All this fighting and cussing in Canberra has at least silenced the elephant in the Lodge, that $28 per tonne price on carbon.

It seems weeks since Tony Abbott strapped on a reflective vest and imposed himself on a Queanbeyan lunch room, but it’s only months until the price takes affect.

At this point one of two things happens – the sky falls in and Abbott blames the carbon tax or the sky doesn’t fall in and Abbott blames the carbon tax.

So as Julia Gillard prepares to strap on the safety helmet and assume (resume?) the position, here are a few clues from the polling to help her though the difficult times ahead.

1. Never again call the Carbon Price a Tax – It’s not and your concession that a price on carbon as part of the transition to an Emissions Trading Scheme was one of the most spectacular own goals in recent political history. Language does matter.

2. Take it Back to the Science – our polling shows that the biggest single determinant on supporting action on climate change is not party affiliation, age or gender but belief in the reality of climate change. The ability of the denial movement to cloud the science on climate change was decisive. Once the facts were clouded science never really had a chance, being a discipline based on scepticism as it is. Giving science a voice and then finding a forum to spread its word may be too important to trust to the media.

3. Tell the whole Story – support for a carbon price shifts from majority opposition to majority support if the question changes from support for a price on carbon, to include the compensation and investment in renewables that are part of the package. Getting the airtime to get the whole sentence out is vital to selling the measure.

4. Focus on the Car not the Carburettor – the great myth about the carbon price is that the public went from supporters to opponents in one fell swoop of Abbott vitriol. The reality is that the decline in support was first based on confusion as the Rudd-Wong dream team (and we’re talking sleep here) got obsessed with the detail of the CPRS. After 12 months of technical debate most had lost interest and drifted into indifference and confusion. From there they were easy pickings for a scare campaign.

5. Remember the best response to a scare campaign is a scare campaign – Running the high road of caring about future generations will never trump fear and loathing. Better point out as the most carbon-exposed economy in the developed world there are huge economic dangers if we sit back and wait for others to act. Get the markets scared, there is nothing rational about denial.

6. Remember this is the great moral challenge of our times – on this K Rudd was K Rect; it was the backflip that killed him. Dealing with the challenges of climate change is why we entrust our nations to governments – we expert them to make tough decisions in our long-term interests, even if we don’t always like the medicine.

7. And finally, stop pretending you didn’t do something that was brave and right – Like taxing our natural resources, building a national broadband network and giving the disabled a better deal. These are the anchor points of a Labor Government to be proud of. If only it would let us.

Greenpeace’s John Hepburn explains how the Great Barrier Reef’s listing has meant nothing when it comes to our thirst for resources.

We have 18 sites on it. The Sydney Opera House is up there. So is Fraser Island and, of course, the Great Barrier Reef. But what does world heritage listing mean on a practical level? And what can UNESCO, the body which oversees the listing, do if a site is considered under threat?

These are the questions facing Australia today in relation to the Great Barrier Reef, the world’s best-known and most extensive coral reef. When it received world heritage listing in 1981, it was with an immense source of pride.

Yet in the 21^st century, the mining boom is threatening its very existence. When the Federal Government approved three liquid natural gas plants in the region last year, it did not even seek approval from UNESCO, the guardians of World Heritage.

That action earned our government a stinging rebuke from the UN. Read the Four Corners story on it here.

“The Great Barrier Reef is a unique and precious environment that brings over $5 billion a year into Queensland,” says Greenpeace campaigner John Hepburn. “But instead of protecting it for future generations, Australian politicians are allowing it to be turned into a conveyor belt for coal.”

Greenpeace is due to release its own report on the reef this week (Thursday March 1) showing:

• – Six times more coal ships through the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
• – Coal port capacity increased six-fold along the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
• – The world’s largest coal port proposed for Abbot Point
• – Volume to be dredged from in and around the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area equivalent to 67 Melbourne Cricket Grounds.

With unprecedented levels of industrialisation occurring due to gas mining and transport, the reef and its marine life are threatened like never before. Next month, UNESCO inspectors are spending two weeks visiting the site to assess its health.

At the same time and under pressure from UNESCO, the federal and Queensland governments announced an 18-month ‘strategic assessment’ of the reef – expected to be the most comprehensive ever carried out in Australia.

Yet it appears this comprehensive assessment will not stop approvals for more operations to go ahead.

“The strategic assessment is the first opportunity to take an overall look at the impact of mining on the Great Barrier Reef,” said Hepburn. “But as it stands, the government is set to approve the world’s largest coal port at Abbot Point before the assessment has delivered its conclusions.

“Greenpeace is calling on the Federal and State authorities to suspend approvals for major new infrastructure during the assessment period,” said Hepburn. “If approvals continue, there is a very real chance that by the time the real risks are understood, irreversible damage will have already been done to this fragile eco-system.

And what if the UN comes back with a finding that the Barrier Reef is indeed deemed “in danger”? In that case, it will join a dishonourable group of countries damaged by war and poverty. But is a national embarrassment for the country enough to stop the mining boom? Greenpeace thinks not.

AustralianSuper’s James Coyle encourages workers to claim $18 billion in lost super.

Remember the part time job you had straight out of uni working in retail or the local pub – the one where your super went straight from your pay packet to an unknown super fund?

Years later, over numerous address changes and a few jobs later, that super is still lying dormant and waiting to be claimed. In fact. almost $19 billion of super is “lost”. That is, no activity has been recorded on it for five years or more and mail has been returned. That’s almost 40 per cent more than 2009

The increase may have something to do with the casualisation of the workforce — where people have numerous short term jobs and therefore super funds.

Either way, some people really have found a secret fortune. With the help of AustralianSuper, one worker was successfully reunited with almost $250,000 – another found 11 lost super accounts worth over $35,000.

Late last year industry fund, AustralianSuper, launched a campaign to help people find their lost super. And an online tool to make it easier to the 5.8 million lost super accounts.

“If you find lost super you’re better off in two ways – you boost your super savings and you save on multiple sets of fees,” says James Coyle from AustralianSuper. “This can make a bigger difference when you retire.”

AustralianSuper has found:

– Since November last year AustralianSuper has helped members find and transfer over $50 million of their lost super with an average amount over $7,200.
– The average age of people finding lost super is 45 with almost twice as many men finding lost super as women.

On average, people have more than one fund lying dormant being whittled away by administration fees. Although people have been encouraged to roll over for years it has always seemed too hard – especially when facing resistance from the dormant fund who can charge excessive fees for the privilege.

Now the ATO has made it simpler by establishing a website to allow people to search for themselves, using a few simple personal details (TFN, family and given names and date of birth). Check out SuperSeeker here.

James Coyle says Australians appear to be resistant to claiming all this money that belongs to them

“There is a perception being that it is difficult,’ Coyle says. “It is actually a simple three step process”

In any event, workers will be forced to consolidate their small super funds come 2014 when new government legislation comes into being. Small super accounts.with less than $1,000 in them and that have been inactive for five years or more, will be transferred into a worker’s active account.

The problem with “lost super” also highlights the disconnect the public has with its superannuation earnings – until the age of 40. This is the average age when people start to examine where their hard earned cash has gone but unfortunately, they may discover it is all too late in terms of planning for a financially sound retirement.  It also raises some interesting questions about our complacency when it comes to monitoring our super.

Miriam Lyons from the Centre for Policy Development describes the UK political shake up which is finding support here.

In the UK, the phrase “Big Society” is a household term — a catch phrase for the current transformation of British society as public services are cut and replaced by private enterprise, voluntary and community services.

It’s presented as a progressive, inclusive philosophy  — who doesn’t want a big society with contributions from all sectors of society?

But its critics describe it as a grab bag of ideas melded together as an excuse to cut down public spending and a state’s responsibilities.

British PM David Cameron used the theory to “redefine the role of the state as a provider of public services.” On a practical level that has meant more than £80 billion in cuts to public spending; the dismantling of the NHS and up to 700,000 job cuts to the public service.

In the UK, the winners have seen large corporations such as Serco and A4e which have received the bulk of the outsourced work which was previously done by the public service.

But in Australia we’ve heard little of it. While the Opposition has signaled massive cuts to the public service if it were elected, a debate about the role of the state in Australia society is non-existent.

Miriam Lyons of the Centre for Policy Development (CPD), says that could be about to change. In its paper on “Big Society” CPD explores what it could mean for Australia. Read it here.

In the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron embraced it as a political philosophy first championed by Philip Blond, a theologian, lecturer and founder of the conservative think tank ResPublica. He was also Cameron’s adviser before the 2010 election.

Lyons says Australians can learn a lot from the negative impacts of ‘Big Society’ in the UK

“We’ve already seen some aspects of the ‘Big Society’ agenda here, with governments that want to outsource and privatise everything that moves”, says Lyons. “The extreme and rapid dismantling of the state in the UK shows us what we might expect if we continue down this path.”

Read about what the media and others are saying about a Big Society.

The whole debate raises some interesting questions about how publicly unpopular theories can be successfully framed to garner support.

For example, John Howard’s ‘voluntary student unionism’ sounded like a positive policy because most people are opposed to things that are compulsory. By removing its fund base, Howard rapidly killed off student activism in Australia.

On the other hand, Greenpeace made huge inroads in their campaign on genetic engineering by introducing the notion (and language) of ‘genetic pollution’. When industry began to use the same expression, Greenpeace’s influence was clear.

You can read more about reframing issues here.

Equally, Friends of the Earth have successfully reframed the marvels of nanotechnology by framing these emerging sciences as ‘Frankenstein-esque’ and ‘letting the genie out of the bottle’.

Take a look also at the re-framing of the recent ALP tussle for leadership here.

As Labor attempts to re-unite after its very public family spat there is one more piece of dirty linen that needs to be aired – the self-imposed strait-jacket that is the government’s pledge to bring the budget into surplus by 2012.

Listening to both the victor and the vanquished shift the focus to, ermm, moving forward after yesterday’s spill, there was a list of good works that the government insisted it will pursue with renewed vigour: at the top of the list disability reform, education funding, health reform.

Labor does have a strong set of progressive policy positions ready to roll – the Productivity Commission report into a National Disability Insurance Scheme will revolutionise the delivery of services to society’s most vulnerable; the Gonski review sets out a radical reshaping of schools funding that will shift resources to the public system, the Productivity Commission has also produced a major report into improving services of aging Australians.

All of these are potentially great Labor reforms that speak to Labor values; they will all set up key sectors for the decades to come and they will all benefit big slices of the electorate.

But they also come with significant price tags – NDIS $6 billion per year; Gonski $5 billion, with $%1.5 billion from he feds) and the less-known Aged Care reforms a further $6 billion.

With Labor tied to a 2010 election promise, reinforced last year, to bring the Budget back to surplus – regardless of external economic conditions – by 2012-13, all these initiatives are likely to be left in the starting blocks. Worthy reports gathering dust.

Walking away from the surplus would clearly be a big call for the Government – it would play out in the tabloids as another lie; and as the PM has learnt to her chagrin despite their low level of trust in politicians, the punters will pounce on a lie.

But in insisting it will deliver a budget surplus, no matter how wafer-thin, the Gillard Government is sucking up to the wrong crowd.

Give voters a choice between concrete improvements in key policy issues and delivering a surplus to the books and you get a very clear answer, as this week’s Essential Report shows.

Q. The Gonski report recommends a $5 billion increase in education funding with $1.5 billion of this additional funding coming from the Federal Government and the rest from the State Governments. If the Federal Government provides this additional funding it may mean they will not be able to return the budget to surplus next year.

Do you think it is more important to provide this additional funding for schools or more important to return a budget surplus?

This is not just a matter of flaky lefties walking away from self-imposed fiscal confines; indeed Coalition voters are nearly as keen as Labor voters for funds to be released to institute the Gonski reforms.

These findings back more general questions on the budget deficit we asked last November where 69 per cent of respondents favoured delaying a return to surplus if it meant cutting services or raising taxes.

‘Returning the Budget to Surplus’ has become one of those bumper sticker policies that hamstring governments. Like ‘Turning Back the Boats’ it is not only impossible to deliver, it creates a series of knock-on effects that compound the problem.

Worse for Labor, it keeps the economic debate in the abstract frame, the natural territory for conservative governments, rather than placing the economy in its proper context – the forum for improving the lives of ordinary people.

Could they win the argument? Australia’s current debt to GDP ratio is under 10 per cent – many developed OECD nations have levels ten times that rate;  so actually explaining why Australia has set itself this target at a time of falling revenues could shift the conversation.

Indeed, not even Tony Abbott is tying himself to a 2012-13 surplus, so while he would cry ‘liar, liar’ he would not do so from a position of fiscal purity.

Of course, walking away from the surplus guarantee would inflict more pain on a government whose leader already suffers credibility deficit issues. But it might just be that delivering the goods on reform in education, disability and aged care is a better way to establish credibility with the electorate than delivering a wafer-thin surplus as a sop to the business pundits and tabloid press.

After all the hurt and tears for leadership status quo, surely a shift that opened the way for the next wave of social reforms for the young, the aged and the disabled would be a porky worth wearing.

ACTU President Ged Kearney gives the low down on the ACTU’s secure work inquiry.

There was a time when you had a job for life. The same one or two employers for 30 plus years. You had entitlements, the occasional pay rise, a chance for promotion and, if nothing else, security.

In the 21st century all that has changed. Gen Y workers like flexibility, choosing casual or part time work over the anchor that is a full time job. Other workers want to balance career and family life and are pleased to have the option of casual or contract work, with higher rates but without entitlements.

Casual workers now make up almost one quarter of Australian employees – one of the highest rates in the OECD. And contract work is steadily rising in all kinds of industries.

But what happens when you are working in an ongoing role but with no prospect of becoming a permanent worker? When banks are reluctant to lend to you and long term planning for a future becomes uncertain?

These are some of many aspects which the ACTU’s national inquiry is examining through its hearings into insecure work. Chaired by former deputy PM Brian Howe and comprising members from the highest level of labour law, academia and the union movement, the national hearings are examining the economic and social implications of insecure or fixed term employment as well as suggesting future policy directions.

You can find out more about the inquiry here.

“Workers have told us that insecure work makes it harder for them to manage the household finances, to spend time with their family and friends, and to plan for the future,” said ACTU president Ged Kearney.

“ The job of our new inquiry is to shine a light on the plight of insecure workers in Australia, and work out what government, employers and unions should be doing to help them.”

Ged asks here on the Punch – “are you feeling insecure?”

Approaching its task the panel is very much aware of the importance of flexible or non-standard work practices to both employers and employees.  On the one hand, Australia must continue to maximise its economic productivity yet there are still issues of fairness and responsibility to be taken into account.

Employers argue that many workers actually want casual work arrangements. But the ACTU says that there must be security — such as avenues for challenging unfair dismissal and long-term casuals being given the right to convert to permanent work after a set period of time.

Casual workers are telling the ACTU their stories of insecure work, highlighting the need for these sorts of protections.

The dynamism of the modern labour market presents very significant challenges for people who much more frequently change their work status – moving between jobs, between education or caring and work, from unemployment to employment or from employment to retirement.

Disturbingly, one submission gave evidence about the link between casual workers and homelessness.

With 500 submissions received  — 450 of which came from individual workers — the inquiry will prepare a report to present to the Federal Government by April.  The first hearings were held in Brisbane on February 13.

Property Council of Australia CEO Peter Verwer looks at the challenges of planning long-term within a short-term political cycle

Despite the postcard pics and tourism ads, Australia is overwhelmingly an urban nation.

Three quarters of us live in cities and more than 80 per cent of our GDP is generated within their boundaries. We love our cities but we are also frustrated by them. We curse our transport congestion, high rental costs, long hospital waiting lists, lack of child care places and aged care facilities. As the population grows and ages, our cities are carrying the majority of the burden.

So will that ever change?

The Property Council of Australia believes it’s time to stop the ad hoc approach to building our cities and come up with a long term strategy which is inclusive of the community and agreed to by all tiers of government on all sides.

The ultimate problem is the short term decision making by governments with three or four year terms when what every city needs is bi-partisan commitment to 20 year plans.

The PCA joined with a number of industry groups in 2010 to call for a national approach to urban developments and have been working to see this realised ever since. You can read their joint statement here.

Despite dozens of reports, inquiries and academic studies, governments in Australia have dropped the ball when it comes to urban policy. Pressured by interest groups and pressured by community polling, decisions are made without much forethought.

An example of this is the NSW Government’s decision to open up rural areas for urban expansion — against all the advice from urban policy experts.

Peter Verwer, CEO of the PCA, believes now is the time to make urban policy the next revolution to save our cities.

“ We need to better understand that cities and productivity are indivisible,” he says.

“Well designed and managed cities can help Australia grow faster while maintaining a low rate of inflation.”

The Sydney Morning Herald’s Ross Gittins recently wrote on why cities are important on a social, financial and evolutionary basis.

That’s why the Property Council – representing those who build and manage the big projects – wants the Federal Government to recognise the importance of our cities by linking funding to a state’s commitment to these long-term plans.

The PCA believes Australia needs to work out what infrastructure we will need, and how we will pay for it.

“We need our residential areas to be connected to services and jobs, says Peter Verwer. “And we can’t forget that our cities are places to live – not just a collection of buildings and roads. Reforming the way our cities work will not only improve the quality of life of the people who live in them – it will boost productivity, stimulate jobs growth, and increase our prosperity.”

Social Business Australia’s Melina Morrison on the International Year of the Co-Op.

For some of us, the concept of a co-operative brings back memories of the university bar or shop. A farmers market on a weekend or a small winery may also spring to mind.

But co-ops are a booming business. In Australia last year, co-operative businesses generated some $15 billion in turnover and across the globe the top 300 co-ops turned over $1.6 trillion, equivalent to the economy of Canada.

It’s a little known fact but banks and listed companies are actually legally required to maximise benefits for shareholders — a legal obligation to think of the bottom line only.

Coops are another model altogether. You may not realise it but some of the largest companies in Australia and internationally are based on the co-op model – companies like Rabobank, Sunkist, KPMG and Associated Press. The difference is, all these companies are set up to serve a purpose beyond simply making a profit by adopting so-called Co-Op Capitalism.

So how do co-ops gauge success? And as the global economy faces stresses what role could co-ops play in stabilising economies?

Answering those questions is Melina Morrison from Social Business Australia.

“We are the businesses that deliver services and products through a socially responsible business structure,” says Morrison.

“ In 2012, co-operatives, credit unions, mutuals and member owned businesses will be putting the building blocks in place to grow the sector.”

Now, a growing global movement towards cooperatives may offer an appealing alternative.

Listen to Dame Pauline Green talking about the scale and scope of co-operative businesses on The Drum.

Co-ops are making growth happen by making 2012 the “UN International Year of Co-operatives” which will bring co-operatives across the globe together to campaign for a ‘better’ business model.

The drive for profits has never been clearer than with recent actions by the big four banks to increase interest rates independently of the Reserve Bank board’s decision to keep the cash rate on hold. ANZ and Westpac also announced job cuts and taking jobs offshore to cut costs while slashing jobs and increasing home loan rates.

But if your bank happens to be a customer owned financial institution, the experience is vastly different.

Bankmecu, a co-operative bank, did not put up its rates. Find out about their business model here.

These financial institutions run their business on a co-operative model, putting profit back into the business to protect employees and to serve their customers.