Tag: Julia Gillard

Categories
Australia

June 11, 2011 – miners want more compensation

Fourteen years ago, on this day, June 11th, 2011, in the midst of the fierce fight over the Gillard carbon pricing scheme, a union had its hand out, again.,

ONE of the nation’s largest unions has threatened a blue-collar revolt should the nation’s dirtiest coalmines fail to receive the same level of assistance as they were promised under the original emissions trading scheme.

With industry compensation still being thrashed out behind closed doors, the national secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Tony Maher, said he is worried coalminers will be dudded to appease the Greens.

Coorey, P. 2011. Mine union digs in over compensation under a carbon tax. Sydney Morning Herald,  June 11, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that proposals for a carbon price (a tax) were put forward in the 1990s within the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy process, and then again in 1994-5. The latter had been defeated by a broad coalition of clever actors, who tactically incorporated the mining union, which managed to dominate the climate issue within the ACTU.  Various other efforts at carbon pricing (Emissions Trading Schemes) had been put forward in 2000 and 2003, and were defeated by John Howard and his cronies.  The lack of any action on climate (and carbon pricing is only one small part of what was required, but hey-ho) was a major factor in the defeat of John Howard in 2007. But Kevin Rudd’s disastrous “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” didn’t fix things.

The specific context was that after the 2010 election Labor leader Julia Gillard only formed a government with the support of Greens and independent MPs, who demanded a carbon price.  So, she gritted her teeth and got on with it.  And along came the miners, with their hands out again…

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings we’re doomed.

As “active citizens” policy is at best a sausage, and it doesn’t pay to look too closely at how it is made.

What happened next  Gillard’s carbon pricing mechanism became law and may have been responsible for some emissions reductions (depending who you ask – other folks point to the introduction of more hydropower into the Australian grid).  In any case, it was abolished by Tony “moron” Abbott in 2014.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 11, 1997 – US ambassador says Australia should stop being so awful on #climate – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Activism Australia Carbon Pricing

May 13, 2011 – Climate Institute launches “national week of action” to support Gillard’s ETS

Fourteen years ago, on this day, May 13th, 2011, the Climate Institute, as part of its ‘Say Yes’ campaign began a national week of action.

[graphic via the wonderful Wayback Machine]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the ALP had already corralled the bigger environmental groups in 2009, to support their wretched “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.” By 2011 the grassroots groups were exhausted and despondent and the best anyone could do was support the “Say Yes” campaign, with its Carbon Cate advert.

What I think we can learn from this Political parties (especially when in government), ultimately, have the whip hand over social movement organisations and non-governmental organisations, using the usual arguments (“art of the possible” “if not us, then the even more evil motherfuckers” etc etc). And social movement organisations know on some level that they can’t sustain the activity, “maintain the rage” and so (have to) fold, have to go along with monstrously inadequate measures.

What happened next Gillard’s ETS got through in late 2011, and became law in mid-2012. It started to “work” – in that emissions began to come down (or was that actually due to more Tasmanian electricity, from hydro, coming into the mainland grid – opinions vary). Then the LNP took office, and Tony ‘wrecking ball’ Abbott abolished Gillard’s ETS. Australian climate politics has been a form of madness ever since. In medical terms, take your pick – Cheynes-Stokes breathing, ventricular fibrillation, whatever – it’s all just “circling the drain” or “approaching room temperature.” What a species.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

May 13, 1957 – Guy Callendar to Gilbert Plass on how easy it is to criticise, how hard to build theories – All Our Yesterdays

May 13, 1977 – UK energy experts gather at Sunningdale – All Our Yesterdays

May 13, 1983 – idiots get their retaliation in first…

May 13, 1991 – UK Energy minister fanboys nuclear as climate solution. Obvs.

May 13, 1992 – Australian business predicts economic armageddon if any greenhouse gas cuts made

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 24, 2011 – the fateful press conference of Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the Greens Bob Brown…

Fourteen years ago, on this day, February 24th, 2011,

She announced this in her courtyard, alongside the Green party (as for the multi-party committee the previous year) and this time also bringing in the independent MPs. Look, it said, parliamentary numbers are locked in, this is not a hypothetical any more – she had the will, and it would be done. An hour later in question time the PM would describe the carbon price as ‘a scheme that would start with a fixed price for a fixed period, effectively like a tax’ – no lawyer language or weasel words, no hiding: she was going to make the case.

I was one of those who thought it seemed like the best of a bad lot of options at the time.

Instead, it became proof that she’d lied.

(Cooney, 2015: 87)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the 2010 Federal election had led to a hung parliament (not as much fun as it sounds, say the ‘comics’). This meant that neither Labor nor the Coalition could form a government without getting the agreement of a bunch of independents (and one Green). And most of the independents wanted… a carbon price. So Julia Gillard signed on the dotted line and created a Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change. The Liberals and Nationals were invited, but declined to take part. The MPCCC beavered away and on this day a press conference was held. The evening held extra horrors for the PM, who – and this is hard to believe – had not workshopped/rehearsed a response to the obvious question “How come you’re introducing a carbon price when you said days before the last election that you wouldn’t?” 

Here’s some more quotes –

Prime Minister Julia Gillard called a media conference for mid-morning on 24 February 2011 to announce the Discussion Paper on a proposed carbon mechanism. It was a showing of the prime minister flanked by other MPCCCC members from the Labor Party, the Greens, Rob Oakeshott and me. Before I went down to join the group for a photo my policy adviser, John Clements, cautioned me about standing with the group. He thought that being seen with the Greens might be interpreted as agreeing with their agenda. He didn’t quite say it would be, ‘A courageous decision, Mr Windsor,’ in the best Yes Minister’s Sir Humphrey voice, but that’s what he meant.

(Windsor, 2015: 137)

It is my greatest regret that I did not provide more fearless advice to Julia to avoid this error [tax/fixed price]. Labor’s carbon price was an emissions trading scheme and we should have argued that until we were blue in the face.

(Combet, 2014: 252)

Within twenty-four hours the ‘no carbon tax’ election pledge cut through the electorate like a scalpel. Every media interview for months was dominated by a broken promise that was falsely marketed as a ‘lie’. Debate on climate change and carbon pricing was derailed by the poisonous politics. My job was to try to make the science and policy the issues once again.

(Combet, 2014: 252)

On 24 February 2011, six months after the election, a proud Julia Gillard announced agreement in principle between Labor and the Greens on a carbon pricing scheme for Australia. The Greens and the independents stood beside her in the prime minister’s courtyard, Bob Brown given virtually equal status. Gillard was making minority government work. In the process she signed her death warrant as prime minister.

(Kelly, 2014:362)

Abbott’s media conference the same day saw one of the most brutal assaults by an Opposition leader in a generation. Labor never saw it coming. Abbott called Gillard’s position ‘an utter betrayal of the Australian people’ and predicted a people’s revolt. He enshrined the issue as trust: ‘If the Australian people could not trust the Prime Minister on this, they can’t trust her on anything.’ He said ‘the price of this betrayal will be paid every day by every Australian’ in terms of higher power prices. Abbott launched a campaign that would make Gillard unelectable. Yet most of the ALP thought they had just negotiated a minority government triumph.

(Kelly, 2014:362)

What I think we can learn from this is that optics matter.

What happened next?  An indescribably wild six month fight about carbon pricing, with it on the front page of the Australian “newspaper” almost every day…

See also all the misogynistic crap about “Ju-Liar,” “Ditch the Witch” and “Bob Brown’s Bitch”

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Australia

October 7, 2010 – Gillard scraps assembly, goes for “MPCCC”

Fourteen years ago, on this day, October 7th, 2010,

Gillard scraps climate assembly
By Paul Osborne

October 7, 2010 — 5.12pm

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has scrapped her election promise of a citizens’ assembly to deal with climate change, a scheme the opposition described as a dud anyway.

Ms Gillard said other aspects of the party’s election platform – including subsidising the replacement of older cars, rolling out renewable energy projects linked to $1 billion of new transmission lines and improving energy efficiency – would still go ahead.

Ms Gillard on Thursday chaired the first meeting of the multi-party climate change committee – one of the promises made to the Australian Greens and independents to gain support to form minority government.

In a communique released after the meeting, the committee confirmed its intention to “work co-operatively across party lines

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Julia Gillard had challenged Kevin Rudd for the leadership at the Labor Party in July, having had enough of his bullshit. There are some quite interesting and plausible accounts of what happened and how it happened. Then she’d gone to an early election. It had been going okay. Mostly, it’s gonna be tight, but Labor looked like they were going to win. Then some leaks started happening from within the cabinet. Funny that. So it was a hung parliament and Gillard had to negotiate with independents like Tony Windsor and Rob Oakshott, and the Greens to form a minority government. And therefore, her idea of a climate assembly – having 150 people to talk about the issue for a year, which she had been persuaded by some Blairite advisor – was now a non-starter, because the Independents wouldn’t wear it. The Independents wanted action. And so therefore, there was the Multi Party Committee on Climate Change, which she invited the Liberals and the Nationals to join (while knowing full well that they wouldn’t).

What we learn is that the climate assembly idea might have worked, if Rudd had come up with it (see Rudd’s “2020” event in 2008). But these processes always get dominated by the loudest, most cashed up and determined. They’re rarely particularly deliberative, especially if the stakes are high. And anyway, by 2010, the timing was all wrong. What could have looked like a sensible circuit breaker now just looked like weakness.

What happened next? How long have you got? MPCCC had its meetings, advised by Ross Garneau, etc. It came up with some legislation. Gillard put that through Parliament. It did an advertising campaign. But by then, Tony Abbott had successfully framed it as “a great big tax on everything” and had also fatally wounded Gillard in public perception. I think Gillard was a successful Prime Minister in terms of the amount of legislation she got through. She was a steady hand on the tiller. But then she also lacks certain things. For example, a penis and children. Therefore, awful, awful woman. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

October 7, 1989 – Alexander Downer says mining lobby”weak and gutless”, too soft on greenies

October 7, 2010 – Julia Gillard scraps the “Climate Assembly” idea

Categories
Australia

June 19 2012 – Abbott is more pro-climate than his kn,ucklehead backbenchers

Twelve years ago, on this day, June 19th, 2012, leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott had to herd some of the more lunatic cats.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

TENSIONS have erupted in the Coalition over a key climate change policy less than two weeks before the introduction of the carbon tax from July 1.

Tony Abbott was yesterday forced to stare down a backbench challenge to the party’s support for the 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target as senior backbenchers blamed it for adding to electricity prices amid a backlash over last week’s 18 per cent price increases in NSW and South Australia.

Maher, S. 2012. Abbott forced to quell backbench climate rift. The Australian, 20 June, p.1.

The context was that Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s Emissions Trading Scheme was about to take effect. Although the Liberals were riding high in the polls that must have bruised their self-love, and trigger-happy backbenchers were needing to feel strong. They were opposing renewables to such an extent that it was electrically damaging. And the human wrecking ball Tony Abbott, of all people, had to tell them to cool their jets.

What we learn is that in the midst of a culture war or legislative war, the red mist descends, and someone has to say “hey, cool it.” And on this occasion, believe it or not, it was Tony Abbott.

What happened next? Abbott took office in mid-2013. He managed to disappear the emissions trading scheme, but not the renewable support in ARENA and CEFC. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

June 19, 1997/2009 – children of colour used as propaganda tools by #climate wreckers/greens do “motherhood”

June 19, 2009 – Liberals warn ‘woke’ companies…

Categories
Australia

April 13, 2011 – GE and others say Gillard is on right track

Thirteen years ago, on this day, April 13th, 2011

On 13 April 2011 the company [GE] was joined by a number of others, including AGL, Linfox, Fujitsu, BP and IKEA, in issuing a statement backing the government.

(Chubb, 2014:173)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was this was the middle of a ferocious battle over the Emissions Trading Scheme that the Multi Party Committee on Climate Change had developed and advocated. And the Coalition, then in opposition, was trying to say that all business was opposed because it would mean extra costs, as per their brilliant attack line “a great big tax on everything.” 

So the fact that GE and other companies said, “nah, it’ll be fine” should have been far more newsworthy. But it didn’t fit the frame. And also, the companies probably weren’t terribly keen on being dragged into a culture war. And so it never really gained a lot of traction. 

What we learn is that “business” is invoked by political parties as if it’s a monolith. And it’s always, almost always far more nuanced than that. But in the words of that sociologist “fuck nuance “.

What happened next, despite the sturm und drang, and the sound and fury emanating from Abbott and the climate denialists, and anti carbon tax people, the legislation passed, became law. And, according to its advocates, it actually started to reduce emissions. (Others say that this was an artefact of extra hydro electricity from Tasmania in the mix.)

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

April 13, 1968 – the New Yorker glosses air pollution, mentions carbon dioxide

April 13, 1992 – Denialist tosh – “The origins of the alleged scientific consensus”

Categories
Australia

February 25, 2011 – Alan Jones versus sanity

Thirteen years ago, on this day, February 25th, 2011, radio “shock jock” Alan Jones went beserk (how can you tell, though?), during the carbon wars, while interviewing Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard…

Or consider this excerpt from Jones’ 25 February 2011 interview with Gillard (which he began by berating the prime minister for being late). He concluded his line of questioning about her CO2 emissions policy saying: ‘Do you understand, Julia, that you are the issue today because there are people now saying that your name is not Julia but JuLIAR and they are saying we’ve got a liar running the country’ (cited in Barry 2011a).

(Ward, 2015: 236)

The context was that the day before Julia Gillard had stood next to the Greens Senator Bob Brown and announced that there would be a carbon pricing scheme. She utterly failed to deal effectively with the accusation that it was the very same carbon tax that she had promised during the election campaign that she would not introduce. And now, this was the beginning of open season on her. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

But there’s a deeper context, of course, around both the anti environmentalism of large portions of the Australian elite but also culture and society, a hatred of different nature. “Biological cringe”, as historian Tom Griffiths calls it. And also – and related – a deep, deep misogyny. You can’t understand what Gillard had to put up if you don’t nderstand that misogyny exists and that she was the first female prime minister. 

What happened next? Jones kept making increasingly outrageous statements about Gillard being a lesbian and putting her in a chaff bag and throwing her in the ocean. But this didn’t seem to affect his employability. Eventually his contract was not renewed and he had to go and work for Sky. Gillard endured and got a hell of a lot of legislation through. She was an extremely successful Prime Minister in those terms, and was toppled by the guy she had toppled Kevin Rudd in early 2013. 

And the emissions? Well, they kept climbing, natch.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

 February 25, 1981 – National Party senator nails the climate problem

Feb 25 1992- business groups predict economic chaos if action is taken on #climate

Feb 25, 2007 – “Clean Coal Initiative” as move in game of one-dimensional electoral chess #auspol

Categories
Australia

October 7, 2010 – Julia Gillard scraps the “Climate Assembly” idea

Thirteen years ago, on this day, October 7, 2010, newly re-elected (sort of) Prime Minister Julia Gillard decided not to go ahead with her “citizens’ assembly” wheeze from the election campaign. There’ll be a multi-party climate change committee instead …

Gillard scraps climate assembly… Sydney Morning Herald.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 389.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in order to try to square the circle about climate change Gillard had proposed a climate assembly on the election campaign. This was widely perceived as a way of kicking the whole idea into the long grass clearly after negotiating with the independents and the Greens – legislating and emissions trading scheme was the price of their support. The whole climate assembly idea was simply no longer relevant, and so it was killed off. We got the multi-party committee on climate change. The liberals were invited to participate, but it was not in their interests to do so; they would rather be outside the tent pissing in …

What I think we can learn from this is that participatory structures like “climate assemblies” or “citizens assemblies” can be used to defer decision-making and to give everyone a sandpit to play in. It always comes back to the basic question of who is going to implement this and who’s going to monitor whether it gets done or not.

And if you’re not talking about that then all you’re doing is setting yourself up for failure down the road. But talking about that brings up lots of difficult questions about building sustained and sustainable groups, learning new skills, sharing their skills. Embedding those skills within a group at all tremendously difficult instead let’s just have the orgasmic moment.

What happened next

The multi-party committee on climate change came up with the ETS proposal and suggested the emissions trading the Climate Commission and so forth. And they all got along more or less but everybody knew that by 2013 ahead of the next election the happy families would fall apart, and the Greens would need to split off in order to shore up their vote. And Labor would also want to pin any failures on the Greens. And so it came to pass. Meanwhile the citizens’ assembly idea keeps getting put forward by naive or stupid or careerist dickheads.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Categories
Australia

August 16, 2010 – Polar Bears going through the motions

Thirteen years ago, on this day, August 16, 2010, protestors tried to keep issues on the agenda 

Even outside the venue, the protestors simply went through the motions. There were four anti-abortion advocates with basic placards, a huge plastic marijuana joint, two people dressed as polar bears, and another dressed as a blue elephant. But they were not so much demonstrating as loitering.

(Cassidy, 2010:202)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that this was the middle of an election campaign. And even the polar bear can’t be bothered. Everyone’s just going through the motions.

What I think we can learn from this

The polar bear costumes just don’t work. They should be hung up.

What happened next

Gillard was faced with painful electoral math and therefore had to bring carbon pricing back on to the table. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Categories
Australia

March 25, 2013 – Australian Department of Climate Change axed

Ten years ago, on this day, March 25, 2013, the Australian federal government killed off the Department of Climate Change, now that the “carbon tax” (actually a carbon price) was in situ, and the whole issue was unbelievably toxified.

Department of Climate Change is disbanded:

The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is abolished. Most of its functions are moved to the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, with responsibility for energy efficiency transferred to the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The context was that the Gillard government had expended enormous amounts of capital and had sustained, enormous reputational damage to push through a carbon price mechanism. That one that, if Kevin Rudd hadn’t been useless, would have happened on his watch. The Gillard government was by this time, intensely allergic to climate issues, understandably so. Disbanding the department wasn’t going to send a signal to anyone about anything, though it probably was a bad move, because the expertise is then scattered. But then the people were probably already shattered. Morale is always an issue for civil servants trying to construct decent policy while an idiotic culture war happens around them.

What I think we can learn from this

As an historian or political historian, it’s always interesting to see when, why Departments of State are created combined or abolished and whether the commentary and expectations at the time turn out to be accurate. So the best example I can think of is that in 2016, the assumption that the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the UK was going to be absorbed into the business department. Environmentalists were understandably fearful that climate would be subsumed within energy, and would be off the agenda. And that wasn’t the case. That’s not to say that BEIS has played a blinder every single day.

What happened next

Gillard got toppled by Rudd, who then lost the election to Tony Abbott, who was a wrecking ball. The emissions trading scheme was abolished, the earth salted. And here we are…

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.