So nearly a week on from the release of the details about Australia's new carbon tax, and not much has changed. Public opinion is no more fond of it than before hearing of the details, Julia Gillard is in no way more liked than she was before, and Australians everywhere, from all walks of life will be worse off.
The entire scenario I have just outlined is the fault of our Prime Minister (as well as the notion that our society always feels worse off than ever!) If you wanted to take advice from anyone about how to sell something politically, Julia Gillard is not the person with whom you should seek such advice.
I am already converted, and was so before the details of the tax were released. I didn't believe that any member of the public would be more than slightly worse off as this would have dire consequences for any government seeking re-election EVER. But when I tuned in to watch Q&A on Monday night, Silver Fox hosting Red Fox, I was appalled. There was one person early in the show who made a comment moreso than asked a question, as to how disappointed she was with how the message had been sold. And to justify this statement, Red Fox gave a response that equally meant nothing. I sat there frustrated, the entire hour, at how Gillard just waffled on...
First of all, Ms Gillard, the Australian public aren't interested in having you tell them what is in their best interests, or how this is the right package for them. You need to CONVINCE them of this. People don't trust you, haven't you realised that yet? Telling them what you think is best doesn't help this.
Secondly, using the words and phrases "carbon pollution", "positive energy future" , "only 0.7% of CPI" doesn't mean anything to most people. And saying them over and over again makes them mean even less. Are you saying these buzz words because you want to sound knowledgable on the subject? Or because you are afraid of saying something wrong that can and will be used against you? Either way, these phrases are not cutting through. Want to know why?
Third, you may think you're answering peoples' questions, but you're not addressing the underlying concerns which prompted them to ask in the first place. 1) People are worried about their jobs, and what will happen if they lose them. 2) They're worried about how the price of electricity, food, etc will increase and how this will affect them. 3) Many don't believe that you had a 'mandate' to introduce the tax... I could go on... But you need to address these concerns else noone will change their mind. Admit that jobs will be lost, even give statistics or estimates, but then counter them with how many jobs will be made and allow them all to compare this. Tell them how when the dirtiest coal power stations are shutdown, that new projects will be aimed to be developed in the same vicinity to allow re-training for jobs in the new industries. Reassure people that they can transition from a job in a polluting industry to a new job in a new non-polluting industry in the same location. Tell people that they are welcome to keep using their electricity as normal, but if they can manage to reduce their electricity consumption, they'll be less affected by the carbon tax, or potentially, if they cut their usage enough, will be better off with the compensation measures and actually MAKE money from the scheme?! And not having a mandate...
As NotGoodSheppard wrote in his blog yesterday, not only does the government of the day not legally need a mandate to introduce a policy, but have people forgotten that the Labor Party DIDN'T win the election??? Gillard formed government under agreements with three non-Labor politicians?!? In accepting a formalised alliance with the Greens to share governemnt, also accepted as part of the agreement to a specific condition (paragraph 6.1(a) of the formal agreement) that the government would form a multi-party committee to address pricing carbon; a committee which would be funded by the cabinet committee. This was the compromise of forming government. And THIS is how democracy works.
Aside from all of the details of the carbon tax, many people (including NotGoodSheppard, as well as an article in the Weekend Australian) are suggesting that the public need a carrot, not just a stick, to help the changes to occur in reducing emissions. I, too, can see the logic in this, and I think in some ways, the point I (briefly) mentioned earlier about highlighting how households can actually 'gain' money through the compensation packages by radically reducing their power bills (as one very specific example) can be made to be seen as a carrot (ie. You use less electricity, we give you money). However, I think it is hard to actually think of too many ways to offer carrots. Do you offer them as tax incentives? As some kind of credit system? I don't know. One thing I do know though, is that the continued scepticism of the public towards the carbon tax may ultimately do everyone (well, nearly) a big favour. Here's why...
Most people will tell you that the cost of living is worse than ever. This new tax will only make this worse. Correct? This has a flow on effect of reducing consumer spending as people feel they don't have as much to spend. Continued flow on effect is the RBA cut interest rates to encourage increased spending. Anyone with a mortgage will now have more $$$ in their pockets that they would previously have paid the banks, and this, my friends, is essentially the same as getting a payrise. IF, as Westpac has predicted, interest rates fall by 100 base points over the next twelve months, anyone who has a mortgage and is currently estimated to be worse off by the introduction of this carbon tax will now be better off due to the impact their reduced spending is having on the economy (along with various other economically contractionary forces happening around the world - but I hope you're starting to see my point).
Thus, in saying ALL of this (and I apologise, I have written a lot more than I planned on writing), the fiddly argument about exactly how much more toilet paper, or bananas, or electricity will cost each income bracket each year is flawed. There are far more influencial decisions, made in the global economy, or by the Reserve Bank, that have a far greater impact on the average household budget than the carbon tax will. So can we please stop whinging about how damaging this new tax will be to our hip pockets, and start re-addressing the reason we are even implementing it. If only the PM would start telling people the things they actually want to know about it...
No comments:
Post a Comment