"Google it, mate"




Here we have the very best reason to vote for the man:

He’s quick witted, eloquent and to the point:

Adam Bandt of the Greens





Australian Greens leader Adam Bandt has hit back at a journalist’s question which seemed to be trying to catch him off guard. Bandt was asked what the current WPI [Wage Price Index] was, to which he responded, ‘Google it, mate!’ Elections should be 'contest of ideas', Bandt said. Not a 'factchecking exercise’ that he said was turning people off politics. The exchange came after Labor leader Anthony Albanese was unable to state the national unemployment rate.


From Rationale (published by the the Rationalist Society of Australia):


Adam Bandt’s appearance at the National Press Club may well be remembered in Australian political folklore for the response to that ‘counter-gotcha’ question in which he urged a budding journalist to “Google it, mate!”


In that same moment, however, the Greens leader said something else that was perhaps far more significant and profound. “Elections should be about a contest of ideas. Politics should be about reaching for the stars and offering a better society,” he said.


Bandt is right. In our federal election campaigns, we’re not getting a contest of ideas. And it’s been that way for quite some time.


In this year’s campaign, we’re not talking about the big ideas and we’re not talking about what we want to change in this country. We’re not talking about what policies are going to be good or bad for us.


Instead, all we hear via the mainstream media are banal statements from the major parties. All that Prime Minister Morrison and the government can dish up is that Labor can’t be trusted with money and has no experience. The Morrison government, meanwhile, will keep you safe from the Chinese, the Russians and the boat people.


All Labor is saying in return is, “We’ll give you an ICAC and we’ll throw a bit of money at Medicare.” But, otherwise, they’re not promising to change much.


Sadly, we’re not getting a discussion about policies and big ideas because Australia’s media is engaged with horse race journalism. This kind of media reporting during election campaigns focuses on candidates’ mistakes, their strategies and the question: ‘Who’s winning?’


In the opening days of this election campaign, it’s clear that the media’s focus has been on questions such as, “How can Albanese lose? How can Morrison win?” Pretty soon they will be reporting that “it’s neck and neck down the home straight”.



_____________________________________________




I had been sucked in by Labor's propaganda, as per the climate policy controversy in 2009.  The Conversation.  It's good to see the record set straight.


Federal Labor this week commemorated a dubious anniversary – a decade of climate policy failure. And it pointed the finger of blame squarely at the Greens.


Labor claimed that had the Greens not voted against its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) in 2009, Australia’s carbon emissions would be more than 200 million tonnes lower and electricity would be more affordable.


The main lesson from that time is that cynical parliamentary strategies and weak reforms from the major parties are at the heart of climate policy failure.


Labor’s proposed CPRS followed then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s famous call to act on the “great moral challenge” of climate change. The policy was a “cap and trade” emissions trading scheme (ETS) which in theory would have limited greenhouse gas pollution from industry.


The CPRS legislation followed the Garnaut Climate Change Review. Ross Garnaut, a prominent economist, proposed emissions targets that environmentalists considered inadequate. Meanwhile industry, which would have incurred costs under the scheme, was unhappy with the limited compensation proposed.


During the Rudd Government’s first two years, Garnaut’s vision was severely weakened – not least due to proposed industry exemptions and compensation, and unlimited industry access to carbon offsetting.


It seemed likely the scheme would have created corporate windfalls at considerable public expense, without achieving much emissions reduction. It was opposed by the Greens, led by Bob Brown, along with many economists and most environmental groups.


























 

>