Political “trademark rights” on methane a pinch point in the fallout of 2050


“But writing this – we just need to take a little more time to make sure it’s written clearly and can be presented well to the Australian public,” said Jo Evans, deputy secretary of the department. .

Jo Evans, Undersecretary, Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, at a Senate Estimates hearing in Parliament on Monday.Credit:Alex Ellinghausen

Meanwhile, many of the compromises the Nationals received for their reluctant support remain a mystery.

Joyce, who became interim prime minister after Morrison left Thursday night for the G20 in Rome followed by COP26 in Glasgow, is likely to announce some measures while he is in the spotlight.

But others are to be included in the budget update at the end of the year, presented as election pledges, or in next year’s budget if that happens before the election.

Some of these unknown measures have yet to come through as Cabinet submissions and go through official bureaucratic hoops, including costing.

It shows how unsatisfactory the process has been – the government has had months to deal with a net zero, sort things out with the minor coalition partner and finalize the compromises.

More importantly from the perspective of the nationals, they are left exposed as they return to their constituencies now that Parliament has risen for a three week break. When they meet their constituents, they will not be able to produce the full range of benefits they have obtained in return for joining the police.

For Morrison, the 2050 policy is an attempted barnacle removal process, both for the Glasgow conference and for the election. The Nationals, on the other hand, see it adding to their barnacles.

The rejection of the requested methane reductions is another indication of the general weakness of the Australian plan. Despite all the struggle to land him, the plan is a bare minimum and will be seen as such in Glasgow.

Domestically, given the flaws and shortcomings, the plan is unlikely to win votes for the government; rather, it is designed to stem their loss to the benefit of Labor and independents in the “hardwood” seats in the south.

We have yet to see the Labor Party alternative, but one would think that independent candidates will still have a lot of leeway to gain ground on the climate issue.

Earlier this week, Morrison made comments that sparked speculation that he was planning a poll in May, as opposed to a March-April poll.

An election in May would give time for another budget, with the opportunities that come with it.

Whether the election is in May or March, Morrison is already in campaign mode.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese.Credit:Alex Ellinghausen

In this week’s Newspoll, the government is lagging behind, 46-54% behind the bipartisan vote. Either way, both sides see the battle as open.

Although the elections are so close, the Labor Party has not come out of a trot. Albanese’s strategy is to keep the focus on the government and, more generally, to keep the Labor Party a small target in terms of politics. In line with its broader approach, one would expect Labor to be cautious in its climate change policy, even though it is still debating its position, which is expected to be released before Christmas. .

Albanese was heavily influenced, negatively, by his predecessor Bill Shorten’s approach ahead of the 2019 election, when Labor presented a broad and sweeping policy package.

The approach of the large target was seen to have scared voters. It is difficult to judge whether the small target will encourage people to vote. The danger for the opposition is that in the absence of a leader who is a drawing card, many people might be inclined to stick with the status quo.


Without the prospect of challenging a substantial and highly differentiated policy, the seat-by-seat campaign will be particularly important in this election. Voters think more locally than before.

The government on Thursday introduced controversial legislation to require voters to show ID at the voting booth. Labor and some in the welfare sector warn that this will discourage disadvantaged people, including indigenous peoples, from voting. The government says there would be a lot of protections – a range of IDs could be used, including a health card, and someone without ID would be allowed to vote, with their identity verified later .

Given the widespread demand for identification for all sorts of things in our community, the requirement for ID when voting is not unreasonable. But it seems like a solution in search of a problem because voter fraud has not been a feature of federal elections.

And it reflects distorted priorities that this legislation was introduced before we saw the long-awaited National Integrity Commission Bill.

Michelle Grattan is a professor at the University of Canberra. This article first appeared on The Conversation.

Get a daily update on the climate summit that will shape our future. Sign up for our Clear Air newsletter here.

Source link

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.