no matter how deluded, is routinely included the the PL collection.
– I made no reference to whether particular letters would or would not receive a reply. Individual Ministers have individual policies on this. The (Liberal) Minister I worked longest for at least acknowledged all letters except abusive or obscene ones. I have worked for ALP Ministers who rarely even acknowledged, let alone responded to, letters from members of the public.
– While you are right to say that there are differing legal opinions on many issues, over a long period every single piece of legal advice, from different lawyers in different agencies, including the Attorney-General’s Department, all said the same thing about this. It simply isn’t true in any way, shape or form.

Sunspot
February 25, 2012 6:07 pm

To put in a nut shell. The Australian Labour party is made up of Trade Union staffers that have progressed up through the ranks to become politicians. To make matters worse the Labour Government is in bed with the Greens, not by choice but by necessity to win the election. The Greens desperately wanted the Carbon Tax for socialistic reasons. Labour are quite happy with that as that means more revenue to try and get into the black after wasting a very hefty $300B + on everything except infrastructure. The Greens also intend to reintroduce death duties.

February 25, 2012 7:21 pm

johanna said February 25, 2012 at 5:45 pm

The Pompous Git, I sincerely apologise for any suggestion that you should be confused with the odious Peter Gleick. I will certainly use your full nom de plume in future, if the occasion arises.

Don’t worry about it too much; just don’t call me late for dinner 😉

– While you are right to say that there are differing legal opinions on many issues, over a long period every single piece of legal advice, from different lawyers in different agencies, including the Attorney-General’s Department, all said the same thing about this. It simply isn’t true in any way, shape or form.

You seem to be saying here that our elected representatives cannot be held to account for their actions except at a future election. If that be the case, then I suspect the situation here in Southern Tasmania could become very ugly. A tree arriving at Ta Ann’s veneer mill the other day had been spanked. Luckily no-one was hurt. One tree faller (who for obvious reasons remains anonymous) commenced cutting a face in a tree occupied by a tree sitter who unsurprisingly got down from the tree rather rapidly.
The prime culprits in the minds of those losing their livelihood are the Greens aided and abetted by the Parliamentary Labor Party — in particular Lara Giddings. The Greens have indicated that the next industry they want to destroy is our relatively new aquaculture industry. If there is no remedy such as Chresby suggests, then I’m afraid that direct action may ensue.

February 25, 2012 7:41 pm

Sunspot said February 25, 2012 at 6:07 pm

To put in a nut shell. The Australian Labour party is made up of Trade Union staffers

There is no Australian Labour Party. We do however have an Australian Labor Party. Or at least we used to. The Git’s letter of resignation to the State Secretary had the concluding line:

If you ever decide to start a labor party, please let me know because I’d love to join.

I never received a reply, though he did ask me to scrute for him in the next election. So did the Green candidate. I turned them both down 🙂

Evan Thomas
February 25, 2012 8:38 pm

I haven’t gone through all the preceding posts and i may be repeating some. The Australian
Labor Party was founded by labour unions and was originally a socialist party; that policy has long gone, but the unions still exercise great influence, mainly by controlling the the preselection process which determines who gets selected to the “safe” seats. The unions have left and right factions, however they usually sort out their differences in back room deals. Gillard has union support, Rudd has little or none. Many labor MPs are former union leaders.
Still awake? The Greens party are a disparate group; some partially reformed communists and some genuine environmentalists but all definitely very left wing.
The Liberal Party’s membership comprises small L liberals and conservatives, some influenced by the teachings of the Catholic church. The National Party, who together with the Liberals form the Coalition, are non-city based conservatives influenced by agricultural matters. Cheers from soggy Sydney.

February 25, 2012 9:48 pm

Evan Thomas said February 25, 2012 at 8:38 pm

I haven’t gone through all the preceding posts and i may be repeating some. The Australian
Labor Party was founded by labour unions and was originally a socialist party; that policy has long gone

The only time the ALP ever became serious about socialism was when Ben Chifley attempted to nationalise the banks in the 1940s. While labour unions were certainly prominent in the establishment of the party, there were also some farmers and even mine owners.
Cheers from sunny Tasmania where yesterday it was 40C at the Git’s place and is currently 35C, somewhat cooler than an hour ago. Time for a refreshing chardonnay methinks 🙂

John from CA
February 26, 2012 10:56 am

WOW, great comments!!!
Thanks brc, E.M.Smith, and The Pompous Git for the insights.

Myrrh
February 26, 2012 11:15 am

Pompous Git – for interest some background – http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_british_constitution.htm
Do you have Common Law as the Law?

February 26, 2012 1:12 pm

Myrrh said February 26, 2012 at 11:15 am

Pompous Git – for interest some background – http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_british_constitution.htm
Do you have Common Law as the Law?

We do, but and it’s a big one, there are differences. Wikibloodypedia has an excellent introductory on this:

All of the States and territories of Australia that are self-governing are separate jurisdictions, and have their own system of courts and parliaments. The systems of laws in each state are influential on each other, but not binding. Laws passed by the Parliament of Australia apply to the whole of Australia.
The organized system of law and government now in force in Australia is historically dependent for its legal validity on a series of British statutes, notably including the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. The authority of the United Kingdom Parliament to enact those statutes depended on the acquisition of the Australian continent as a territorial possession of the British Crown. Although the laws of the Australian colonies differed from the UK in many respects from the beginnings of settlement, the underlying patterns of thought reflect the common law tradition as received from Britain.

[emphasis mine]
Since the Australian Constitution is an Act of the British Parliament, it is subject to possible repeal by that body. While this is unlikely in the extreme, it was a concern to those of us johanna refers to as “conspiracy theorists”. Consequently, the High Court handed down the somewhat bizarre decision that Australia is a sovereign state internally, but not externally. However, we seem to be drifting very OT here.
Thanks for the link. Very familiar territory, but an interesting website to point people at for a backgrounder.

1 3 4 5