On the way home, I heard the environment Minister, Mr Greg Hunt on the radio. (I have decided to not to capitalise “environment” because, after all, it’s not really all that important. Mm, perhaps I’m onto something there.)
From mr hunt, I’ve learned that there is no fundamental difference between tony abbott and President Obama on Climate Change. Ok, one said, “The science is compelling … If you profess leadership in this country at this moment in our history then you have to recognise that this is going to be one of the most significant long-term challenges, if not the most significant long-term challenge, that this country faces and the planet faces”, while the other said that Science is not worth a separate Ministry and that really jobs are more important than the planet, but there’s no real difference there. As greg hunt pointed out: There’s no point in just doing something ineffective because it makes us feel good. No, it’s better to give polluters money to stop polluting. And if they take the money and do nothing, well, at least we know it was money well spent, unlike schemes to support renewable energy.
Mind you, the fact that Obama wants Climate Change on the G20 agenda, but Abbott doesn’t, could be seen as a difference, but as I’m sure the Liberals would tell you: No, it isn’t! Why not? Well, it just isn’t.
I mean, according to Mr hunt, abbott just renewed his commitment to our Renewable Energy Targets in New York. Which I find strange. After all, isn’t he paying a group of eminent experts in climate denial to review these?
Still it is good to hear that tony has managed to fit in a meal with that “wonderful” Australian”, rupert murdoch, while in the USA. I find it confusing that he refers to Murdoch as an Australian, given he’s renounced his citizenship. Does this mean that Abbott is still an Englishman?
After all, he’s too busy to meet those IMF and US government people. And after all, it’s the private sector that counts. Mm, makes one wonder why abbott went into politics! Like today we had the Deputy PM, whatsisname, defending the fact that head of Australia Post needed to be paid $4.8 million because he’d be paid a lot in the private sector. I didn’t quite follow the line of reasoning. It’s like saying that I should be paid for playing golf because if I was Tiger Woods I’d get a million dollars appearance money.
Still, I’m completely confused about the concern that Australia Post isn’t making money. I’m not dismissing the idea that it can’t attempt to cut their losses. But I’m not sure that it was originally set up to make money, it was created to provide a service. The fact that it couldn’t be done profitably without charging ridiculous amounts for a stamp – that’s why the government ran it in the first place. But this is part of the overall concept that the Prime Minister is just a CEO and his Cabinet is his Board of Directors.
Yep, any day now we’ll hear that the departments in charge of supporting the homeless aren’t making a profit, and they’d be sold off. Except that this government – unlike an actual company – sells off what’s profitable and tells us we can’t afford unprofitable services so they need to be pared back or shut down.
Because after all it’s the economy that counts. Or to simplify the Liberal position: What’s the point in having a healthy planet, if there are no billionaires to complain about how much the minimum wage workers are being paid?
Recent articles by Rossleigh: