Malcolm in the Middle

In the debate over the proposed emissions trading scheme (ETS), beleaguered Federal Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull seems to be between a rock and a hard place. Two camps seem to be putting the squeeze on him. Each one holding to a specific set of beliefs.

One the one hand, market reformists point to the phenomena known as global warming and climate change as indicative of the need to reform capitalism as we know it. On the other hand, market fundamentalists see the ETS as an intrusion by government into the affairs of the private sector which come with unnecessary distortions and costs to the Australian public. They allege no benefits will accrue unless a global deal is reached in Copenhagen by world leaders.

Proponents on the one hand see the need to internalise the undesirable side effects of productive activity as a way to improve the price signals to production and consumption that currently regard what nature endows as free. The political reality as pointed out by Mr Turnbull is that any attempt to spurn this publicly supported proposal will be met with scorn at the polls.

Opponents from within Malcolm's party see it as a "tax" or as onerous regulation. (It actually has elements of both in the form of a cap which sets limits on emissions--the regulatory part--and a trading scheme for emissions permits which will set a price for carbon--the tax part). They also want additional concessions for emitters although doing so would create additional distortions to the ETS. This amounts to a "free lunch" for emitters according to the Greens who oppose the legislation outright. Without their support, the Federal Opposition finds itself in a bind.

Rejecting the legislation could trigger an early election on the issue of climate change. By arguing in favour of passing the ETS legislation now, Mr Turnbull wants to position the Coalition that he heads safely into the next election as far as this issue is concerned. This has earned him the ire of his partymates who see delaying it as the only viable option.

On the other hand, he is receiving no help from the government which wants to play the symbollic game at the Copenhagen summit or perhaps make do with the self-destruction of the Opposition. Apparently, the middle ground seems to be melting beneath his feet. This "inconvenient truth" seems to be dawning on Malcolm and his supporters.

Preaching to the Choir

This week saw Joe Hockey the Federal Opposition’s treasury spokesman present his views on god and politics before the Sydney Institute. The talk entitled “In Defense of God” was a discussion of religion’s place within a secular society. Mr Hockey argues in favour of a pluralist society that maintains the free and open competition for adherents of different religious faiths (in keeping with the Liberal Party’s own tradition of unfettered markets no doubt).

This was touted in the media as his first outing as an aspiring leader of the Federal Liberal Party. As the clouds of economic crisis began to recede into the distance and with it the dour predictions regarding the Government’s fiscal position, this was seen as the treasury spokesman’s way of canvassing a wider policy arena, and what better way of doing this than to discuss his own personal history as an Australian of mixed ancestry and cultural heritage?

The actual text of the speech is quite lucid and credible, but when asked regarding his motivation for giving it, Joe could not provide a credible response. Neither could he prevent speculation regarding his higher ambitions from occurring, his smiley face betraying his inner most thoughts (as if he got a warm fuzzy feeling from the mere notion that he might wrest the Liberal Party’s helm from its currently unpopular leader Malcom Turnbull).

Had he intended to showcase his command of matters pertaining to his treasury portfolio, he could have offered to speak on a topic made popular by the GFC, that of religion and economics. After all, his party adheres most closely to the orthodoxy of neoliberalism. This tradition has taken the outer trappings of a religion according to one author and advocates for the total separation of Markets and State. It is this belief system that Kevin Rudd’s “heretical” teachings on social democracy seek to overturn.

Given the unpopularity in recent years of this view among voters and policymakers alike, it is not difficult to see why he opted not to be the apologist for it in this occasion. But to see what shape and form a speech on this topic might have looked like, check out the beautifully written essay by a theologian posted this week and found here.

(Image taken from the Sydney Institute podcast)