Tuesday, 15 July 2014

FoFA deal encourages government to humour Palmer

15 July 2014, 11.32pm AEST

FoFA deal encourages government to humour Palmer

Article by Michelle Grattan

Critics have condemned Clive Palmer’s FoFA deal as adding red tape without significantly increasing protections.
AAP/Lukas Coch

The government has grabbed an unlikely victory to preserve its
changes to Labor’s Future of Financial Advice legislation, after a
last-minute deal with Clive Palmer.

Just over a week after Palmer insisted his party would not be swayed by government lobbying and “they can stick it up their arse”, PUP senators and their ally, Motoring Enthusiast Ricky Muir, voted against disallowance of the regulations.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, desperate to preserve his changes –
which consumer and seniors' groups have widely condemned as watering
down FoFA – secured PUP’s support by agreeing to make further
regulations spelling out protections.

For Cormann, regarded as one of the most ideological ministers in the government, it was a significant personal victory.

Palmer’s U-turn will give the government greater hope of cutting
deals with PUP on other issues. Hours before the Senate vote, Deputy
Prime Minister Warren Truss told the Coalition parties the government
was still “learning to deal with the crossbenchers” to achieve its
agenda.

The government now knows that even the most unequivocal statements by
Palmer are not necessarily immutable – that, whatever he’s said, he may
be willing to play. This presumably increases the incentive for the
government to humour him when it can – provided he doesn’t set the price
too high. It will be a game of wits.

On FoFA, Palmer has ended up centre stage, rather than just being
part of a political consortium (with Labor and Greens) saying no. He was
able to claim ownership of the outcome. “I was negotiating as hard as I
could for the people of Australia,” he told reporters.

He negotiated into the early hours of Tuesday. Cormann read the terms
of the deal into the Hansard (presumably Palmer thought one couldn’t be
too careful).

Publicly, the issue was surrounded by confusion. At one stage on
Tuesday morning Labor seemed confident it had the PUP senators in its
camp.

The government will be delighted to have got its way, but it risks
alienating older voters, an important Liberal constituency. Its actions
continue to carry significant dangers for the Coalition; Labor can
campaign on bringing back stronger consumer protections.

National Seniors Australia chief executive Michael O'Neill, who
previously had exchanges of text messages in which Palmer indicated he
was on side with their concerns, accused the PUP leader of stringing him
along.

“Changes as important as this should not have been developed in a deal that excluded all the key interests,” O'Neill said.

Palmer indicated it wasn’t just the consumer groups who’d not been
consulted – he said he hadn’t spoken with the financial advice industry
either in developing his proposals. “I thought it out. I drew on my own
experience,” he said, but then quickly mentioned the “team” of senators.

In his letter to Palmer, Cormann pledged the government would make
further regulations within 90 days to ensure certain requirements “are
explicitly listed in the Statement of Advice provided by financial
advisers to their client and signed off by both”. (In fact they’re
already in law or in practice covered by professional standards.)

The requirements are that the adviser has to act in the best
interests of the client and prioritise the client’s interests ahead of
their own; fees are to be disclosed and the adviser will provide an
annual fee disclosure statement for post-July 1 2013 arrangements; a
client can return financial products under a 14-day cooling off period;
and the client has the right to change instructions to the adviser, if
for example they experience a change in their circumstances.

The government also agreed to work in consultation with stakeholders
to “establish an enhanced public register of financial advisers”,
including advisers who were employees. The register would have on it
their credentials and status in the industry. The initiative for this, a
proposal supported by various inquiries and submissions, came from
Motoring Enthusiast Ricky Muir.

The vote was lost 31-34, with the minority comprising Labor, the
Greens and independent Nick Xenophon. The DLP’s John Madigan abstained.

Critics condemn the Palmer deal as adding red tape without significantly increasing protections.

Cormann won over Palmer on the day when the interim report of the
inquiry into Australia’s financial system, chaired by former
Commonwealth Bank CEO David Murray, said it “considers the principle of
consumers being able to access advice that helps them meet their
financial needs is undermined by the existence of conflicted
remuneration structures in financial advice”.

While the government insists it has retained the ban on commissions
and conflicted advice, its changes allow incentive payments for general
advice in certain situations.

The government’s regulations have survived despite the background of
the Commonwealth Bank of Australia scandal in which many people lost
their savings due to bad or fraudulent advice. In the Coalition parties
room on Tuesday, National Party minister Luke Hartsuyker revealed that
his parents had been victims of the CBA affair and said there should be a
new Senate inquiry. Treasurer Joe Hockey, whose mother-in-law also lost
money (although was later compensated), lashed out at the regulator,
the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, saying it “failed
miserably and I am very, very unhappy with this”.

In the Senate, Labor’s Sam Dastyari used the line that’s becoming the
opposition’s mantra: the PUP was “wagging the tail wagging the dog”. To
the Palmerites, he said: “You have been sold a pup.”

There’s another way of looking at it. At the end of the day, Palmer wanted the PUP to have the last bark.

Joe Hockey warns he will bypass Senate to push tough budget measures through

Date: July 16, 2014 - 9:17AM

54 reading now

Lisa Cox

National political reporter

View more articles from Lisa Cox

Follow Lisa on Twitter
Follow Lisa on Google+
Email Lisa

Government's carbon tax warning

Labor will bring back the carbon tax if it wins the 2016 election warned the government in question time on Tuesday.

Treasurer Joe Hockey has warned the Labor Party and the
Greens to pass tough budget measures through the Senate or the
government will find other ways to push through savings.

But the opposition says if the government wants to "sneakily" avoid the parliament it will have a case to answer with voters.

Palmer United Party leader Clive Palmer and Treasurer
Joe Hockey. Mr Hockey has threatened to bypass MPs to get contentious
budget measures through. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

As the government prepares to front an extended Senate
sitting to pass the mining and carbon tax repeals, Mr Hockey said he was
prepared for "a marathon" negotiation to win the new Senate's approval
for unpopular budget measures, such as a new GP fee.

Advertisement

He said Labor and the Greens risked dealing themselves out of
any political influence if they did not approach talks with an open
mind.

"I say to Labor and the Greens if your instinct is to say no
immediately and to stick with that, you are dealing yourself out of
having an influence on public policy," Mr Hockey told ABC radio on
Wednesday.

"Because if the immediate reaction is no with no opportunity
to open discussion . . . then there are other alternatives that we can
take."

Mr Hockey said there were already budget measures that the government did not need legislation for.

He said if the government could not clinch the votes it
needed on the Senate floor for proposals that would be presented as
separate legislation, it would have no choice but to find alternatives.

Mr Hockey added that the warning was not "retribution"
against an increasingly unpredictable Senate, and the government
remained open to discussions.

''If the Senate chooses to block savings initiatives then we
need to look at other savings initiatives that may not require
legislation," Mr Hockey said.

''I would ask the Greens and the Labor Party, who between
them hold 35 votes on the floor of the Senate, to understand that there
are alternatives through government.''

Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen said the opposition was happy to
negotiate with the government, but the Treasurer's approach was all
''bluff and bluster''.

''If the Treasurer thinks he can sneakily get his changes
through by somehow avoiding the parliament well he should explain to the
Australian people what he's planning instead of the normal bluff and
bluster we're get from this guy,'' he told ABC radio on Wednesday.

''What we're seeing is pretty much a Prime Minister and a
Treasurer who just think, well, we'll arrogantly say what's going to
happen and we'll just say that it will pass the Senate and saying it
will pass the Senate means it will pass the Senate.

''Well that's not how parliaments work.''

Follow us on Twitter

Leashing the PUPs in the Senate - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Leashing the PUPs in the Senate

By

Anne Twomey

Posted
Tue 15 Jul 2014, 2:31pm AEST

Photo:
The Palmer United Party will find they are going to be heavily reliant on the advice of the clerks. (AAP: Alan Porritt)

It is a big call for any new
parliamentarian to back their constitutional knowledge over that of a
professional who has served the Senate with distinction for decades,
writes Anne Twomey.

Clive Palmer's attack on the
Clerk of the Senate for giving advice upon his proposed amendments to
the carbon tax repeal bill appears to show a lack of understanding of
the Constitution and the role of the Parliament under it.

Last
week, the Clerk of the Senate, Rosemary Laing, apparently advised the
Palmer United Party that its amendment to the carbon tax repeal bill
ought to be initiated in the House of Representatives, rather than the
Senate, because it might be regarded as imposing a tax. This was to
comply with rules set out in the Constitution.

Clive Palmer reportedly responded by saying she should "get out of that job"
if she was not prepared to act on his instructions. Yet it is an
essential part of the clerk's job to advise senators upon compliance
with the Constitution and the procedural rules of the Senate, rather
than simply taking instructions.

The Constitution establishes the
institutions of government, such as the Parliament and the courts,
confers powers upon them, and imposes limits on those powers. In most
cases those limits can be enforced by the courts if someone brings a
constitutional challenge. In some cases, however, the Constitution
imposes the responsibility upon key actors, such as parliamentarians or
ministers, to respect and apply the rules of the Constitution.

When
it comes to the powers of the Senate in relation to money bills, there
is a very delicate balance between the role of the courts and the role
of the Houses in applying and enforcing the rules.

Section 53 of the Constitution
sets out most of these rules. It says that bills imposing taxation
shall not originate in the Senate. They must first be passed in the
House of Representatives. This is because of the principle that the
power of the purse lies in the hands of the representatives of the
people in the Lower House. For the same reason, section 53 also says
that the Senate may not amend any bill so as to increase any proposed
charge or burden on the people.

Difficult questions sometimes
arise as to whether a legal requirement that someone pay an amount to
the government is really a tax or a penalty. Section 53 says that a bill
is not to be regarded as imposing taxation if it just imposes a
pecuniary penalty or a fine. Mr Palmer may argue that this is all his
party's amendment was proposing to do - to impose a penalty. However,
there is an enormous amount of complex law on the question of whether an
exaction of money amounts to a tax or a penalty, so one needs to be
very cautious in this area.

So far, the High Court has regarded
section 53 as 'non-justiciable'. This means that it will not enforce the
requirements of section 53. Rather, it is the responsibility of the
members of the Houses of Parliament to abide by these rules.

That
does not mean that politicians can do what they want because the courts
will not enforce the rules. On the contrary, it means that politicians
are under a very solemn constitutional obligation to comply with these
rules.

Members and senators rely on the independent advice of the
clerks to ensure that they are complying with the Constitution and
meeting their constitutional obligations. The clerks have long
experience in the intricacies of money bills and their advice is
traditionally given great respect. It is a big call for any new
parliamentarian to back his or her constitutional knowledge and
parliamentary experience over that of a professional who has served the
Senate with distinction for decades.

There are also other good
reasons to be cautious. First, it may be that if parliamentarians were
to start flouting section 53 of the Constitution, the High Court might
change its mind and seek to enforce its provisions.

More importantly, the High Court has held that it will enforce section 55 of the Constitution.
This provision states that laws imposing taxation shall deal only with
the imposition of taxation and "any provision therein dealing with any
other matter shall be of no effect". The consequence of this provision
is that if the Palmer United Party inserted into the bill a provision
that imposed taxation, it could torpedo the repeal of the carbon tax.
Hence the need for caution and to listen to wise and experienced heads.

The
senators of the Palmer United Party will find, in time, that in order
to achieve anything in the Senate, they are going to be heavily reliant
on the guidance and advice of the clerks and other officials of the
Senate. Rather than railing against it, a better approach would be to
respect it and to ask what alternatives would best achieve their goals. A
constructive approach is more likely to succeed than a destructive one.

Anne
Twomey is a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney
and in the 1990s was secretary of the Senate Legal and Constitutional
Committee. View her full profile here.

Leashing the PUPs in the Senate - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Leashing the PUPs in the Senate

By

Anne Twomey

Posted
Tue 15 Jul 2014, 2:31pm AEST

Photo:
The Palmer United Party will find they are going to be heavily reliant on the advice of the clerks. (AAP: Alan Porritt)

It is a big call for any new
parliamentarian to back their constitutional knowledge over that of a
professional who has served the Senate with distinction for decades,
writes Anne Twomey.

Clive Palmer's changes may doom proposed emissions trading scheme | World news | theguardian.com

Clive Palmer's changes may doom proposed emissions trading scheme

Fresh amendments, including the addition of India to list of ETS partners, mean proposal has a bleak future

Lenore Taylor, political editor
theguardian.com,
Tuesday 15 July 2014 10.43 AEST
Jump to comments (378)

New conditions attached by Clive Palmer to the activation of his
proposed “dormant” emissions trading scheme (ETS) mean it is unlikely to
ever happen and will now be opposed by Labor, even though it supports
emissions trading.

The dormant scheme was a key part of
Palmer’s surprise announcement alongside the former US vice-president Al
Gore and at the time he said it would be activated “based upon the
actions of our leading trading partners China, the United States of
America, the European Union, Japan and Korea”.

The “trigger”
for activating the ETS has varied during the drafting of the plan, which
will be presented as an amendment to legislation abolishing the Climate
Change Authority.

At times during negotiations the amendment
has been worded flexibly, requiring trading partners to reduce emissions
by an equivalent amount to Australia’s efforts, whether through a
nationwide ETS or “equivalent” policies.

But now the Palmer
United party (PUP) is insisting trading partners meet their emissions
reduction promises with an emissions trading scheme, and has added
India to the list at the last minute.

The deputy chief
executive of the Climate Institute, Erwin Jackson, said the new
conditions contradicted PUP's claim to be in favour of global action on
climate change.

"Given India’s historic role internationally in
pushing for equitable contributions from countries, it would be a toxic
bomb to international negotiations now if Australia indicates that
credible action is conditional on similar action from countries like
India," Jackson said. "It would certainly work against the PUP push for
more global action."

The changes mean the “trigger” is unlikely
to be met for many years, because even if other countries adopt
ambitious greenhouse targets they may not choose to implement them with a
nationwide ETS. The EU and Korea have a carbon price. The US has a
price in only some states after Barack Obama failed to get his
cap-and-trade scheme through Congress. Obama is now moving to meet
emissions reduction targets through strict regulations, including on
power station emissions. China has some regional emissions trading
schemes but no national scheme. India has a small tax on coal, but as a
developing country is unlikely to take on similar policies to Australia
and its other trading partners.

"No 1, there's an ETS in the
following basket of countries which include India, China, South Korea,
Japan, the United States and the [EU] – they've got to have a national
ETS for ours to be effective," Palmer said when asked about the plan on
Monday.

"Secondly, the price of carbon has got to be such that it doesn't affect our business competitiveness with those countries.

"And the third thing, it can be disallowed by the houses of parliament."

Sources
said the last-minute changes mean Labor, which had been considering the
amendment, cannot support it and the fate of the amendment is unclear.
The government has also reiterated that it does not support emissions
trading.

The Climate Change Authority repeal bill, to which
the amendment would be attached, is on the list of bills the government
is demanding a vote on before the Senate breaks for its winter recess,
but that list is under negotiation between the parties. The climate
change authority repeal bill may be delayed until August.

Palmer’s
stance on the issue of global warming has been varied. This week he
said: “When it comes to fighting climate sceptics you have to
persevere.”

But before the election, when asked by the ABC
whether he agreed global warming would have a big impact on Australia,
he said: “No, I don't believe that's so. There's been global warming for
a long time. I mean, all of Ireland was covered by ice at one time.
There were no human inhabitants in Ireland. That's how the world has
been going over millions and billions of years and Ross Garnaut knows
that's true, so I think that's part of the natural cycle.”

Monday, 14 July 2014

Clive Palmer criticised for attack on Senate clerk Rosemary Laing over advice on carbon tax repeal amendment - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Clive Palmer criticised for attack on Senate clerk Rosemary Laing over advice on carbon tax repeal amendment

By political reporter Louise Yaxley, staff

Updated
1 hour 2 minutes ago

Photo:
Palmer United Leader Clive Palmer and Clerk of the Senate Dr Rosemary Laing. (AAP: Alan Porritt)

Related Story:
Government hopes carbon tax repeal will be third time lucky

Related Story:
Palmer onside as carbon tax repeal passes House

Map:
Australia

Independent senator Nick Xenophon has accused Clive
Palmer of being a "bully and a coward" and called on him to apologise
for his attack on a senior Senate official.

Members of the Upper
House have leapt to the defence of Senate clerk Rosemary Laing after Mr
Palmer said she should "get out of that job" if she was not prepared to
act on his instructions.

The Government's attempts to pass the
carbon tax repeal legislation suffered a setback last week after the
Palmer United Party (PUP) withdrew support, following advice about an
amendment from Dr Laing.

She had informed the party that a PUP
amendment to the carbon tax repeal legislation was unconstitutional -
advice that Mr Palmer disputed.

The legislation will go before the Senate for a third time today, with strong indications that it will pass.

Senator Xenophon says advice from the Senate clerk is always "impeccable" and Mr Palmer should be ashamed of his comments.

"These are the remarks of a bully and a coward and Clive Palmer ought to apologise," he said.

"He
simply doesn't know what he's talking about and he is diminishing
himself rather than diminishing the institution of the Senate.

"His
attack on the clerk of the Senate - someone who cannot defend herself
because of the protocols attached to that position - is nothing short of
cowardly."

Palmer compares Laing's actions to Stalinist Russia

Mr Palmer denies he yelled at Dr Laing last Thursday, but says he threatened to seek a High Court injunction.

"She
can't interfere and stop them from doing it - that's what it boils down
to. Otherwise you get a bureaucrat being able to veto legislation and
we don't want that. That's what happens in Stalinist Russia," Mr Palmer
said.

"We don't seek her advice - we seek to put things to the
Senate and she's inconsequential to us as to what she thinks. It's what
the Australian people think and what they've elected us to do.

Timeline: Carbon Tax in Australia

Look back at the tortuous history of the carbon tax, one of the most divisive issues in Australia's contemporary politics.

"Our party will always want to put things that we decide, not what the clerks decide.

"She's
not a member of our party, she hasn't been elected to Parliament, she's
employed by the Parliament to draft legislation in accordance with
instructions and she can't really refuse those instructions."

Mr Palmer added: "If that's her job, well, she has to get out of that job".

It
is an extraordinary attack from a member of the Lower House on the
respected position of Senate clerk - especially when the new PUP
senators are likely to need the advice.

Dr Laing is not commenting
on Mr Palmer's remarks, and Senate president Stephen Parry is not
commenting on reports that a complaint has been made about Mr Palmer's
behaviour.

Clive Palmer has accused Senate clerk Rosemary Laing of interfering. What do you think?

Palmer's behaviour is 'unacceptable'

"In my
experience it doesn't matter what your politics are, the Senate staff
are incredibly professional, they're helpful and they're impartial,"
said Greens leader Christine Milne.

"It's unacceptable for Mr
Palmer to be calling for the resignation of the clerk of the Senate
because she was providing advice that he did not want to take."

PUP
said it would support the scrapping of the carbon tax if an amendment
was passed that required power companies to pass on savings they made
from the carbon tax repeal.

Companies that failed to pass on the
savings within the first year would be forced to pay a penalty of 250
per cent of the savings to the Commonwealth.

Senate election reforms on ice

The Abbott Government appears to have quietly shelved plans to reform the way the Senate is elected.

However, the Senate clerk informed PUP senator Glen
Lazarus that the penalty could be seen as a tax, and would therefore
have to pass the House of Representatives before it could be put to the
Senate.

"The advice that was given to Mr Palmer was that he could not do what he wanted to do," Senator Milne said.

"The clerks are not there to be directed by senators if it is outside the rules of the Senate - that is the fact.

"These
people are professionals. They are helpful, they are impartial and they
are certainly not there to be abused by senators if they won't do as
the senators direct them to do when it is obviously against the rules."

Democratic Labour Party senator John Madigan also heaped praise on Dr Laing.

"Rosemary
Laing and her staff are, I'd say, impeccable. I've only ever found them
to be helpful and professional, they're a credit to the Senate," he
said.

"I'd suggest play the issue not the person. The staff of the
Senate are not to be attacked and I think it's a low blow. It does Mr
Palmer no credit to attack the staff of the Senate in such a way."

Senate would be 'lost' without clerk's staff

Labor senator John Faulkner spoke in the chamber yesterday to send a message to all members of the Upper House.

"We
are lucky that the Senate clerk's office provides such a professional
and impartial service to all senators - government, opposition, minor
party and independent in this place, because I would say without their
integrity we would be lost," he said.

Senator Faulkner has spent 25 years in the Upper House and he singled out the past week for special mention.

"This
is the worst, the worst, most amateurish and ham-fisted chamber
management I've seen since I've been here," the veteran said.

But that has not stopped senators blaming each other for last week's extraordinary scenes in the Upper House.

Friday, 11 July 2014

The good, the bad and the unpredictable

Lyn Bender 11 July 2014, 7:30pm 5

Environment Politics

**(Image via climaterealityproject.org)**

Australia has been in fast reverse on climate change
action with Tony Abbott at the helm, however his plans have been turned
upside down by Al Gore and Clive Palmer. Lyn Bender attempts to make sense of this mismatched trio.

THE RECENT STARTLING EVENTS in the Senate should give us reason to
hope that democracy has not been stifled, despite Tony Abbott's worst
intentions.

Abbott’s heavy-handed attempts to order the Senate to do his bidding have proven less successful
than he seemed to expect. His grandiosity and narcissism, which cannot
brook any opposition, has been dealt a blow. Much of his atrocious budget seems unlikely to get through. And the unpredictable Clive Palmer is beating him at his own game of back flipping.

Furthermore, Palmer has accused the Abbott Government of trying to pull a swiftie, by gagging debate to disguise an unacceptable amendment. Palmer proposed a strong amendment to ensure carbon tax savings were passed onto consumers. Ricky Muir
Palmer and Palmer United Senators have voted with the Greens against
the repeal of the carbon tax, which may yet go down, though not easily.

Just as we were wondering what to make of the latest climate deals
done over dinner lunch or breakfast by three extreme and enigmatic
personalities – Al Gore, Clive Palmer
and Tony Abbott – we are beginning to see some of its results. The
survival of Australia’s climate policy now hangs in the balance.

So what drives these three players? Perhaps we can draw hope that one
or more of them might yet save Australia’s carbon pricing policy in
some form.

The media has been buzzing with questions.

Is Al Gore really a good guy; or just ‘crazy ‘Clive Palmer’s fool?
What on earth makes Clive Palmer tick? Has Abbott, the certified bad
guy, been virtually sidelined as a power player. The new Senate players
were greeted with disparagement and chortling from much of the press,
but they seem to be taking their jobs very seriously and may even get
the last laugh. Tony Abbot has many enemies and some of them are now in
the Senate.

Commentators politicians and the media were completely caught off guard when Clive Palmer – the jokester, trickster, mining magnate nouveaux politician – appeared alongside the hero
of the climate change movement. Palmer stood beside Al Gore, the man
with globally acknowledged charisma and gravitas, declaring himself a
convert to climate change science. He would still vote for the axing of
the carbon tax but conditions applied.

The Coalition did a little dance in parliament. Abbott’s vow to kill
the carbon tax would at last be achieved. The Coalition quickly sought
to claim this as a victory.

From the Murdoch press:

“What we have seen today is vindication,” Environment Minister Greg Hunt told reporters in Canberra.

“The announcement this evening means that the Senate will be following the coalition’s plan.”

The Senate was being brought to heel. It was ending in the Government’s favour.

But many aired their confusion.

I received a group email from Christine Milne the next day headed:

'That was weird'.

Some commentators announced that, instead of enhancing PUP leader
Palmer’s prestige, the joint appearance had sullied Gore’s credibility.
After all, only three months before, Clive Palmer was denying the strong impact of human emissions on the earth’s climate.

Others saw the public pairing as a victory for environmentalists and
climate action. Palmer may have announced his intention for his new
PUP senators to vote to repeal the carbon tax, but important conditions
applied. The key pillars of the former government’s green architecture would be saved.

The Renewable Energy target (RET) — retained
The Climate Change Authority (CCA) — kept
Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) — saved
And an emissions trading scheme (ETS) was still on the cards for the future, when trading partners came on board,

So is Clive Palmer – called fat and mocked
mercilessly – seeking his own salvation through saving the earth? Or is
he just another, rich opportunist, seizing his moment on the podium
alongside altruistically credentialed Al Gore? Does Clive want to find
his fifteen minutes of ethical fame, or is it just another brick in his
wall of narcissism?

In his favour he has consistently maintained a solution to refugee
deaths at sea would be to fly them directly to Australia. But it seems
only yesterday that he was declaring that global warming was 97 per cent
due to natural causes. Yet, in a magical twist of seeming enlightenment, he has now embraced what over 97 per cent of scientists are saying.

Watch and note his admiration of Al Gore, which comes across as being genuine:

He seems to be quietly bursting with pride standing alongside former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, whom he calls “a great leader.”

Palmer is speaking more slowly than his usual spray of one-liners. His higher cortex and reflective brain seems to be engaged.

Tony Abbott has been left looking sheepishly relieved. He will at
least now be able to repeal the carbon tax as promised. But Australians
are left literally gobsmacked.

Who can we trust and who has integrity? Or, put simply, who the hell are these guys anyway?

Firstly, Tony Abbott:

Greens leader, Christine Milne has declared that “we have a PM who is effectively barking mad” on climate change.
Jacqui Lambie – Palmer United Party (PUP) Senator – has gone further, saying that Tony Abbott is a “political psychopath”.
I examined this contention regarding his psychopathy in a recent article in IA.
Alan Austin has at length listed Tony Abbott’s compulsive lies and broken promises.
Abbott’s poor human rights record has been criticised globally.
Abbott boasted of an alliance with Canada to sabotage global agreements on emissions reductions.
Fresh from a less than warm meeting with Obama, Abbott declared that he regarded himself as a conservationist! Furthermore, he said that Australia and the US had similar policies on climate — a brazen lie.
Then, while in Texas, Abbott said that coal had a long future. It should not, he said staunchly, be impeded by climate action
Also in Texas, Abbott wore and cowboy hat, yeehowed and was declared a cowboy — which he took as a compliment.

On the other hand, there is Al Gore:

Who has form as a tireless and consistent campaigner for truth about climate change.
Has a deep concern for future generations.
Is the recipient of a Nobel Peace prize.
Has worldwide respect.
Displays genuine warmth and honesty.
Exhibits intelligence integrity in walking the walk as well as talking the talk.
Is a fearless Truth teller.

Then there is the wildcard — Clive Palmer:

Who has changed his mind on important issues such as climate change, in a seemingly superficial and flippant way.
Has boasted that he could pay scientists to come up with solutions, while regecting current scientific consensus.
Yet, speaking three months later, he has an about face. He seems to genuinely admire and trust the integrity and scientific integrity of Al Gore.
Which brings hope that Palmer respects integrity and is looking for positive models of leadership.
Palmer has also exposed what he calls “rubbish” promulgated about a budget crisis.
Palmer has suggested Australia fly
in people who are seeking asylum for assessment, in order to prevent
smuggling and deaths at sea. He has called the present policy on
refugees as "unAustralian".
Clive is anti guns.

What can we make of this? Are Clive and Gore really on the same page? Can we trust Clive to hold fast to his bargain, and what of Abbott?

So what is the view of good guy, Al Gore?

Watch here as Gore stresses that he “likes” Clive and

“There is no question in my mind that he wants to make the world a better place."

He goes on to say “he wants to do the right thing” and that he cares deeply about social justice.

On Abbott, Gore’s opinion is not so complimentary.

Abbott is still a “denier” and that he should

“... either change or get out of the way.”

Direct action – giving money to polluters to stop polluting – is “a dodge” and “silly”.

While Gore is “disappointed” that the carbon tax will be repealed, he is delighted with what has been supported for retention by the Palmer United Party.

As Palmer observes:

“It’s not the Labor way or the Liberal way; but the right way that counts.”

Perhaps we can hopefully conclude that Clive is having his moment of
truth. And as the PUP senators’ votes may be crucial; this can only be a
good thing for us all and hopefully the climate.

Gores final opinion is that climate denial is “extremely odd and self-destructive” and will be relegated to “the dustbin of history”.

We can only hope that a changed Clive Palmer genuinely agrees.

You can follow Lyn Bender on Twitter @Lynestel.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

Is what’s good for Clive good for Australia?

Nigel George 11 July 2014, 10:30am 46

Environment Politics

**(Image by John Graham / johngraham.alphalink.com.au)**

In an open letter to Clive Palmer, climate leader Nigel George poses some questions and offers some suggestions for the man who wrecked Tony Abbott's carbon price repeal moment yesterday.

G’day Clive,

It would appear we have two things in common.

One, we both got to meet Al Gore last week.

Ok, so my meeting did not make the national news, but I was one of the 500 odd people in Melbourne receiving our Climate Leadership training from Mr Gore.
I am hoping Mr Gore’s deep, abiding passion and a vision for humanity
that rises above petty politics, denial and greed had as great an impact
on you as it did me.

The other thing we have in common is that we are businessmen.

I congratulate you on your success and hope to one day be in a
position like yourself and to have gained sufficient wealth to make a
difference. Although I will pass on the mines. And the dinosaurs.

I would just like you to know that there are a great deal of us
regular Aussies that are willing to give you a go. Mainly because with
you up there, we know who we are dealing with, we know what you are
about. Well, most of the time anyway.

It is probably a bit sad to note that Australian politics has
degenerated to a point that we are all willing to accept a special
interest group of one person, but it is certainly better that the puppet
show that is the two big parties.

Heck, I personally believe that it would do a lot for honesty in
Australian politics if Rupert just got rid of the muppet, declared
himself Emperor, lined the front bench with his mates from the IPA and declared Andrew Bolt as Speaker for the House, the Universe and Everything.

But me and many other Australians do have one burning question:

Is what is good for Clive also good for Australia?

Saving a RET that was working and the CEFC which is making money from
the ravages of political ideology was a really good start. Great for
Clive, but also great for Australia. Keep it up mate. Kudos.

I do have three things that I would like you to consider in light of
other things that are great for Clive and great for Australia.

One, next time you feel that little twinge that the deniers might be right, can you jump on your plane and go to one of the Pacific islands.
Preferable one of the low ones. See they think our ‘debate’ is a bit of
a joke. It is really hard to get a serious conversation around how
great coal is when the high tide is in your lounge room.

Or better still, go see my new mate Rodne Galicha
in the Philippines. He said that we should encourage all potential
deniers to come to the Philippines and walk in his shoes for a while. Ask him about Typhoon Haiyan. You see Clive, if a storm like Haiyan rides a really warm ocean into Queensland – which does happen on El Niño years – it will deposit you and the Palmersaurus’ in the middle of Kakadu faster than you can say “where did I leave the keys to the Rolls?”

Second, it would be good for Clive and Australia if you didn’t
swallow that bunkum on Australia leading the world on an ETS. Actually
we are way behind. Europe has had one since 2005. China has a few going in different provinces. Even the Kiwis have one. The only reason the U.S. doesn’t have one is that their political system is more broken than ours.

Mate, we are far better off just having a floating price ETS. It is only worth a couple of bucks at the moment and when the world gets over the smoke (no pun intended) and mirrors routine of the fossil fuel industry and starts moving to a clean energy future, we won’t be left with our pants around our ankles.

Thirdly and lastly — I ask you reconsider the big boat idea. We already had a second Titanic, it was called the Britannic. It sunk too. You might think it is a great idea, but honestly mate it kinda makes you look like a bit of a tosser.

Not good for Clive.

Spend the money on a Concentrating Solar Thermal plant. With molten salt storage,
they are capable of delivering power all day long. And once they are
built, the energy source is free — well for at least the next few
billion years. Spain already has heaps of them.

That is the legacy you should leave mate. If you start rolling out
CST plants we will love you for generations. If you do take me up on the
idea, I will personally make sure we have you bronzed and mounted on a
big plinth somewhere prominent — maybe even in front of Campbell Newman’s office.

Like many other Aussies, I would genuinely like you to answer my
question. I have made a few suggestions, there are certainly many more
things we could do together.

So, at the risk of repeating myself: is what’s good for Clive, good for Australia?

If the answer turns out to be yes – what’s good for Clive is good for Australia – you can rest assured that we've got your back mate.

Yours very sincerely,

Nigel George

PS I hear that you are not all that fussed with the current crop of
advisors. I’d be happy to be your advisor mate. I am a straight shooter,
have paid my dues on the shop floor and in the boardroom, I know how to
build sustainable businesses, and I know this climate change thing
inside out. Call me. Any time before 7pm.

PPS Mate’s rates of course — any friend of Al’s is a friend of mine.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

Monday, 7 July 2014

Unruly PUP shows it cannot be trained

Date: July 8, 2014
Category: Opinion

Mark Kenny

ANALYSIS

Illustration: Cathy Wilcox

The impact of the arrival on the national stage of Clive
Palmer and his eponymous band of first-time legislators is only now
becoming clear, fully ten months on from the election.

And as the picture clarifies, we are getting the first real
sense of a truly chaotic picture. ''What have we done?'' voters may well
ask.

Surely the single biggest aim of the election was to sweep
away the uncertainty of the Gillard/Rudd years. To expunge forever from
the collective mind the horror of the hung Parliament where
grandstanding independents armed with a fraction of the vote held all to
ransom?

Nobody thought much about the Senate though.

Of the 12 senators starting terms on July 1, four of them are in Mr Palmer's now pivotal voting bloc.

And because it is a bloc, it is central to anything the Coalition wants to do that is opposed by Labor and the Greens.

That spells trouble for a government that has so far proved
itself mystifyingly inept at the art of persuasion, whether that be
persuading voters or, more pointedly, persuading crossbench senators.

But then, persuading people with whom you have no long-term
relationship and behind whom there is no established body of policy or
parliamentary voting record can be a tricky assignment. Especially if
the ground keeps moving.

When he addressed the National Press Club on Monday, Palmer's ''flexibility'' was face-slappingly apparent.

Without the slightest hint of the reversal it actually was,
he announced his party would now back the government's Direct Action
alternative as long as it agreed to keep Labor's emissions trading
scheme on the books. Both are measures to which Palmer has been
implacably opposed in the past.

Just last week, Direct Action was a pointless ''waste of
money''. Now it has his party's support, subject to the retention of a
policy (in name only) to which he was also opposed.

Similarly, the mining tax repeal will be supported, but not
the generous handouts to families foolishly funded by the revenue stream
that never materialised.

Voters may be bemused, but the government remains more
circumspect, caught between its private assessment of such untethered
fluidity, and the absolute reliance on the PUP bloc to pass
legislation.

It is an accepted fact in politics that disorder,
unpredictability and unruliness always play badly for governments. If
so, day one of the new Senate was a bad start.

Commitments to support votes were welshed on immediately. Huge holes were blown in an already stymied budget.

And the Treasurer Joe Hockey was branded a liar for claiming a budget emergency.

It is beginning to feel just a bit like a hung Parliament. Again.

CLIVE PALMER A WOLF IN SHEEP CLOTHING

Tuesday, 15 July 2014