GOOD SHIP LABOR HOLED BY TITANIC TAX (Fin Review April 20)

A fascinating new mini-series that was launched this week depicts one of the great tragedies of our time: the sinking of the “unsinkable” Australian Labor Party. Each new episode explores the calamity from the point of view of a different character.

Scripted by Sir Julia Fellowes (author of long-running popular period drama Downtown Canberra) the series aims to set the record straight for once and for all about the events that led to one of history’s most epoch-defining disasters.

Sir Julia, who controversially took over scriptwriting duties mid-way through the first draft because she was unhappy about the chaotic organization and directionless approach to the project, has now taken full responsibility for how it all pans out. “There will be no happy endings in any production I lead,” she famously (and accurately) maintained.

        

As the vessel heads inexorably towards the fateful night of the 2013 election, viewers get to repeatedly experience the extraordinary events leading up to those final calamitous moments as the Labor Party is struck by a gigantic, immovable Carbon Tax, and sinks without a trace into the darkness below. In the final horrific minutes, members of the party and fellow travellers attempt to scramble to safety, but are sucked downwards by the sheer force of the anti-Labor vote. Even those clinging to floating preferences or hoping to clutch onto the passing debris of a New England independent or inner-city Green get sucked under. Keen viewers will note that in one of the many flashbacks a canny character known only as Barmy Bob manages to slip overboard and swim to safety in Tasmania. Sadly, his paramour Christine suffers a very different fate.

Ignoring all warnings, the hapless pilot of the doomed ship, Captain Swan, steers the vessel directly into the path of voter anger and treacherous cash floes. On a moonless night, he seems stubbornly insouciant to the dangers posed by the sea of taxes, imposts, and wasteful spending, any of which could punch a hole in the ship at any moment. In one of the many fascinating historic details, viewers learn that the shipbuilders were forced to borrow a hundred million dollars a day just to keep the whole enterprise afloat whilst, incredulously, squandering billions more on an archaic Wireless Message Network, which fails to save them.

Although the script is fast-paced, involving everything from a huge surge of illegal immigrants found hiding below decks to a luxurious ballroom where prostitutes frolic with credit card fraudsters, the dialogue is particularly cheesy, with unconvincing lines such as “we’re all moving forward” and “he has my full confidence” sounding insubstantial and trite.

For a costume drama, it leaves much to be desired. Grey suits with blue or red ties are the norm, although one bizarre character inexplicably wanders the decks dressed in a long black robe and silk tie yelling at everybody to leave the chamber. Visual relief comes from the exotic array of suit jackets and skirts worn by the enigmatic character known only as “Juliar,” a tragic cameo role played by the scriptwriter herself.

The mini-series’ great strength - and weakness – is that its plot is pre-determined. Indeed we know within the first few minutes of the “Budget back in Surplus” episode that most of the diesel rebates and other crucial business lifeboats have been jettisoned, leaving small and big companies floundering in a sea of red and green tape. Meanwhile, vast sums of money have been wasted on extravagant projects such as wind turbines on the upper decks to try and keep the sinking vessel afloat, all to no avail.

The series’ overriding theme is an intricate study of the class prejudices glaringly prevalent at the time. The wealthy mining moguls who sip champagne on the western deck spend most of their time buying newspapers and even radio stations. Loud and boorish, they concoct all sorts of fanciful plots about CIA involvement in sabotaging coal supplies. Meanwhile, the working classes struggle to earn a crust below decks, their suffering only relieved by generous “compensation” packages that in the end still don’t save them from drowning under the sheer weight of their energy bills. The insidious class conflict, a device contrived by the script doctors for purely narrative purposes, is overworked and soon wears thin. Nonetheless, crew members Wong, Shorten, Carr and Combet continually resort to class-ridden clichés, attempting to portray themselves as heroes of the embattled workers whilst blaming everything that goes wrong on the one vaguely credible character who toils away in the boiler-room wearing nothing but a hard hat and a pair of speedos.

Critics have compared the series with film-maker Doug Cameron’s 2007 blockbuster epic – unsuccessfully re-released earlier this year – in which Captain Rudd heroically steers the vessel to safety and is greeted at the docks by cheering throngs of Gold Coast school kiddies.

CARBON ADS ALL IN A SPINNE (Fin Review Feb 10)

News that the Auditor General has found the government’s carbon tax ad campaign breached financial regulations and was largely ineffective has sent a resounding shockwave throughout the advertising and PR industries.

"The idea that we should be expected to stick to telling the truth in our ads goes against everything we stand for," said Bobby Spinne, chairman and chief creative officer of The Funky Ideas Factory, AdWorld’s runner-up in the 2004 Hot New Names To Watch Category. "After all, as it makes clear on our website we are one of the most highly awarded ad agencies in the southern hemisphere, and have won more trophies and industry accolades than all our competitors put together, on top of which we are to our mind Australia’s leading agency for digital effectiveness and creative innovation as well one of the most strategic ad shops in the world thanks to our unique (and patented) Strato-think planning methodology. It’s not as if we require exaggeration and hyperbole to get our message across."

Denying that there was anything misleading in his headline "Why polar bears will get down on their knees and thank all Australians for the carbon tax," Mr Spinne took issue with the Auditor General’s findings that there was "no clear line of sight" between 52 of the claims made in the advertisements and the actual facts as they pertained to the introduction of the new legislation.

"At this agency, unlike all our rip-off competitors, we pride ourselves on the thoroughness of our approach in getting to the heart of the brief. Both at a strategic and a creative level we leave no stone unturned in our effort to dig out the nuggets of a compelling insight. For example, before we even discussed the carbon tax brief I made sure the entire agency sat down on a Friday night with a few bottles of red and watched the extraordinarily truthful, very moving and highly informative documentary by renowned international climate expert Al Gore, which I was able to download for free off the internet. On top of that, we consulted widely with such local experts on the matter as Cate Blanchett - via her 30 second infomercial "Spinning Windmills" - and Michael Caton, renowned authority on living in a house directly underneath the flight path, where, let's face it, massive damage is daily done to despoil the environment.”

Minister for Climate Change and No Change Out of $20 million Greg Combet denied that the awarding of the campaign to Mr Spinne's agency had been done in a panicky rush and without adhering to adequate processes and preparation. "I'm sure I jotted down a complete budget breakdown and costs summary somewhere on the back of one of those coaster thingies that you put your drinks on in the business lounge," he said. When questioned as to why the household mailout distribution contract appeared to have been awarded to a different person in the DCCEE system than the agency that carried out the work, Combet was quick to point out that "all these advertising types with their black jeans and silly tee shirts look the same to me."

Countering doubts expressed about his expertise in marketing strategies, Combet was quick to dismiss the suggestion that he had been taken for a ride. “I make it my job to stay on top of these things. I am a big fan of the ‘Gruen Transfer’ and I’ve even got the box set of ‘Mad Men.’ There’s no way some slick ad guy is going to pull the wool over my eyes.”

Taking issue with the findings that the campaign "did not translate into high levels of action" Mr Spinne cited anecdotal evidence that whenever the ads were aired most people leapt to their feet and threw something - usually the remote - at their TV screens. "Without a doubt, this sort of consumer engagement with the core selling message was a huge plus for our client," he said.

Insisting that the shortcomings in the ads highlighted by the Auditor General would “in no way” be an impediment to him seeking further federal contracts, Mr Spinne was keen to point out that his agency was already putting the final touches to an exciting new government pitch. “I can’t reveal too much at this stage,” he said, tapping the side of his nose, “but I’ve written this awesome headline: ‘How the NBN will make everybody who signs up an instant millionaire.”

In an unrelated event, advertising icon Louie the Fly revealed that he would soon be returning to work at Mortein, unlike his fellow workers all of whom have been sacked.

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.       

HOW CAN YOU SPRUIK SOMETHING THAT DOESNT EXIST? (published June 20)

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-can-you-spruik-something-that-doesnt-exist-20110620-1gbei.html

Julia Gillard can save herself the $12 million. I’ll write her Carbon Tax ads for her for free. Here’s how they go. Cue suitably sincere, positive-sounding Voice Over: “The Carbon Tax not only offers a better future for the Planet, but also offers a better future for us all. Most of us will be financially better off. Businesses will be compensated, along with hard-pressed families. Dirty, filthy polluting industries will disappear, while a vast array of wonderful, new environmentally clean industries will now have the necessary funding to flourish. New jobs will be born, as we enter a clean, happy, financially secure new world. The Carbon Tax. A better future for us all.”
The visuals will feature very real people, although they will be actors, but hopefully ones you don’t recognize from other ads. There’s nothing worse than seeing an attractive young woman (representing our future) living in a bright, carbon-free world and then suddenly popping up with a heavy period or irritable bowel syndrome in the next ad break. The scenarios will also look desperately authentic, although not too down-market. Striking the right balance between depicting people who are ‘poor’, but not making them look like total povos, is something we will have to keep our eye on.
But one thing we all agree on. NO FAMOUS NAMES. We don’t want a repeat of the Cate and Michael drama.
Finding a few familiar renewable schemes – windmills, solar panels and so on – will be important, although we might give Kevin’s roof insulation fiasco the big miss.
Instead, we’ll have lots of fun showing the jobs that will be created in the future by the proceeds of the Carbon Tax, because they don’t actually exist yet, so we pretty much have creative licence to show whatever we want.
And therein lies the problem.
I’m sorry, Julia, but I have to come clean. Our ad campaign ain’t gonna work.
Why? Because you can’t advertise the benefits of something that doesn’t exist. Imagine if McDonalds were to come out with an amazing ad all about their new, healthy, fat-free, cheap-as-chips, awesome-tasting burger and then when everyone was salivating like crazy they admitted that the kitchen was still working on the recipe. Not only would they would be in breach of every piece of legislation regarding the advertising code and ethics, but quite rightly they would be the laughing stock of the fast food industry.
The Carbon Tax ads will be every bit as dishonest and deceitful. The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee has yet to reach a consensus on the specifics of the tax. Without the details, the intentions are meaningless.
The brutal truth is that if you have to rely on advertising to persuade the public at this stage in the game, you’ve already lost the argument. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the government’s announcement that they have awarded $12 million to an advertising agency to spruik the not-yet-finalised Carbon Tax. It’s a desperate NSW Labor style attempt to dress up pure spin as legitimate advertising.
Tony Windsor was quick to bell the cat. Displaying a praiseworthy (and hitherto well-camouflaged) sense of propriety on this subject, the member for New England very accurately labeled the decision as unacceptably “spending public funds for the purposes of propaganda.” Rob Oakeshott, (also displaying the equally hitherto unseen qualities of brevity and conciseness), cut to the chase: “This is a dumb.”
Governments love advertising. But the justification has always – rightly – been about the necessity to inform the public on the minutiae of policy outcomes; in other words, letting people know specifically how certain projects or laws apply to their particular circumstances. This is the only acceptable criteria for government (as opposed to party political) advertising. There is no point passing complex legislation that people either don’t understand, or aren’t even aware of. Whether it be the ill-fated Workchoices campaign, the more successful GST ads, campaigns about government rebates, tax concessions or whatever other legislation has passed through parliament, advertising is a worthwhile tool for imparting the right degree of information in a palatable format. Of course, the rules have been cynically bent over the years, by all governments, so that a political (or persuasive) narrative is allowed to creep in, blurring the lines between what is partisan political ideology and what is practical, objective information.
The worst offenders have been, thus far, the former NSW government. Two years ago,  before they had even put a shovel to the bitumen, they were busy asking half the advertising agencies in Sydney (mine included) to pitch on a campaign to sell the wonders of their new multi-billion dollar Metro. Selling its benefits before it evn existed. Sound familiar?
Describing in advertising terms why the consumer needs such-and-such a new tax, or law, or rebate is where that threshold from advertising to propaganda is crossed. The ‘why’ is the job of the politicians, and to a lesser extent, of the media, to convince you of. The ‘how, what, when and where’ is the legitimate job of government advertising.
Party political advertising, on the other hand, is entirely about the “why” and to a lesser degree the ‘what’. It is about forging an emotional connection to a candidate or a party, based on shared values and a vision for the future. “Kevin 07” was a marvelous piece of advertising because, much like Gough’s “it’s time” campaign, it captured a sense of the excitement and optimistic mood of the nation.
And this is what, inevitably, the Carbon Tax ads will attempt to be. They will seek to persuade the consumer why a Carbon Tax is a good thing, rather than how a Carbon Tax will work. Naturally, the ad agency will go out of their way to dress up an overtly political message as an informational one, but in doing so they will fall into the trap that successive New South Wales government campaigns repeatedly embraced. An emotional, feel-good message that unacceptably crosses the line from governmental information to political spin.

POLISHING THE CARBON TAX

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/7114733/polishing-the-carbon-tax.thtml


So that's what it all boils down to, then. Jobs for people building wind farms and installing solar panels. Phew. For a moment there I thought we were going to start saving polar bears again.

The government's ad agency, apart from happily trousering $12 million, have been quick to recognize that hyperbole, pontificating celebrities and overblown promises do not cut it with the average battler. What turns Aussies on is jobs - and lots of them. Preferably for themselves.

So this week, with the help of the un-scripted testimonials and musings of "real" working Australians, we finally get an advertising campaign that does what advertising does best - cunningly matches a potential benefit of the product to the consumer's self-interest. A unique selling proposition designed to have broad appeal. 

This is the third and final proposition with which the government or its proxies have tried to persuade a bored and cynical audience, who long ago made up their minds on the issue and have now switched off, to buy their whiffy Carbon Tax plan. First we were told that "millions would be better off", but nobody really bought that line, so Greg Combet dropped it faster than a hot chunk of coal. Next thing you know, up popped Cate Blanchett and Michael Caton hectoring us to "do something positive" about climate change, but the premises they relied upon were as flimsy and wonky as the cardboard cut-out sets they'd built. Viewers looked away in embarrassment.

So now we get the truth - or rather, a highly varnished version of it. 

The real winners from this whole kerfuffle are those who work in renewable energies. Bingo! If you happen to have a job building wind farms or installing solar panels, the future looks pretty rosy. Because we are certainly going to need an awful lot of them if we're to have any hope of turning off the coal powered generators that our jobs, lives and economy all rely upon.

If you happen to work in practically any other industry, particularly ones that rely upon cheap energy, you're pretty much buggered, however. Needless to say, the ads conveniently skip over this tiny detail. We can presume it wasn't part of "the brief."

Forget about receding shorelines, melting glaciers, dead starfish, flatulent wildlife and all the rest of it. The public fully understand that moving longterm to sustainable energy is "a good thing." That's a no-brainer. What makes them suspicious or distrustful of the Carbon Tax is the quasi-religious, holier-than-thou preachings of the climate change "believers" and their guilt-laden doomsday prophesies. Oh, and they're also not crazy about pollies who say one thing before an election and the opposite afterwards.  

The advertising agency who won this account knew that they'd been handed a stinker. The opinion polls already told them that. But their planners and creatives have done a great job of, as they say in the industry, "polishing a turd." Soft, reassuring music. Beautiful lighting and photography. Gorgeous landscapes and visuals. Clouds racing by over a beautiful sunrise. Reasonable, down-to-earth characters. Everyday Aussies, in fact, talking about their everyday jobs, in typical everyday Aussie cities and towns. What's to argue with?

Well, quite a bit actually.    

“For a long time coal will remain a significant proportion of our (energy) generation," proclaims Miles George, the everyday Managing Director of Infigen Energy, in his everyday leather jacket. Hang on. "For a long time"? How long? Years? Decades? And what is "a significant proportion"? 50%? 70%? I thought the whole point of the Carbon Tax was to get rid of the bloody stuff altogether.  

“Putting a turbine up in the air and letting wind give us power has to be a better option," says Wendy Moloney, another everyday Aussie woman who also happens to work for, er, Infigen Energy. Are you sure, Wendy? Go to Europe and you'll find wind farms are hugely controversial, with farmers, nature lovers and whole communities actively protesting against their noise, visual pollution, exorbitant running costs and inefficiencies in supplying energy when and where it is actually needed. 

“Other countries around the world are... building huge industries, and those jobs could just as well be here," opines Lyndon Frearson, the everyday General Manager of CAT Projects, a firm who, incidentally, are currently hiring more staff. All very well, but as Lyndon (whose firm fit solar panels to beach resorts and the like) makes this laudable claim the ad shows a gigantic hydro-electric dam under construction. Are we suddenly about to start building more dams? Has anyone told Bob Brown?

“We see the amount of money that Germany’s thrown towards research and development of solar power… and they’ve got stuff all sun!” exclaims uber-ocker Rede Ogden, who looks and talks like he's in a meat pie ad but in fact, along with his wife Renee (the ad agency must have cracked open the bubbly when they found these two) owns a solar panel installation company. He's right, though. Countries all over the world have thrown an awful lot of money at renewables, but they still only account for a fraction of energy output. 

So they're going to need to throw a lot more. Their ludicrous, legislated emissions reduction targets demand it, much to the chagrin of those long-suffering households who have to pick up the ever-increasing bill each month.   

“Internationally the investment in clean energy is rivalling fossil energy today.” boasts everyday Aussie Seb Henbest, who happens to work for, um, Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Yep. Again, he's right. There's big bucks to be made out of renewables. For Seb in particular.

Which is why, uncannily, the Carbon Tax ads look more like corporate recruitment ads for the renewable energy industries than a plausible justification for this hefty new tax. 

Might be time to think about switching jobs.

JULIA AND THE FINE ART OF COMEDY

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/1502626.html

There’s a formula to writing good comedy. Jokes don’t just happen out of thin air. They have to be carefully constructed, with elaborate preparation. John Cleese had it down pat. A German guest coming to the hotel?  Get Basil goose-stepping around the place with one arm in the air and two fingers under his nose as he struggles in vain not to “mention the war.” A visit by the health inspector? Make sure you’ve gone to the trouble of setting up the missing rodent.  In other words, take what is commonplace to everyday people, and then subtly structure a chain of events so that your lead character is forced to behave in ways that defy all logic and common sense. Throw in a couple of silly sight gags and oddball cameos and you’re away. Guaranteed laughs.

Julia Gillard is shaping up to be one of our finest comedy writers.

How perfect was the ironic humour she provided us with the other night on the telly? I have to admire the skill with which she contrived to be our first ever staunchly unmarried, virulently anti-monarchist, truly socialist Prime Minister who has to go to – wait for it - a royal wedding! A good laugh all round. I couldn’t help thinking that if Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn - the writing duo behind “Yes Minister” – were in the congregation, they would have tipped their tophats in respect.

And speaking of hats, full marks to Julia’s wardrobe team for just the right degree of comic flair.  As every sit-com writer knows, visual humour works best when you’ve got the audience asking “is this for real?”

But of course the true sign of a great comedy writer is that the gags just keep on coming. Thick and fast. Commit to spending squillions on a broadband network when the whole world’s going wireless. Funny! Design a Carbon Tax to make everyone alter their behavior but then compensate everyone so nobody has to alter their behavior. Brilliant! Or what about this for a laugh? Get the Ugly Union Dude (always a staple of classic sit-coms) to overthrow your predecessor and install you in the top job; but at the moment of theatrical climax when you need him to sell your Carbon Tax, he decides to stab you in the back if it costs just “one single job.” One single job? That’s hilarious. In the most comprehensive restructuring of the economy ever undertaken? Too funny. Talk about a pithy, needle-sharp piece of dialogue writing that in three simple words skewers the whole, mad enterprise. I was green with envy.

In any comic scenario, it’s always good to set up an “earnest buffoon”, because that way you can throw in a cheap laugh whenever you feel the audience getting bored. I say “earnest”, because the comedy is much sharper when a character who is clearly there as a joke takes themselves desperately seriously. Climate Change Commissioner would have tumbled easily off the keyboard. Classic pompous, self-important sit-com stereotype. But it is the deftness with which this character’s comic potential has been thoroughly exploited that is truly inspiring. Firstly, we establish that he earns a shitload of money to do – well, the audience never finds out what he actually does do because that’s all part of the gag. What on earth can he do, when you think about it? Then, enhance the joke in as preposterous a manner as you can think of. For example, get him to accidentally admit that even if everybody stopped all carbon emissions forthwith, it wouldn’t have any effect on the planet for over a thousand years. That should get a giggle. Next, reveal that your Climate Change Commissioner has a deal on the side to promote a product that is one of the main offenders in generating excessive energy consumption. Perfect. John Cleese would be proud. But as a writer you have to be careful – don’t over do it. BHP would be funny, but too predictable. What about an electronics manufacturer? Giant flat screen TV’s and all that? Awesome. Love it! So while the taxpayer is forking out for the Commissioner to clean up the environment, he’s busy lining his pockets thanks to Panasonic. Delicious.

But it’s always irresistible when you’re on a roll with a funny character to go one step too far and milk the gag. Tim Flannery as a “champion” who is going to sell us the merits of the NBN was, for me, not up to their usual high standard of comic writing. Somehow it’s so ridiculous I couldn’t suspend the necessary disbelief.

Unless, of course, Julia’s cunningly preparing us for the next scene. Remember, the best jokes require an elaborate set-up. So my guess is that she’ll soon have to ditch the Carbon Tax gag because the audience isn’t laughing any more, and instead she’ll have to find something else to save the planet with. At which point barmy Tim strides forward to inform us that the NBN is a must-have and worth every penny not because it will mean you can download more porn on it but because if you use your optical fibre exclusively with your new Panasonic TV it will… (long pause for comic effect)… solve Climate Change! And he’ll say it with a straight face. That would be awesome. The audience will be on the floor.

Another weapon in the comedy writer’s armoury is, of course, the evil villain. Best if you make him gay, and that he looks and sounds like Lurch in the Addams Family, and threatens doom and gloom in every utterance. That way the audience will know what they’re dealing with. No harm in spelling it out either. In fact, here is some of Julia’s irony- dripping, satirical scriptwriting at its absolute finest. I have to quote it in full because it is simply so damn funny.

“The Greens will never embrace Labor's delight at sharing the values of everyday Australians, in our cities, suburbs, towns and bush, who day after day do the right thing, leading purposeful and dignified lives, driven by love of family and nation.”

So why on earth are you in bed with them, Julia? Pure comic genius. She is, of course, referring to the characters upon whom she must now rely for her entire episode in The Lodge to be a smash comedy hit. In my opinion she can’t fail. Spot the elaborate set-up. The deliberate clash of un-reconcilable goals and incompatible motivations. The contrivance of events and situations destined to deliver, like the very best sit-coms, a spectacularly disastrous climax.

The tears are rolling down my cheeks already.

copyright Rowan Dean 2011