<< ALP strategists are reportedly already distancing themselves from the Prime Minister’s “Citizens’ Assembly” and you can see why. It could be the single worst idea that has ever been floated by an elected government in a federal election. >>

<< …what were they thinking? >>

Er…yes, what indeed, Richard. My mind boggles!

This has been one very big step backwards for ‘moving forward’ Gillard!

In a democracy the government governs by consent of the governed,not by a consensus of the governed.There will never be a consensus as the majority,at least in theory,rules.

The proposed citizen's forum or whatever it is called is a sick joke along the lines of Rudd's feeble attempt at consultation early in his term.

This is simply a cynical exercise in delaying indefinetly a decision on effective measures to combat human induced climate change.It is at the behest of the people who own this government and the opposition - industry,mining,developers -the whole growth at any cost consortium of greed and short sightedness.

There will never be any progress towards a sustainable Australia until this consortium is destroyed.This will very likely happen sooner rather than later through an economic collapse - too bad about the collateral damage.

What rot.

This was an attempt to stop some loss of votes from those who know that a carbon trading scheme is a big spenders way of fleecing the public.

It was also meant to give them an excuse, & someone else to blame, for such a stupid policy, when the fact that CO2 is a harmless, but essential, plant food becomes common knowledge. The assembly was to rubber stamp the desired policy, of course.

Beattie pulled this one with his water commission. It made the nasty announcements that he wanted to avoid being associated with, when the problems were of his causing.

Worked somewhat too. For just a few million of our money, he saved a few thousand votes.

Groan!
Another politically biased thunk tank diatribe.

Did I mention more deliberate misinterpretation for those with personal axes to grind.

I watched the speech which announced this assembly. Its reasoning is clear and bears no likeness to how it is being interpreted by those self interested individuals.

This cit assembly will be part of the process. An attempt involve and seen to involve the public in the decision making process. Will they make the decision? no
They will give the government feed back on public understanding if given access to the same information as the govt. a litmus test to indicate if their (govt) thinking is insider or has informed validity.

Will it indicate areas where the govt needs to work harder to explain? you bet.

Will it work as planned ? My crystal ball is in for repair.it won't if the self interested have any say.

Is it worth a try ?..absolutely, anything that helps to make better more informed decisions is fine with me.
Will it convince the curmudgeons? no JG said as much .

In the final analysis both the panel of experts and the citizens Assembly will *advise* the Govt, rightfully the govt will make the decision.

Cynical stunt or not I can't see that its not worth a shot.
This article says heap about the Aust institute that they focus on such a minor issue and post it here as though its something of critical importance

"Tackling climate change is not beyond our democratic processes, it is simply beyond our current elected representatives.”

Deomonstrably wrong:
For more than a decade it has been beyond our elected representatives; and beyond our democratic processes.

The people who cast their votes at elections have less representation in Parliament than the (non-voting) cashed-up lobby groups from the leaders of the push for a never-ending bigger-Australia

But Xammy, hasn’t it all effectively been done? Isn’t there a strong indication from the general community and from the experts about how they think our government should proceed?

Isn’t it now time to act rather than putting off any action until the exact course of action, that is the least offensive, the ultimate balance of what everyone wants and hence a considerably less effective approach than what could be mounted, is worked out??

The eventual policy will be way off the mark because they will be concentrating on the wrong things, in all probability. And the probability of this will very likely be increased if the Gillard government listens to a citizens’ assembly, the scientific community, the green lobby, the business lobby , the denialists and the political pollsters and tries to find a balanced position which minimally offends any of these groups.

I reckon that climate change policy should basically be a spinoff of policies directed in a couple of other all-important areas. It shouldn’t be something that is policified as the primary objective.

We desperately need to concentrate on adjusting our society to a scenario where the price of oil is considerably higher than at present, which is something that could happen very quickly. This could enormously affect our economy, on all levels from personal to big business and government and could trigger massive unemployment and social unrest.

It is extraordinarily important that we gear our society towards a regime of being vastly less dependent on oil. If we did this, we’d be reducing greenhouse gas emissions enormously more so than if we tried to address climate change in isolation.

continued