Showing posts with label mark latham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mark latham. Show all posts

Monday, 5 September 2011

DIARY: MOBBED WITH LATHAM IN TORYTOWN


The three girls sitting opposite can’t take their eyes off us. Eventually it becomes too much for one of them (the pretty one) and she saunters over and shyly introduces herself. To Mark, of course, not the rest of us. Mark smiles and shakes her hand, and that’s all it takes for the other two to rush over, pen and napkin poised for an autograph, mobile phones at the ready for the inevitable photograph.

“We really miss you,” gushes one of them. She even grabs his hand. “You should sooo never have quit. You should be the PM, not her.”  The other two giggle in agreement. Mark smiles bashfully and gives a dismissive wave of his over-sized hand. “Naah,” he says in his unmistakable Werriwa drawl, “I had my crack at it.”

An evening with Mark Latham is an enlightening affair. The pub he has chosen is the Kirribilli Hotel in Tory-town, only a stone’s throw from the large house on the harbour he nearly got to call home. He would have fitted in well. The locals can’t seem to get enough of him. A man who introduces himself as “the Mayor of Kirribilli”, and who bears more than a passing resemblance to Ray ‘Rabbits’ Warren, is just one of the many patrons of the pub who finds an excuse to drift over and tell Mark the same two things: how much they like him. And how much they dislike Julia. “Come back, mate. All is forgiven!” he growls, to the nodding approval of those around him. Even as we attempt to leave the pub, Mark is bailed up by more people on the pavement, echoing the same sentiment. Like the best pollies with the “common touch”, he insists on chatting to each and every one of them in turn while the rest of us wait patiently on the sidewalk, shivering.

Over dinner we get the famous “taxi-driver-with-the-broken-elbow” yarn, complete with a visual re-enactment of the bone-snapping tackle and plateloads of humour and self-deprecation. He must’ve told it a thousand times before, but he makes the story sound as fresh as the tuna sashimi we tuck into. The meal is in a Japanese restaurant, around a low table, with dishes intended to share. Mark takes the beef hot-pot and picks up a knife and fork. “What are you lot having?” he asks, tucking in. It suddenly occurs to me that the “handshake episode” that possibly cost him the election was completely misunderstood. Latham wasn’t trying to intimidate Howard. He was probably quite pleased to bump into him and was just being himself - a brusque, forthright, no-frills Aussie bloke.

Also present are Tom Switzer, Michael Kroger, Janet Albrechtsen and former NSW minister Michael Yabsley. Two safe topics of conversation present themselves. One is Michael Yabsley’s passion for the byzantine inner workings of antique lamps. The other is the byzantine inner machinations of the ABC. Sorry Michael, but we’ll have to do the lamps next time.

Five days later I am standing in the foyer of the ABC, no longer contemplating her inner workings, but rather heading off to lunch in Chinatown with an old advertising friend, Paul Comrie-Thomson, who now, along with Michael Duffy, presents Radio National’s Counterpoint program. Paul and I first met filming a TV commercial featuring a dog called Spot Dixon, whose owner had a unique way of getting the gunk out of the corner of the dog’s eye for its close ups. She’d lick it out.

Paul and I had discussed the carbon tax ads on a previous show, where I’d suggested they were nothing more than (taxpayer-funded) highly polished corporate ads for some mob called Infigen. Today we learn that Infigen had debts of $1.25 billion at the end of the 2011 financial year. No mention of that amongst the beautiful imagery and heart-felt eulogies to the wonders of windmills and solar power.

Having never actually listened to Countdown before my first appearance, I made a point of tuning in the previous week. Paul was interviewing Peter Toohey, an academic, about his book called “Boredom: A Lively History.” I listened for the full twenty minutes, convinced I had stumbled upon the greatest comic duo since Derek and Clive, as they managed to turn a lengthy discussion about “how boredom can be good for you” into something that was achingly, compellingly, and utterly, er, uninteresting. Sheer genius.

Paul and I have been exploring the theme of the Truth Well Told, which is the old McCann’s advertising slogan. QANTAS, in their latest campaign, seem to have turned the idea on its head by delivering Half-truths Poorly Told. We reminisce about the days when a QANTAS trip symbolized a rite of passage for an entire generation, as we all headed off to “do Europe.” Hilariously, you could even smoke on airlines in those days, and the in-flight entertainment involved seeing how many tinnies you could skull before you landed in London. That was the real spirit of QANTAS. I can’t wait to see what the “new” one will be.

Listening to the radio on the way home, it’s clear there’s a new spirit in Canberra. This one’s called “defeat”, and it must be hanging in the spring air as visibly as the pollen from the Floriade. “This is a dagger through the heart of the Gillard government,” opines Graham Richardson, as the news comes through that the High Court has pronounced the Malaysian solution unlawful. Some months ago I wrote a spoof article in this magazine about how people smugglers would be encouraged, rather than deterred, by this ham-fisted policy. But even drawing on whatever meagre satirical skills I may possess, I couldn’t have imagined how farcical this whole shemozzle would become.

Come back Mark, all is forgiven.

Thursday, 18 August 2011

GOLDILOCKS, PETER PAN, HUMPTY DUMPTY AND THE CARBON TAX

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/7169533/at-last-a-real-debate.thtml


Goldilocks, Peter Pan and Humpty Dumpty were all there, along with a distinguished British Lord, former Liberal and Labor leaders and ministers and the odd scientist or two. When it comes to climate change emissions, Australia is clearly leading the world - in the quality of debate. Asking the pertinent question, "Do we really need this carbon tax?" the answer was given to us on a balmy winter's night in Sydney at Wednesday's inaugural debate hosted by The Spectator magazine and the Institute of Public Affairs: in an oratorical contest about climate change that unleashed a tidal wave of analogy, emotion, economic hypothesizing and even a few temperature rises amongst the crowd. But, strangely, not much science.

To be broadcast on the ABC, the debate was riveting, and managed to transcend much of the "here-we-go-again" hyperbole and statistics of the climate change talk-back discussion. Held at the prestigious Tattersalls club in Elizabeth street, which is well over a hundred years old (as indeed were many of the audience,) it would be fair to say the event attracted a largely greyer, more conservative demographic, although a few hot heads had obviously caught the bus down from Broadway to support the "yes" case. Star performer was former Thatcher minister and father of the world's curviest TV chef Lord Nigel Lawson, who was accompanied by former Labor minister Gary Johns and geologist and author Ian Plimer persuading us that the carbon tax is a no-no.

Opposing them, and bravely arguing against an occasionally hostile crowd - there was a distinctly audible hiss when the ABC's Q and A programme was mentioned - were former Liberal leader John Hewson and UNSW climatologist Benjamin McNeil.

Stuck somewhere in the middle was former Labor leader Mark Latham, who despite believing both in climate change and the need for an emissions pricing mechanism, argued convincingly against the carbon tax, maintaining that in it's present form (exempting fuel and so on) it will prove futile and ineffectual. Given the political pain she is suffering, Mark shrugged his broad shoulders and wearily asked his former deputy "Julia, why are you bothering? What's the point?" He then drew an analogy with tobacco, imagining a tax on cigarettes that didn't include half of the brands, compensated Big Tobacco, and gave extra money to smokers,

To climate change advocate and businessman John Hewson, who presumably no longer drives to work in a Ferrari, it was all about economics. Oddly claiming that he was taking advice these days from Humpty Dumpty, John asserted that the move away from carbon-based energy forms is "inevitable" so we may as well get on with it. John, who is chairman of Global DC, a firm involved in the design and building of energy-efficient data centres, claims the tax will drive investment into renewables (just like it says in the ads) and create "new income streams" that will be good for business. And for John, too, presumably. His best line, and one of the best laughs of the night, came when he said he hoped he wasn't being asked the carbon footprint of a birthday cake. (You had to be there.)

In a decision he probably now regrets, Brendan McNeil, the one accredited climate change scientist on the panel, airily proclaimed that he wasn't there to talk about "the science." Oops! If there's one thing guaranteed to fire up the climate change skeptics and deniers it's scientists being evasive about the science. Brendan nonetheless presented a compelling argument in favor of innovation and technology to solve climate change. But by citing Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and other inventors (who all managed to get by without government intervention) he risked undermining his own case.

The one person who did want to talk about "the science" was geologist and climate change denial pin-up boy Ian Plimer. Attracting a fair degree of hostility from the science graduates in the audience, he went to great pains to detail what he maintains is the geological evidence that dismantles the theory of carbon-based and human-induced global warming. He and Brendan then got into a tiff about whose science degree was more impressive.

Retreating to the theme of nursery rhymes and fairy tales, former Labor minister Gary Johns briefly brought Goldilocks into the debate, (when is the planet too hot, too cold, just right?) before delivering an eloquent, well-reasoned and compelling argument about risk assessment. Concluding that it is pointless to embark on a grand scheme that you know can't possibly achieve it's goals, his best line was "It's not cost-effective if it's not effective."

But the night belonged to Nigel Lawson, former chancellor and energy minister in the Thatcher years. He doesn't quibble with the science. He despairs of the policy response to it. Addressing the "moral" question head on, he decried the fact that "hundreds of millions of people" throughout China, India and Africa were being condemned to lives of "the direst poverty, disease and malnutrition" thanks to the climate change agenda. There are "real problems in the world that exist" that are being ignored thanks to the West's obsession with climate change.   

His was a tour-de-force of reason, compassion and economic intelligence. And he even managed to get Peter Pan into the debate. Along with most of the audience, he got my vote.