Turnbull, climate change, CPRS et al:

Chris Johnson writes: Re. “Despite Turnbull win, Libs more divided than ever” (yesterday). Apparently Malcolm’s crime is invoking his party’s policies for the delinquent and disorderly and just like thousands of asylum seekers thirty five Liberals this week protested their right to be heard and taken seriously.

No surprise the leader of the dissidents was Kevin Andrews the former Immigration and Workplace Relations Minister best known for his nasty, hapless presence in Howard’s cabinet and the guy who unlawfully revoked Dr Mohammed Haneef’s work visa and denied the doctor the presumption of innocence.

The other 35 must feel the same as Andrews: “From what’s occurred over the past few weeks a clear message is that things must be done differently in the future.” Hockey agreed “Malcolm said he could always do things better – we do not have an emperor who imposes his views”.

I guess the message for Malcolm is “don’t impose on your party what you impose on refugees.”

Martin Gordon writes: Re. “Liberals in shambles over Rudd’s CPRS” (yesterday). Well, where are we now? Ross Garnaut the Rudd government adviser on emission trading has denounced the CPRS scheme as the worst public policy process he has ever seen. The Greens oppose CPRS because it’s good posturing politics for them.

The ALP has its scheme which will neither save the Barrier Reef, nor reduce emissions in a significant way, but will cost $123B in industry assistance in the first 10 years, but Rudd will have a basic figleaf of credibility at Copenhagen in a few weeks!

Malcolm Turnbull has been assailed, but he has sought to actually do something positive for the environment whilst trying to pacify deniers who parade as sceptics.

Fantastic!

Andrew Lewis writes: That’ll do me.  The CPRS is up, the Libs are smashed, and the point of voting out John Howard was, well, what was it again. I couldn’t wait to see Howard go, but this CPRS is a shocker.

If ever there was a need for good policy, this was it.  Poor policy/legislation is no better than no policy. This CPRS and ETS has exactly no mechanism for reducing carbon pollution, gives away permits to the worst polluters and slugs the only people that matter, the voters. I would respect them more if they just came out and said “we don’t believe in climate change and we think that big business needs more government largesse.”

My mind is filled with metaphors to mix and clichés to crunch. The best I can think of to describe this is that as the world burns, we fiddled, while giving free boxes of matches to the arsonists. Worst legislation ever!

Steve O’Connor writes: Re. Tamas Calderwood (yesterday, comments) who wrote “A warmer world. So where is it?”

A perfectly good question.

Perhaps you should read the IPCC update report. If that doesn’t convince you of the urgency, depth and scale of the problem then nothing will.

Mike Rann:

Ray O’Brien writes: Re. “Sorry Mike, but your integrity counts. We need to know” (Tuesday). It is so disappointing to see Crikey dabbling in the rubbish surrounding Mike Rann’s trivia. Crikey gained my support from the fact that they are different to the other media outlets. Please don’t lapse into the mindset that because some issue excites the B class media, that you have to get involved.

Jan McLucas:

Peter Wilms writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (yesterday). Crikey published: “Is Jan McLucas planning a comeback?” Jan McLucas may be competent and the health bureaucrats may want to see her back in her role as a parliamentary secretary but when it comes to reviewing areas over which she has or had responsibility she has shown that she can vacillate and obfuscate with the best of the Yes Minister brigade.

As parliamentary secretary for health, Ms McLucas had responsibility for the Therapeutic Goods Administration, whose senior executives were found last year in the NSW Federal Court to have acted wilfully and unlawfully in ordering the peremptory recall of all products manufactured by Pan Pharmaceuticals and the subsequent collapse of the company in 2003. It was a disgraceful episode that resulted in the Federal Government settling a massive damages claim with Pan’s founder, Jim Selim.

Of itself that should have led to an apology at least from the Government but it could have and should have also led to McLucas calling for an inquiry into the TGA, its operations and its close .relationship with the multinational pharmaceutical companies. McLucas studiously remained aloof from any suggestions that an inquiry might be warranted.

The Pan saga was played out on the Liberal Government’s watch so what has a Labor Government got to fear from an inquiry.

Could it be that Labor too is in the thrall of the same multinationals? Heaven forbid!