BARACK OBAMA knocks on the front door of a 300-year-old New Hampshire farmhouse while his Secret Service detail waits in the driveway. The door opens and OBAMA is standing face to face with former President JED BARTLET.

BARTLET Senator.

OBAMA Mr. President.

BARTLET You seem startled.

OBAMA I didn’t expect you to answer the door yourself.

BARTLET I didn’t expect you to be getting beat by John McCain and a Lancôme rep who thinks “The Flintstones” was based on a true story, so let’s call it even.

OBAMA Yes, sir.

BARTLET Come on in.

BARTLET leads OBAMA into his study.

BARTLET That was a hell of a convention.
OBAMA Thank you, I was proud of it.

BARTLET I meant the Republicans. The Us versus Them-a-thon. As a Democrat I was surprised to learn that I don’t like small towns, God, people with jobs or America. I’ve been a little out of touch but is there a mandate that the vice president be skilled at field dressing a moose —

OBAMA Look —

BARTLET — and selling Air Force Two on eBay?

OBAMA Joke all you want, Mr. President, but it worked.

BARTLET Imagine my surprise. What can I do for you, kid?

OBAMA I’m interested in your advice.

BARTLET I can’t give it to you.

OBAMA Why not?

BARTLET I’m supporting McCain.

OBAMA Why?

BARTLET He’s promised to eradicate evil and that was always on my “to do” list.

OBAMA O.K. —

BARTLET And he’s surrounded himself, I think, with the best possible team to get us out of an economic crisis. Why, Sarah Palin just said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had “gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.” Can you spot the error in that statement?

OBAMA Yes, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aren’t funded by taxpayers.

BARTLET Well, at least they are now. Kind of reminds you of the time Bush said that Social Security wasn’t a government program. He was only off by a little — Social Security is the largest government program.

OBAMA I appreciate your sense of humor, sir, but I really could use your advice.

BARTLET Well, it seems to me your problem is a lot like the problem I had twice.

OBAMA Which was?

BARTLET A huge number of Americans thought I thought I was superior to them.

OBAMA And?

BARTLET I was.

OBAMA I mean, how did you overcome that?

BARTLET I won’t lie to you, being fictional was a big advantage.

OBAMA What do you mean?

BARTLET I’m a fictional president. You’re dreaming right now, Senator.

OBAMA I’m asleep?

BARTLET Yes, and you’re losing a ton of white women.

OBAMA Yes, sir.

BARTLET I mean tons.

OBAMA I understand.

BARTLET I didn’t even think there were that many white women.

OBAMA I see the numbers, sir. What do they want from me?

BARTLET I’ve been married to a white woman for 40 years and I still don’t know what she wants from me.

OBAMA How did you do it?

BARTLET Well, I say I’m sorry a lot.

OBAMA I don’t mean your marriage, sir. I mean how did you get America on your side?

BARTLET There again, I didn’t have to be president of America, I just had to be president of the people who watched “The West Wing.”

OBAMA That would make it easier.

BARTLET You’d do very well on NBC. Thursday nights in the old “ER” time slot with “30 Rock” as your lead-in, you’d get seven, seven-five in the demo with a 20, 22 share — you’d be selling $450,000 minutes.

OBAMA What the hell does that mean?

BARTLET TV talk. I thought you’d be interested.

OBAMA I’m not. They pivoted off the argument that I was inexperienced to the criticism that I’m — wait for it — the Messiah, who, by the way, was a community organizer. When I speak I try to lead with inspiration and aptitude. How is that a liability?

BARTLET Because the idea of American exceptionalism doesn’t extend to Americans being exceptional. If you excelled academically and are able to casually use 690 SAT words then you might as well have the press shoot video of you giving the finger to the Statue of Liberty while the Dixie Chicks sing the University of the Taliban fight song. The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it.

OBAMA You’re saying race doesn’t have anything to do with it?

BARTLET I wouldn’t go that far. Brains made me look arrogant but they make you look uppity. Plus, if you had a black daughter —

OBAMA I have two.

BARTLET — who was 17 and pregnant and unmarried and the father was a teenager hoping to launch a rap career with “Thug Life” inked across his chest, you’d come in fifth behind Bob Barr, Ralph Nader and a ficus.

OBAMA You’re not cheering me up.

BARTLET Is that what you came here for?

OBAMA No, but it wouldn’t kill you.

BARTLET Have you tried doing a two-hour special or a really good Christmas show?

OBAMA Sir —

BARTLET Hang on. Home run. Right here. Is there any chance you could get Michelle pregnant before the fall sweeps?

OBAMA The problem is we can’t appear angry. Bush called us the angry left. Did you see anyone in Denver who was angry?

BARTLET Well ... let me think. ...We went to war against the wrong country, Osama bin Laden just celebrated his seventh anniversary of not being caught either dead or alive, my family’s less safe than it was eight years ago, we’ve lost trillions of dollars, millions of jobs, thousands of lives and we lost an entire city due to bad weather. So, you know ... I’m a little angry.

OBAMA What would you do?

BARTLET GET ANGRIER! Call them liars, because that’s what they are. Sarah Palin didn’t say “thanks but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said “Thanks.” You were raised by a single mother on food stamps — where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annapolis get off calling you an elitist? And by the way, if you do nothing else, take that word back. Elite is a good word, it means well above average. I’d ask them what their problem is with excellence. While you’re at it, I want the word “patriot” back. McCain can say that the transcendent issue of our time is the spread of Islamic fanaticism or he can choose a running mate who doesn’t know the Bush doctrine from the Monroe Doctrine, but he can’t do both at the same time and call it patriotic. They have to lie — the truth isn’t their friend right now. Get angry. Mock them mercilessly; they’ve earned it. McCain decried agents of intolerance, then chose a running mate who had to ask if she was allowed to ban books from a public library. It’s not bad enough she thinks the planet Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago complete with a man, a woman and a talking snake, she wants schools to teach the rest of our kids to deny geology, anthropology, archaeology and common sense too? It’s not bad enough she’s forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood, she wants the rest of us to guide our daughters in that direction too? It’s not enough that a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose, it should be the law of the land that she has to carry and deliver her rapist’s baby too? I don’t know whether or not Governor Palin has the tenacity of a pit bull, but I know for sure she’s got the qualifications of one. And you’re worried about seeming angry? You could eat their lunch, make them cry and tell their mamas about it and God himself would call it restrained. There are times when you are simply required to be impolite. There are times when condescension is called for!

OBAMA Good to get that off your chest?

BARTLET Am I keeping you from something?

OBAMA Well, it’s not as if I didn’t know all of that and it took you like 20 minutes to say.
BARTLET I know, I have a problem, but admitting it is the first step.

OBAMA What’s the second step?

BARTLET I don’t care.

OBAMA So what about hope? Chuck it for outrage and put-downs?

BARTLET No. You’re elite, you can do both. Four weeks ago you had the best week of your campaign, followed — granted, inexplicably — by the worst week of your campaign. And you’re still in a statistical dead heat. You’re a 47-year-old black man with a foreign-sounding name who went to Harvard and thinks devotion to your country and lapel pins aren’t the same thing and you’re in a statistical tie with a war hero and a Cinemax heroine. To these aged eyes, Senator, that’s what progress looks like. You guys got four debates. Get out of my house and go back to work.

OBAMA Wait, what is it you always used to say? When you hit a bump on the show and your people were down and frustrated? You’d give them a pep talk and then you’d always end it with something. What was it ...?

BARTLET “Break’s over.”

There is likely to be significant negative feedback from employers regarding today’s announcement. It appears the Government has disappointed John Denton, Chair of the Government’s business advisory group on workplace laws, who has called for urgent policy work on a broader agenda to lift productivity.

In attempting to satisfy the wishes of unions and employers the government’s proposed legislation will contain a complex set of bargaining requirements. Under the current arrangements you can only bargain over matters that “pertain” to the employment relationship ie wages but not union dues. The unions have sought to remove this restriction, in particular so that union rights at the workplace can be the subject of bargaining. Employers have resisted this so the government have restricted some areas and opened up others.

Agreements will be able to contain negotiated arrangements on staff levels, job security and contributions to training funds as well as other union matters - time off for union delegates and union involvement in disputes for example. But agreements may not contain arrangements on bargaining fees, managerial prerogative and other matters not pertaining to the employment relationship (ie requiring the employer to contribute 10% of profits to Greenpeace).

This is potentially confusing enough, but what complicates this further is that parties can effectively bargain over anything (including matters not allowed in agreement) but protected industrial action may only be taken over matters that are allowed in agreements.

Yesterday’s Australian Health Ministers’ Conference delivered the key news that in six months almost 14,000 additional patients - 55% of the target - had received elective surgery because of the Government’s injection of $150 million for people on waiting lists. This funding was proposed to deliver 25,000 additional procedures within a year for people waiting longer than clinically recommended.

Health Minister Nicola Roxon has also confirmed that the increase in the Medicare Levy threshold and its impact on public hospitals had been discussed.

Some State health ministers appear to be playing down the impact on their public hospitals. When asked if there would be additional demand for public services, Queensland Health Minister Stephen Robertson said “the jury was out” and there was no evidence that the “changes will have the impact that has been suggested by the private health insurers”.

Tasmanian Health Minister Lara Giddings has also said she had seen no evidence to suggest that the changes to the surcharge would have a dramatic effect on demand.

The Australian Health Insurance Association (AIHA) has previously claimed that 908,163 people will drop out of PHI and join public hospital queues. The AHIA has said this would mean the State Governments would require an additional $439 million in 2008/09 to cover the hospital costs of these people. The Federal Budget Papers show a saving of $231.6 million in 2008/09 from changes to the rebate threshold.

But it could be argued that those who drop their insurance will predominantly be young people who are low users of public hospital services and that others with PHI would always have gone to public hospitals anyway – thereby minimising the impact of the threshold change.

As the policy move evolves, it will be interesting to see if there is indeed a blow out in waiting lists and the solution the Commonwealth puts on the table at future Health Minister’s meetings to deal with it.

Other issues discussed at yesterday’s meeting:
• As part of the negotiations for the Australian Health Care Agreements all factors driving growth in demand for public health services would be considered.
• Improving quality care through a Charter of Patient Rights.
• The standardisation of hospital patient ID bands.
• Examination of the consistency of standards and regulation in cosmetic surgery.
• The development of performance indicators.
• Agreement on the development of the Fourth National Mental Health Plan.

The Australian Health Ministers’ Conference Communique is available at: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/Media+Releases+Communiques-1

Today the Government released its Green Paper on a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, in which it outlined the plans and structure for an Emissions Trading Scheme here in Australia. OTR have prepared this special edition of OTR covering the political highlights of today’s announcement. Have your say on the impact of the ETS on you, click here to vote on our online poll.

The Scheme
Overall there were no big surprises from today’s announcement; a cap and trade scheme with protections for certain industry sectors and consumers. There are a number of question marks however – the cap in the first five years of the scheme won’t be set until 2010 and the medium term target for emissions reduction by 2020 will not be known until later this year.

The revenue raising aspect of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is also unknown, but there are a few potential bites of the cherry – revenue from the Permit Auction and potentially additional GST revenue from the transactions on the secondary trading market.

So, the scheme will work like this:
• A cap on the total amount of carbon pollution allowed in the economy by covered sectors – 75% of emissions from about 1000 organisations;
• The Government will issue permits up to the annual cap each year;
• Industries will need to acquire a 'permit' for every tonne of greenhouse gas they emit in a year that is then surrended at the end of the year;
• The quantity of carbon pollution produced by each firm will be monitored;
• At the end of each year, each liable firm will need to surrender a permit to cover every tonne of carbon pollution they produced; and
• Firms compete in the market (either via an auction or through a secondary trading market) to purchase the number of permits they need.

The Pitch
They say music soothes the savage beast and the dulcet tones of Climate Change Minister Penny Wong at the National Press Club address were certainly reassuring. No lectern slamming rhetoric about the dangers of climate change or exhorting the Australian people to action, rather the Minister addressed the nation in the kind of tones one uses when dealing with frightened animals. No scaring the horses here.

The story on the Government’s response to climate change is Penny Wong’s to tell. Rudd himself has been distinctly hands off from this Government-defining policy, a signal of his confidence in the capable Wong. While Rudd himself has been quiet - the climate change story is very much an extension on the main themes used to sell Kevin07 in last year’s election:
• Economically responsible;
• Protecting families and low income earners (interestingly, pensioners and carers are now mentioned separately); and
• Preparing Australia for the future.

Labor is painting itself as the party of the future, the party prepared to make the hard decisions and tackle the big challenges in the national interest. The Australian economy must be transformed from high pollution to low pollution. Wong’s speech also emphasised pollution over emissions. Emissions don’t sound have the really nasty sounding ring that pollution does, which explains why to help communicate and sell its message the Government has moved away from ‘emissions trading scheme’ to ‘carbon pollution reduction scheme’.

While explaining there is no painless, cost free or simple way to tackle climate change, Wong also moved to reassure various sectors that the Government is listening and will continue consultation on the scheme design. She also outlined that the increased costs to petrol prices will be offset by a ‘cent for cent’ excise offset and that low income earners, families, pensioners and carers will be compensated for cost of living increases flowing from the scheme through various measures in the tax and welfare payments systems.

The Opposition
The Opposition left their response until late in the day, possibly due to only being briefed on the scheme for half an hour at 11:30am this morning. When he did finally speak, Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson slammed the proposed scheme saying that the costs will fall unfairly on the shoulders of middle Australia.

Nelson cautiously welcomed the decision to cut the fuel excise over the first three years of the scheme but said that voters couldn’t trust Kevin Rudd not to abolish the excise cut after 2013. The Opposition Leader once again questioned the start date for the scheme – saying that 2010 was too early and would put the Australian economy in a difficult position and threaten jobs in the coal industry.

However, the signs of a confused Coalition response are already starting to appear with Nelson now saying 2011 would be the earliest possible start date – despite previously flagging 2012 as the marker. Malcolm Turnbull and Shadow Environment Minister Greg Hunt will undoubtedly clarify the position shortly…

The US Position
With the current focus on climate change it is worth having a look across the Pacific at the views of the candidates in the US Presidential race, one of whom will have control of the ‘world’s biggest polluter’ after the election.

Climate change policy will be reformed in the US whatever the outcome of the election, with both candidates agreeing that climate change is real.

The policy approaches to climate change have a number of similarities, but there are key differences in the approach to emissions reduction targets and the use of nuclear energy.

Obama has stated that his market-based cap-and-trade system would aim to reduce carbon emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, whereas McCain is promising a 60% cut from 1990 levels by 2050.

McCain has said that if he is elected he will build 45 new reactors by the year 2030, with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants. In contrast, Obama is on the record as stating that he is “not a nuclear energy proponent”.

To read more on the two different policy platforms:
Obama - http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
McCain - http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/da151a1c-733a-4dc1-9cd3-f9ca5caba1de.htm

The Reactions:
The Environmental Groups:

“The government has missed a real opportunity to fund things that are a real solution, like public transport and vehicle efficiency. So we would have liked to see the money go towards more long-term lasting solutions rather than a short-term cut in excise."
- Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) climate change program manager Tony Mohr told Sky News this morning, reacting to reports this morning that the Government will lower the excise on petrol.

"Australia's overall poor result is embarrassing, and highlights the government has some tough decisions ahead of it if it wants to raise Australia's overall climate change performance,"
- from World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Australia chief executive Greg Bourne.

The WWF and insurer Allianz also released a well-timed report by consultancy Ecofys showing Australia has the largest per-capita emissions in the world - mainly due to our reliance on coal.

The Business Groups:

"For companies that are exposed to international competition where the prices set for their product are in world markets, and we're adding a big impost in the Australian market to introduce climate change abatement policies ... those activities will just go offshore and we'll destroy investment industries in Australia." -Australian Industry Group CEO, Heather Ridout commenting on the impact an Emissions Trading Scheme will have on big business, who she argues should be compensated to remain competitive.

“Farmers have maintained that we are willing to play our part in meeting Australia’s, and the world’s, climate change challenge. Today’s Green Paper provides the opportunity for Government and farmers to work together to ensure this can be achieved in an equitable, measured and sustainable basis.”
-National Farmers Federation President David Crombie seeing today’s Green Paper as a prudent way forward.

“The Government has shown it wishes to take a lead position on emissions trading by pursuing the inclusion of carbon embedded in wood products through the development of international rules. The forest industry is looking into the future, towards an inevitable international carbon trading scheme. In the international carbon market it will be vital that Australia has the maximum amount of carbon stocks available for trade and that means fully recognising all aspects of forestry.”
- National Association of Forest Industries CEO Allan Hansard, pleased to be named as the only carbon positive industry.

“The green paper provides the basis for ongoing discussions with the government, but the devil remains in the detail in terms of whether the options put forward will achieve the twin objectives of sustaining growth while meaningfully reducing emissions.”
- Business Council of Australia President, Greig Gailey.

The Unions:

"I don't know that we will see huge losses of jobs. On the contrary, you are going to make aluminium somewhere, you are going to make steel somewhere. Whatever the industry, we know that there is a real chance that if we can be ahead of the market internationally, if we can retro-fit and restructure our plant, look at the redesign of work, then we may very well expand some of those industries, not see them decline."
-Australian Council of Trade Unions President, Sharon Burrows


“The Rudd Government appears to have accepted the reality that the Australian economy is based on coal. The Prime Minister has joined a long line of eminent thinkers...who all believe that low emission technology must shape our energy future. A decision to invest $5 billion, will allow Australia to continue its coal exports, not just of export quality black coal but the technology that will make it an appropriate power source into the future. We are on the eve of historic announcement that will shape a new future for Australia. These are nation-building moments. Clean energy will mean better jobs, economic growth and profits."
-CFMEU Mining and Energy Union National President, Tony Maher.


The Consumer Groups:

"We're always very concerned about the additional cost to motorists. This, I think, achieves the goal of making sure motorists are in (the emissions scheme) but also their costs are reduced because fuel is such an intricate part of the economy."
- The NRMA likes the proposal to compensate motorists by cutting fuel excise as a step in bringing in an emissions trading scheme. President Alan Evans supports what he describes as a balance between cutting greenhouse gases and protecting motorists.

“While everyone will have to bear the costs of responding to global warming some groups, including those who rent and can’t make the necessary investments to improve efficiency, will need help.”
-CHOICE Director of policy & campaigns, Gordon Renouf.
CHOICE released an Energy and Equity report with ACOSS and ACF back in April and take the view initiatives are necessary to protect those on low incomes, disadvantaged communities and the rental sector. They also argue any costs passed on by business to consumers must be transparent to ensure there is no price gouging.

After last week’s Garnaut extravaganza all eyes should now be focused on the released of the Federal Government’s Green Paper on climate change. The paper which should be released next week will canvass some of the options the Government is considering as a response to climate change.

Do not expect to see hard and fast policy positions enunciated in the paper. Nor should you expect the shape of the climate change regime that will be enacted next year to necessarily bear much resemblance to next week’s Green Paper. The Government’s position on these issues will be informed by the response from business and industry, the commentariat and importantly by the way in which public opinion coalesces around some of the specific initiatives on climate change (and the direct impact of these measures on households).

Key policy settings to look out for in the Green Paper:
• Start-date – while the Government is soft-pedalling on its election commitment to begin an emissions trading scheme (ETS) in 2010 – this is now the Prime Minister’s and Climate Change Minister’s ‘ambition’ – pushing back the date of commencement is unlikely. Look to see if ‘transition measures’ are put in place for the first few years of operation of an ETS, delaying some of the pain to households while also easing the business community and regulators into the scheme.

• Coverage – is petrol in or out? While this easy to grasp point has been built into one of the more totemic issues for the ETS, leaving out petrol would require a sustained economic argument to justify narrowing the base of our emissions reductions. Look out for other exemptions to the ETS in other sectors.

• Compensation for households – the operation of the ETS will provide Federal Governments a source of substantial revenue for years to come. However the establishment of an ETS does not bring unmitigated joy to Government as every Australian household will feel the impact across virtually every purchase they make. By definition compensation for households will be less than the pain suffered. The challenge for Government will be providing this compensation in a way that doesn’t diminish the pollution price signal that an ETS puts in place, but instead encourages the adoption of greener behaviours and greener consumption. Look for measures to low-income households, renters (with little incentive or capacity to make household energy savings) and other subsidies to stimulate the uptake of green technologies and behaviours. Also look for income thresholds on these measures and for cut-off points above $100,000.

• Compensation for business – to use the current jargon, Trade Exposed Emissions-Intensive Industries (TEEII’s) are keenly concerned to secure compensation for the disadvantage they will suffer under an ETS; as price-takers in global markets they argue that they have little capacity to pass on the costs to their international customers. Once again the Government is on the horns of a dilemma: the need to keep business on side (and jobs in Australia) has to be weighed against achieving the objective of an ETS - getting these heavy emitters to clean up their act. Look for transitional measures to help these industries re-tool and install lower-carbon technologies.

• MRET – some argue the operation of an ETS renders the imposition of other measures – such as a Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) – pointless if not counter-productive. The Government remains committed to some form of MRET and the debate is now on the structure of the scheme and its target. Look for a scheme that provides targets for a range of technologies rather than simply an overall target which favour using existing and lowest-cost technologies. Also look for support for R, D, D, C & D (research, development, demonstration, commercialisation and deployment) of new renewable technologies.