Deliberations

The Australian newspaper is rarely the source of progressive editorial, so I wouldn’t expect any support for a Government-convened Citizens’ Assembly about climate policy as proposed earlier by Julia Gillard during this national election campaign. But I take their report today seriously:

Labor MPs are deeply embarrassed by Julia Gillard’s 150-person citizens’ assembly she hopes will find a consensus for climate change. Several of them are deliberately downplaying it and instead focusing on Labor’s other environmental promises. The Australian has spoken to several Labor MPs who privately concede the idea has gone down “like a lead balloon” and has hurt, rather than helped, Labor’s climate change credentials. read more=>

Again, the problem is that the MPs, like most commentators, haven’t been informed about what a CA would do and how it works. If they think it’s just another stage-managed talk-fest, it’s no wonder they are cynical and defensive.

It was not a good idea to just announce it as Julia did, with only the vague and incredible notion of consensus-building as its foundation. Instead, the whole vision of taking a participatory approach should have been presented properly not only to the public, but to Caucus and the Labor Party. Unfortunately, it is in the nature of election campaigns, especially with Gillard only in the PM’s chair for a month, to go with seat-of-the-pants decision-making not only about policy (which a CA is not, it’s just a process towards a policy) but also its promotion.

Considering we want more public deliberation about climate policy, it is ironic that there was insufficient party deliberation about convening a Citizens’ Assembly.

If and when Labor is re-elected, they can put together a proper program of internal and public education about the potential usefulness of a Citizens’ Assembly.

Published under a Creative Commons License