Broken promises carbon copies of each other

POLITICS ... with Mungo MacCallum

Some political promises should be broken, and this is one of them. So chorused the economic rationalists, the gurus of business, the moral arbiters of the media and the entire Liberal Party of Australia back in 1998, when John Howard reneged on his “never-ever” pledge about the GST and put the great big new tax back on the agenda. This wasn’t really a broken promise claimed Howard – well, it was, but it didn’t count as one because he was giving the public another chance to vote on the hated impost.

And to help them make up their minds he was going to spend untold amounts of taxpayer funds on an advertising blitz which revolved around the slogan that the proposed GST was not actually a new tax; it was a new tax system. Government advertising was supposed to be used to explain legislative changes which were already in place: Howard used it as part of an election campaign to boost proposals which were not even in draft form, let alone before parliament – indeed, if he lost the election they never would be.
This was an extraordinarily corrupt precedent that Howard's government was to repeat, and one which Kevin Rudd vowed to end. But he didn’t; the crisis over the mining tax proved too great a temptation. With both sides apparently committed to the subversion of public funds for party politics, Tony Abbott should not complain when Julia Gillard takes the same course when she is ready to start selling her plans to put a price on carbon. He will, of course; he thinks that’s his job. But he cannot expect to be taken seriously. Nor, given the history of the GST, is he on much firmer ground talking about broken promises.
But unlike Howard, Gillard is vulnerable on the grounds of inconsistency. Howard always believed in a GST; Gillard was in the forefront of those who persuaded Rudd to end his crusade for an Emissions Trading Scheme because they were scared of Abbott’s Great Big New Tax line. She is now a born-again evangelist for the cause.
A bit suss, perhaps; but then Abbott spent a long time insisting that the ETS had to be passed for political reasons, and now vows to spend every second of every minute fighting it (there is an upside to this commitment: it will leave him no time for biking in lycra and surfing in budgie smugglers). A
nd it should not be forgotten that for nearly three years an ETS was bipartisan policy, first between Howard and Rudd, then between Brendan Nelson and Rudd and finally between Malcolm Turnbull and Rudd.
Abbott is now repudiating former leaders from the right, the centre and the left of his party, as well as his own previous stance. The public has a right to be confused. But in a way that is just where Abbott wants them: it is in a state of confusion that scare campaigns flourish and Abbott is off to a flying start. Figures about the crushing burden a carbon tax will inflict on families are being flung about in the tabloids and because the details of the compensation package are still being negotiated, there is no effective way of repudiating them. Electricity bills up by $300 a year, petrol up by 6.5 cents a litre, an overall cost of more than $2000 a year to households – no claim is too extravagant.
Gillard assures us that every cent raised by her tax (which will be paid by business, not directly by consumers) will be returned households or businesses, or will be used to promote clean energy, but until she can produce actual numbers to reassure the potential victims, Abbott will have the field pretty much to himself. The vague promise of unspecified new jobs just won’t cut it.
And he will continue to ask the question: for all the pain, where is the gain? Even if Australia reduces its emissions to close to zero, it won’t make any difference unless the big boys do the same, and there is little sign of it so far. In fact, this is not quite true: in Europe progress is significant, and there is a good deal of movement in both China and India.
Even the United States is setting firm targets. Gillard is right in following Labor’s climate change guru, Ross Garnaut: even if Australia does not lead the pack, we cannot afford to fall too far behind. Not only are we one of the worst polluters per head of population, but the longer we delay taking action, the more it is going to cost and the more unpleasant the process will become.
This logic will not deter those worried only about short term advantage in the parliament, in industry or in the media, but it should make some sense to the majority of the public who still, according to the polls, favour taking some action –- although they are not quite clear what.
Gillard can count on at least a residue of good will among the true believers, even if she will still have to contend with the invincible ignorance of the sceptics. Ah yes, the sceptics, Given the state of the science, it is about time we stopped dignifying them with that name, which suggests some sort of commitment to rationality. Even the alternative – deniers – implies they have given the question some serious thought. Let us call them what they are: mendacious, stupid or at best delusional. Some may sincerely believe the science is still not settled, or that it is all a vast conspiracy; many others are feeding the doubters out of sheer self interest in search of commercial or political advantage.
But their opinions are important only to each other. Their views should no longer be part of any rational discussion and they must not be considered at all by Gillard and her fellow decision makers.
The misguided will, of course, be among those compensated; it is to be hoped that they spend at least some of the windfall on catching up with the science or, if that is too much effort, securing long term accommodation in homes for the terminally bewildered along with their fellow flat earthers.
Clowns are all very well in their place, but in the words of the immortal Stan Cross cartoon, it’s time to stop laughing – this is serious.