Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
Wong may backtrack on renewables
|
There are signs the Government may succumb to pressure from the Opposition, Greens and the renewable energy industry and de-couple its Renewable Energy Target legislation from the CPRS next week. The bill is the second item scheduled for debate on Monday in the House of Representatives despite the Government previously insisting that it was inseparable from the CPRS bills, which were defeated yesterday in the Senate. On Wednesday in Question Time the Prime Minister appeared to leave the door open on the issue when he said “if those opposite intend to vote against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in the Senate … could I suggest to those opposite that they therefore have an obligation to advance what alternative scheme they have by way of compensation regimes under the renewable energy target.” Crikey understands that after their Lateline debate on Tuesday night, Greg Combet and Greg Hunt, who has repeatedly invited Combet to negotiate with him, spoke on the issue and the two had a further discussion yesterday to the effect that the Opposition would produce an amendment to de-couple the bills, which are linked by a definitional reference in the section of the RET bill that provides for an exemption for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries. The amendment, likely to emerge later today, would involve a straightforward cut-and-paste from the CPRS bills. If passed in its current form, the Renewable Energy Target would be imposed without a legally workable exemption for big electricity users — an outcome the Greens would welcome, but not the Government or the Coalition. The exemption will allow electricity retailers to continue to provide the biggest electricity users with cheap coal-based power without incurring penalties for failing to reach the renewable energy target. The biggest beneficiary will be the aluminium industry, which by itself uses 15% of the nation’s electricity. The industry primarily generates its own power, meaning it will have no incentive to switch to renewable energy sources despite the aluminium industry’s reliance on renewables such as hydro-electricity elsewhere in the world. The amendment would represent another big win for Australia’s worst polluters. The Government has used the link to seek to pressure the Opposition to pass the CPRS bill, but all parties and the renewables industry quickly criticised it as a political stunt. It now finds itself having to either reverse its rhetoric about the need for the bills to stay together or face a backlash from the renewables industry for holding the sector hostage as part of its political brinkmanship. Combet’s role also reflects an emerging pattern in which Combet’s senior Minister, Penny Wong, appears inflexible and hardline while Combet quietly tries to negotiate with key stakeholders. It is Combet who has been negotiating with the coal industry on more compensation for the sector in lieu of its inclusion as an EITE. While this looks a deliberate good cop/bad cop ploy on the part of the Government, Wong’s complete disregard for any form of negotiation has been a hallmark of her handling of emissions trading right from the start. At no stage has Wong offered to seriously negotiate with either the Coalition or the Greens on the CPRS bill, insisting robotically that the Government had “got the balance right”, even as other Ministers like Julia Gillard and Nicola Roxon negotiated high-profile bills through the Senate. As things stand, Wong is one of the few ministers who have failed to implement key Government election commitments. |
|
|
14 Comments
Wong seems to have been appointed because she ticks all the appropriate boxes.
Female? Tick. Gay? Tick. Ideologically suitable? Tick. From a minor state? Tick.
Pity that competence was not one of the selection criteria. Colleagues who have had to deal with her department state that everything that gets agreed by her Department then gets to her and comes to a dead stop, with Wong refusing to countenance other points of view. She is more ideological than most imagine and has a bad case of ‘My way or the highway’ about her.
As Keane points out, others in the Government have dealt with hard issues, undertaking the horse trading necessary to get bills through, with amendments as required to do so.
Wong on the other hand seems to have no idea of how to spell compromise, let alone practice it.
Come again? What does her s*xual orientation have to do with it?
Can anybody tell me why an amendment uncoupling the bills was not proposed in the first place? One cannot have expected the Government to move it, but as it happens the debate on such an amendment would have made things even more difficult for the Opposition, irrespective of the outcome. I would thought Bob Brown would have been happy to move it, if asked politely.
If the Renewable Energy Target bill means more useless windfarms rammed up the backsides of rural Australia, that’s bad news. Direct the money to technologies which will actually produce power instead of pain.
Mike (2.13pm) and the other Michael James (1.48pm).
I just need to point out that the Michael James writing the current comment is different to the earlier writer (1.48pm).
Please, could you contact Jane Nethercote of Crikey and request that we do something to disambiguate the two of us. It is ridiculous and unacceptable that readers cannot tell us apart. You are quite free to criticize a federal minister but it is not fair that I get attributed with the same comments/opinions. Especially as I have not been anonymous.
Thanks,
Michael R. James (Brisbane)
“…Crikey understands that after their Lateline debate on Tuesday night, Greg Combet and Greg Hunt…”
How can you have a “debate” between two people who essentially agree with each other?
Greg Hunt is a smart and talented shadow minister, especially in this policy area. He may be the only thing keeping Turnbull afloat this week.
Wong is surely as smart but alot less sincere on greenhouse issues, in my opinion. A one note indeed, despite some late stage righteous anger. An approach learnt well at the heel of the Carr ALP forest policy disaster 1998-99 which expanded woodchipping and guaranteed 20 year resource security for private logging corporations in public forests.
When ambitious minister Wong pilloried the Opposition for being “weak” on tv I saw irony. I wonder how many others of the public saw projection given the contrast with the staunch Greens under Bob Brown.
And yes I do sometimes wonder if Garrett (profile) and Wong (minority), and Combet (brains) are supposed to add up to 1 Bob Brown - the wild Gouldian Finch? Or perhaps Tasmanian Wedge Tailed raptor. As Bruce Hawker once said on Sydney radio not so long ago - without a hint of irony ‘there is no one in politics more of a straight shooter than Bob Brown’.
Now that’s quite a compliment from an ALP machinist. He must have been feeling very nostalgic for his idealist ALP youth that day. Such a long long time ago.
Wong clever??…….How about Wong is good at following pre written talking points, but any detraction from her carefully crafted message and she hoists her self on her own strapon…
Wong is an idiot, she has a message written and crafted for her, she is studious and works hard.
But like any robot that learns to regurgitate she is incapable of original thought or changing direction without command.
Edited by Moderator
Who is “terase rein”? You don’t mean Thérèse Rein, that nice lady with those faggoty acute and grave accents who is married to Kevin Rudd? She isn’t a minister or even an MP, so what did she do to deserve being smeared by you? It’s time to come clean “madeinaustralia,” and admit that you’re really a sockpuppet for Bill Heffernan or Barnaby Joyce. There’s no other explanation for your asinine comments.
P.S.
It’s “Labor Party”, moron.
One asinine smear corrected by Gianni who then shoots himself in the foot as he segues into another asinine smear all of his own.
Therese Rein, Bill Heffernan or Barnaby Joyce are honourable people and both posts are execrable.
Right up Jonathan Green’s alley as long as it’s both leftist and etreme.
Before commenting on the actual article, I’ll say that the conservatives on this forum are a disgusting lot. For an ideology that supposedly prides itself on “traditional family values”, you sure do shame the people who raised you. And would you say these things in front of your own children?
~ End rant.
I stumbled across an article today that mentioned an ETS implemented by the US for sulfur emissions during the early 90s, at a time when acid rain was becoming a real problem. It worked successfully because it only focused on regulating the chief sources of emissions - the power generators - and over the decade, the cost of the reductions worked out much cheaper than was estimated.
Penny Wong should apply her strong head to the industry groups who are lobbying for subsidies and loopholes in the legislation. She also needs to beware the advice of economists and the banks who fund them, who wish to turn the CRTS into a deregulated, derivative trading extravaganza.
The government should focus on cutting the fat out of the legislation, as the more complex the CRTS is, the more likely it is to be gamed, and the more likely it is to fail.
As an aside, Fake Penny Wong is one of the best fake Twitter accounts I know, rivaled only by Fake Stephen Conroy.
Tom McLoughlin’s notes about Penny Wong’s background are relevant. At least in that one case of NSW Forest Policy in the 1990s, Ms Wong was instrumental in rorting the (Carr) Government’s pre-election policy, by cooking up a political fix between unions, government and (the timber) industry to dump on the conservation movement - thereby destroying the previously-agreed attempt to develop a (forest) policy underpinned by science.
There may be more suitable candidates to do something almost identical to the nation in the case of climate change policy, but I don’t know of any.
Penny Wong is certainly smart, but anyone who thinks she cares a toss for the environment is, I trust, now obtaining the disillusionment that was always coming.
Ms Wong is not, however, the ultimate driver of this cynical policy to shirk Australia’s responsibility to play a leading role in greenhouse gas abatement in order to protect the biggest polluters and allow them to carry on more or less as before.
Penny Wong is a competent fixer. If she had different orders doubtless she’d implement them instead.
Kevin Rudd is ultimately responsible for his Government’s fraudulent current climate change policies, with their $16 billion public subsidies to those in this continent who already do the most damage to the planet’s atmosphere.
To regain credibility, Rudd needs to negotiate amendments on the Climate Change legislation with the Greens.
He might want to put Peter Garret in charge of that, leaving Senator Wong to face down the union bosses and big-polluting industries afterwards.
Ms Wong could be a Force for Good if her icy talents are appropriately deployed, but she should be directed to do over the big end of town for once - instead of the public interest as represented by conservationists, scientists and other concerned citizens.
I engaged in no smear of Thérèse Rein, attempting, obviously unsuccessfully, to parody the reaction of the right to the spelling her name.
But, Bill Heffernan and Barnaby Joyce are honourable people? Seriously? Bill Heffernan who used the resources of his office (and taxpayer funds) to pursue and smear Michael Kirby? Bill Heffernan who dismissed Julia Gillard because she was “barren” and when questioned by the media demonstrated how honourable he was by running away down a stairwell? Bill Heffernan who flipped the bird to Penny Wong and then lied about it, claiming is was actually intended for some other ALP Senator?
And did you catch Barnaby Joyce’ performance on Lateline with Bob Brown, with his sneering references to “St Bob” and latte-drinkers? I suppose it’s what passes for honourable on the conservative side of politics.