Climate Change Policy - You Decide - NOW

While many in our society like to complain that our elected officials don't know what it going on in "the real world", or aren't in touch with the real issues facing "real Australians", the fact is that we elect them to do a job and run the country, the government, and the economy. Julia Gillard would like that to change.

Climate Change is one of the more contentious issues facing policy makers today. Not only do we have a debate about whether the climate is changing, we also have debates on whether we should have a debate (hard-line climate change believers like to use words like "we need to move on from debate", "the science is settled", and "there is a consensus"), whether it is caused by human activity, what we should do about it, and whether we should do anything if bigger and larger overall polluters like China and India do nothing, preferring economic growth to carbon reduction.

Regardless of what has occurred in the last three years, Kevin Rudd and the ALP ran at the 2007 election on a platform of introducing a scheme to reduce the amount of carbon Australia emits. Faced with a hostile Senate, filled with Liberals and Nationals who felt the scheme went too far, and Greens who felt the scheme didn't go far enough, the scheme did not pass the Senate and was not reintroduced by the Government, or used as a trigger for a Double Dissolution election.

Now, at the next election with Kevin Rudd relegated to local member and the ground shifting in this policy area, Julia Gillard wants to create a "Citizens Assembly" to develop a "consensus" on climate change.

The assembly, which would include 150 "ordinary Australians", would be "informed by experts" about climate change before making recommendations. The speech announcing this, of which The Australian has obtained a copy, apparently states "this must not just be a debate between experts ... it must be a real debate among involving many real Australians".

Firstly, I don't know who to be more offended for first, but experts are experts for a reason: they know what they are talking about. Could you imagine the government creating such an assembly to determine economic policy? Not in a million years. Also offensive is the implication that experts, or to put it more plainly, public servants, are not real Australians, but live in a land of make-believe called "Government land". They have mortgages, grocery and petrol bills, friends, hobbies, children, and all that other stuff that "real Australians" have as well.

It's also a significant abrogation of the responsibility of government, chosen from the party in the majority in the House of Representatives. We elect governments to govern.

There already exists a "Citizens Assembly", which has 150 "real Australians", informed by experts on various areas of policy and public administration: it's called the House of Representatives.

Gillard is being disingenuous as well as condescending and offensive when she plans to handball this key area of public policy, labelled by her predecessor and member of her party as "the greatest moral challenge of our time", off to 150 people, randomly selected like they have just won the Reader's Digest Sweepstakes.

What Gillard should do, considering she has been in Government for 32 months, is outline what she and her colleagues in the ALP is the best course of action regarding this issue, and if the Opposition offers a different policy, then let the people decide at an election, which we will be having on August 21. That way 13,000,000 Australians, rather than 150, can decide on policy direction the Commonwealth Government should head on Climate Change.

Australia needs better leadership than this, and this proposal demonstrates exactly why Gillard is unfit for office.