Interview with Greens’ Senator Scott Ludlam on this week’s 4ZZZ show

This week I had the privilege of having Greens’ Senator Scott Ludlam in the studio for an interview.  Together with my regular interlocutor, Mr Peter J Black, we spoke about the recent carbon pricing announcement, the internet filter and the NBN, and nuclear waste, nuclear power and Fukushima.

You can listen to it all by clicking on this link – (unfortunately due to copyright laws I have to edit out the interspersing songs, so it ends up being a lot of talking).

You can also see the song playlist for the show at this link.

PS Just in case anyone thinks I might be misusing my radio slot to give an extra plug to the Greens, I should note that over the past couple of years I’ve had Liberal MPs on twice and Labor MPs on twice; this is the first time I’ve had a Green in for an interview.

Please like & share:

5 Comments

  1. Assuming 4ZZZ is not the recipient of copious amountas of govt funding, yuo can promote whoevevr you and your station directors like.

    Althouhg like so many organisations, community as well as private the almost complete lack of any transparent information by 4ZZZ on who, what and how financed governed etc one wouldn’t know

  2. just a note of topic a bit
    andrew are you going to post any comment on the carbon tax issue i have a few questions .for the more well informed than me .

  3. I’ve been so absorbed in the carbon tax and Murdoch that I haven’t got round to hearing the tape. What is Ken about?
    They edit out a few songs for copyright reasons- so what. The main substance for us is in the current affairs, can always jam on a cd if I need background music.
    The Carbon tax, I think is good as far as it goes, which isn’t far, but the public is so panicked by the Murdoch press and Abbott’s obstructionists, that even deep Greens realise not a lot more can realistically be done, just now.
    How long the hard right can maintain the noise is open to question, given Murdoch’s discrediting, although one should never over estimate the wit of the general public.
    Murdoch is a JR Ewing or Citizen Kane figure, like Nixon and Joe MacCarthy, so since Abbott is Murdoch’s lovechild and Murdoch is a mouth for big business, people may finally think twice about the above, what they say and why.

  4. although one should never over estimate the wit of the general public.
    i think you mite just have that wrong paul
    because in my experience of late more and more ppl who vote are asking more and more questions of what the politition,s are really up to
    im my opinion its just another tax that will bring the govt a massive gst windfall and they know it .and the only ppl that will pay for it is the ppl of this country and with no gain in the reduction of carbon . and the voters know it so dose the govt ..
    the wit of the ppl is fare more than any academic or politition can imagine .

    .

  5. What is Ken about Paul – well absorb yourself in reading my post and it is obvious. AB can promote whom he likes; he’s not on some sort of public financed senate committee.

    As to carbon tax and the stupidity of the great unwashed. Tax serves a few purposes – to raise funds for the collective community good – ie. Income tax, to reflect a greater individual benefit obtained from the provision of a service, ie. regulated user charges or to reflect a more individualised purchase decision, eg sales tax and the like, to name but few. Additionally, or in theory a market mechanism to change behaviour, increases in cigarette tax etc start to fall into this but of course also raise revenue. The inherent problem with the CO2 tax is what is its purpose? We are told it is to reduce dependence on a carbon based economy – read coal fired electricity, and facilitate the change to our economy to a renewable energy world, Yet we are also told by people such as Flannery, apparently, that nothing we do to reduce carbon will make any difference for 1000 years – now I know people need to think strategically but that’s a big ask for the general public.

    The idea that we need to change our behaviour at the “big polluter” level and then compensate everyone for not changing their behaviour, except the rich, is farcical and reflects the lack of anyone with real life business experience like John kerin down in Canberra these days.

    Boffin type economic modelling from bureaucrats is laughable, 1c extra for biscuits – just ask the guy at my local party shop who is already working out how much to increase his prices using the carbon tax as an excuse. The model says he doesn’t need to – indeed – that because the model hasn’t ever run a chook raffle.

    If we need it there, should be no compensation, use market mechanisms to change behaviour by all means, but give people incentive to change behaviour by lowering their costs, that might work. However, I do not think this is the reel agenda, at the risk of sounding Lorikeetesque; it is all about raising revenue.

Comments are closed.