|
In an email yesterday to Opposition MPs and Senators, backbencher Wilson Tuckey blasted Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull’s “arrogance” and “inexperience” on the Emissions Trading Scheme issue.
As for the Double Dissolution that holding out on the ETS could provoke, Tuckey’s message seems to be: bring it. Here is the email, in full and unedited:
The issue of the arrogance and inexperience of our Leader on the issue of the Emission Trading Scheme has to be addressed.
As a simple example of the negative politics of an ETS has anyone asked why Labor now titles it’s legislation the ‘Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme’.
As this note goes to all Members I insist that those who support the ETS should write me a detailed response as to how a Government process of selling certificates to pollute will guarantee that Australia will automatically reduce its emissions. One as versed in business as our Leader knows full well that judgements will be made on the commercial basis of “can I pass this cost onto a captive market” or “should I run down my existing investment and leave town” for greener pastures such as China, where Government investment is going to achieve the emissions reductions for me, or the USA where the science could be disproved before their Claytons ETS is implemented and that’s assuming it can pass the Senate, considering 44 Democrats in the House of Representatives voted against even this Claytons Bill.
Just in case you didn’t know or don’t care, the total vote in the Congress was 431 with the numbers being 219 for and 212 against, so the Bill only passed by 7 votes with 44 Democrats crossing the floor. If the same pattern of voting is followed in the Senate, where the Bill needs 60 votes to advance, and the Democrats have 58 votes, the Bill will be defeated or further diluted.
Another myth is the proposed massive job creation arising from a Derivates Trading Scheme not a Renewable Energy Scheme. What is more every Green Energy job that cannot reduce the cost of energy is just a further burden to the economy.
There are no amendments to the ETS that will make it work. By its nature, it is either a simple job destroyer or must be so generous as to fail in its purpose.
I can think of no better issue upon which to fight an election be it early or on time.
All that is needed is to differentiate the ETS from the Climate Change response.
I talk to many people and get stopped in the street and in the airport by people who recognise me. Not one has directly raised Climate Change nor do they do so when they are asked to independently list the areas of their concern.
An ETS is a job destroyer and they are worried about that, hence the ACTU 1 million jobs campaign which even Sharryn Burrows can’t make sound convincing.
HON WILSON TUCKEY
| 
11 Comments
Didn’t I hear Julie Bishop endorsing the likes of Tuckey
and explaining it as some sort of a mentoring process.
At least we know Steve Fieldings a one term aberration.
Do they drug test the parliament?
Tuckey is right
Turnbull is prepared to go to the wall on petty issues like ute-gate or none-of -his-business issues like Hu-gate.
But on what most non-crikey readers would accept as stupid policy he wants to snuggle up to Rudd and Wong.
As a crikey reading liberal supporter i believe he needs to make his stands on these type of fantastic overblown world leading Ruddisms.
Tuckey’s argument as expressed in that simple email will hold against all the pages of graphs,models and waffle the government can produce.
Howard could do it in his sleep.
As Turnbull seems too stupid to recognise the issues that are important and how to defend them he obviously still needs advice from Wilson.
Drug test them? They certainly need some performance enhancing drugs.
And there’s no apostrophe in “Labor now titles it’s legislation”, Wilson
signed
Punctuation Police
I agree with Tuckey on one point, it’s an issue worthy of an election… And one from the which the Greens would most benefit.
The thrust of Tuckey’s email makes sense, I have to say. Not necessarily throwing s — t at his leader, but some of the other stuff.
But it is no use just saying what he does not want to happen. He has to say what he thinks should happen. There must be a “Climate Change response” and this is what the sceptics will not or cannot address, any more than can the doomsayers.
There is no point simply saying that climate change is or is not caused by humans - it just does not matter. All Rudd’s ETS nonsense will make not one iota of difference in this decade or even in this century, but if climate change is real - and it MIGHT be - there must be things to do to address its effects.
My view is that the IPCC and all these other doomsayers have not proven their case - BUT IT DOES NOT MATTER. We need real solutions to address what is happening THIS VERY DAY on the Barrier Reef and lots of other places, and Rudd’s ETS goes nowhere near these important issues.
But anyway let’s debate climbing the Rock- that’s so important!!!!
I can’t help but be struck by the borderline incoherence of Tuckey’s email. It’s alarming, given he represents the people of this nation. Is it too much to ask our leaders to be articulate?
I support Graeme Lewis’ comment that alternative solutions are necessary. Let’s see the Libs’ proposal for responding to climate change, man-made or otherwise! There’s little to be gained from simply saying “that won’t do”; rather, I’d like to see the Opposition actually living up to the title of Alternative Government.
Even if IPCC modelling is way off, it seems self-evident to me that pumping millions of tonnes of chemicals into our air, water and soil every year is an unsustainable practice. Add to that the mining of non-renewable resources, overpopulation and aridity (in Australia at least) and it all stacks up to a threat of epic proportions. We need strong, brave leadership (no matter what Sir Humphrey might say), not pandering and loopholes. We only get one shot at this!
Tuckey has little or no credibility on this or any other national environmental/resource political issue. He spent his time as Forestry minister arguing there are more forests now than in 1788. Arguing perhaps more trees, say a 600 year old methuselah as in East Gippsland or Tasmania, replaced with a 2 year old plantation sapling. Not so much apples with oranges as apples with orange pips.
The C’th RAC report way back in 1992 said there was about 10% land cover of forest down from 20% in this wide brown land in 1788. Of that 10% much less than 1% was mature Old Growth forest (the kind with hollow bearing branches and critical refugia for diverse wildlife).
Now he thinks by delay in Australia we can somehow do justice to the 35% of global emissions that all the countries like 1.5% Australia contribute to collectively together - the tiddlers that make up a chunky school of fish of emitters. With none of our comparably sized emitters with as many advantages as Australia. Talk about boomer generation gap.
Truth is it’s people like Tuckey who have led us to the edge of a civilisation crash. Cut him loose and do us all a favour. Peter Van Onselan from the WA stronghold of the Liberals keeps telling the Libs to their face they must rejuvenate. If it takes a double dissolution soon after the deadline in 22 days then yes lets.
“the Bill needs 60 votes to advance, and the Democrats have 58 votes,” sorry Wilson, you’re (more than) a little out of date. The Dems have 60 Senators though party discipline there is NOT as here, though I wish that it were, ie that our Senators would cross the floor for those long forgotten things like principle or conscience. A Party must, by definition and RULES, is less than the sum of its parts; viz Garrett.
A first class dill. It’s (note the correct use of the apostrophe, Wilson!) great that he is on the Liberal side of politics. If I met him at an airport or in the street, I wouldn’t ask him about climate change either. In fact, I wouldn’t bother to seek his opinion on anything other than the vagaries of democracy that could allow a complete fool like him to be elected to parliament.
Tuckey would have avoided much of the fuss had he omitted his first sentence which in any case seems gratuitous.
He seems angry with colleagues in his own party: ‘… I insist that those who support the ETS should write me a detailed response …’.
And why does he sign a message to his colleagues ‘Hon Wilson Tuckey’?
Dear Wilson,
I am not so interested in the politics.
How do we provide energy to support our modern lifestyles? Do we burn fossil fuels till they are all gone and redistribute the carbon into the atmosphere or start using other resources, which we will need to do eventually?
How do we decide?
Do we leave it to market forces? A few rich people pushing us to the edge to be bailed out by taxpayers every few years.
Ideally how should we proceed Wilson?