7.30, Fitzgibbon and some interestingly positioned fruit:
Alan Sunderland, head of policy, ABC News, writes: Re. “Media briefs: 7.30’s erect banana … NotW’s killer story … YTT up? …” (yesterday, item 19). I am usually reluctant to interrupt people having a bit of fun, but the speculation about the fruit bowl seen in the background during a 7.30 interview with Joel Fitzgibbon last night is getting a little out of hand, so I probably need to set the record straight.
The placement of the fruit was both accidental and innocent.
When setting up for the interview, the cameraman decided to move the bowl of fruit from the coffee table to the shelves to improve the shot. The fruit fell out, he hurriedly replaced it and rolled on the interview.
The pure-of-mind 7.30 team did not notice anything amiss, either during the interview or during the editing and production process.
So, for the record, no one from the ABC and no one from Mr Fitzgibbon’s office was in any way involved in a deliberate attempt to make a joke or send a message.
Now do carry on.
Mining tax:
Michael Whiting writes: Re. Yesterday’s Editorial. For several years I have subscribed to Crikey and have enjoyed the other side of the argument that may not get aired in our mainstream press. However I have to take argument with yesterday’s editorial.
Crikey talks about greedy, lying mining corporations — surely you jest! I thought it was going to be greedy lying GOVERNMENTS. I raise this because some years ago Don Argus publicly raised the awareness to the mining industry of the introduction of new taxes. The industry was waiting for dialogue but no, Rudd/Swan, in desperate need of budget deficit filling dollars, dumped a massive indiscriminate tax on the industry.
Every person/industry/group has the right to argue against and fight against such measures. Crikey seems to think this is undemocratic. Surely the issue is why didn’t the government engage with the industry and introduce a mining RRT — simple, easy and fair.
There should be a tax on extra normal profits and despite what Terry McCrann says they should go into a SWF so the governments of the day cannot use it as general revenue and put us in the bind we now find ourselves in.
You are right, this new tax will cost as much to implement as it will deliver but it is the government’s fault not the mining industry.
Abbott on Whitlam:
Michael R. James writes: Re. “Abbott’s humour less than killer, but does he lack compassion?” (yesterday, item 15). Like David Ritter I found Tony Abbott’s insult in parliament of the great Gough Whitlam revealed a “serial insensitivity shows a standard of manners and politeness less than that which should be a minimum requirement for public office. At worst what is revealed is a genuine failure of compassion. Taken collectively there seems to be pattern of instinctive and aggressive callousness; an impulsive failure of empathy.”
It provoked thoughts of What would Gough do? Why, of course, he would demolish and humiliate the intellectual midget of Tony Abbott in parliament. Even at age 95 today he still could.
In fact there is a certain déjà vu induced by Abbott’s relentless negativity and Malcolm Fraser’s obstructionism during the Whitlam government. Here is a small extract from my earlier article:
“But the positive impact on Australia [of the Whitlam government] remains huge and incalculable. It would take a separate article to describe them but Medibank (reversed by Fraser, reinstated by Hawke as Medicare), voting at 18, equal opportunities for women, no-fault divorce, abolition of White Australia Policy, and relations with China are just a few. I have no doubt that if those Young Libs reflected for a few seconds they would drop their jaws that many of the things that define our society today, and which they take for granted, were created during those brief turbulent 35 months and were totally, relentlessly opposed by their own party.”
Greenhouse gas emissions:
John Bushell writes: Re. “Behind the Seams: the science behind CSG’s clean credentials” (yesterday, item 10). The article compares greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for competing technologies rather than asking the question: do any of the technologies go close to meeting the constraints that unlimited global warming impose on mankind if we continue to want to live on this planet?
Man-made GHGs must not exceed 18 billion tonnes CO2 equivalent per annum from 2050 on if catastrophic global warming is to be avoided (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research). This is the equivalent of two tonnes CO2 equivalent per annum per person with an assumed human population in 2050 of 9 billion. Just to pull its weight Australia needs to reduce its present per capita emissions from 27 tonnes
CO2 equivalent per annum to 2 tonnes CO2 equivalent per annum — no mean feat.
Globally, assuming that electricity generation takes its fair share of GHG emissions reduction and that some 45 billion MegaWatt hrs (MWhr) of electricity will be generated in 2050, GHG emissions cannot exceed 100 tonnes per MWhr of power generated.
Notwithstanding the figures used in the report quoted by Rebecca McNicholl, the figures for GHG emissions for brown coal, black coal and natural gas (methane) are roughly 1300, 1000 and 740 tonnes per MWhr respectively. Therefore, any use of fossil fuels to generate electricity in future will place massive pressure on alternative forms of low-carbon electricity generation (renewables and nuclear) for the balance of power generation, or alternative (non-electricity generating low GHG emission) technologies to dramatically reduce GHGs if we are to preserve our planet for posterity.
Dear Alan Sunderland, thanks for setting the record straight on the offending banana.
LOLOLOLOL
Unfortunately, everyone knows, the cameraman was actually the ABC’s resident CIA mole @ABCnewsIntern
@Michael R James, I agree with you 100% about your views on Abbott and Whitlam. I believe that nowadays that for general public consumption unless things a projected in a reality show type format, nothing is remembered. Why else do you you think Tony Abbott is out there filleting fish, peeling bananas, driving a forklift, etc. its the reality show format aspect to his presence – and of course the short three or four word slogans; this enables those of short attention and sometimes intellect to understand and remember. I have been waiting for our great Tony to do a photo op as a slaughterman in an “Abbottor” (pun intended) and I do believe if he thought there was a few votes to be had out of that kind of stunt, he would do that too!
@ MICHAEL R JAMES – re extract. It is worth noting, that none of the
items you quote as achievements of the Whitlam government have been
reversed by any Coalition government, despite their furious opposition
at the time.
In fact, another of Whitlam’s policies – free university education (at the
time) – is now seen as a badge of honour for most of those currently
occupying the opposition benches, who benefited from this policy
earlier in their lives!
@CML.
Absolutely. A point I made in the original article:
[The Machiavellians will say, so what? Isn’t history littered with examples of the means justified by the ends? Emphatically not in this case. When Fraser managed to scrabble up the greasy pole over innumerable dead bodies, including Australian democracy, what did he then do with his power? Nothing. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Read the lame valediction of Fraser’s rule by his former press secretary for a clear précis of this assertion. And the fact that, with the exception of Medibank, Fraser did not undo these momentous changes to Australia brought in by the hated Whitlamites — even though he had a Senate majority — is more revealing than anything anyone could write about those days or the politics. That and the fact that every subsequent government or opposition has solemnly vowed never to block supply, commonly judged by all political persuasions and constitutional lawyers as beyond the rules of our democracy. (But don’t ask if this author suspects Tony Abbott would not be equally opportunistic and irresponsible as Fraser if he could.)]
We can be reasonably certain that the same will happen should Abbott climb up the greasy pole to the top. Despite all the screeching today, they will find reasons why it cannot be undone and quietly the whole nonstop bulllsh!t will be swept under the carpet.
There is a view around that sincere Catholicism has a whiff of the death cult about it. What with the innocent babe ‘born into original sin’, and holiness ‘only to be achieved’ through torturous suffering and if at all possible an excruciating death.
It might be Tony ‘Iraq war / pass me that hair shirt’ Abbott has a whiff of the death cult in him and so doesn’t feel so sentimental about the grieving process. Or maybe he just hasn’t had someone close to him die yet?
Certainly greiving is not an intellectual kind of thing, you have to go through it. And like all emotional journeys I believe it tends to encourage wisdom over ‘cleverness’.