Prev
Next

Climate Committee is arguing for argument’s sake

Mark Kenny

by Mark Kenny

07 Jun 12:55pm

Must Reads

Booyah for boobs, booze, brotherhood and bikies! - this is a caption

Booyah for boobs, booze, brotherhood and bikies!

81

Labor’s new strategy of Speaking No Evil - this is a caption

Labor’s new strategy of Speaking No Evil

101

A few good men and The Gaps they face - this is a caption

A few good men and The Gaps they face

44

Filed under: Carbon Tax, Climate Change, Mpcc, Politics

103 comments

A spat this morning over the release of Treasury modelling which showed the marginal economic impact of a carbon price is indicative of what is wrong with the current ultra-consultative process.

So who else forgot their pants as well as their scruples? Pic: Ray Strange

A mini-tantrum ensued after the modelling was made public with some members of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee (MPCC) reportedly upset that they’d not been given first dibs. What this showed in turn was that even the morally righteous supporters of action on climate change are so convinced of their role that they’ve lost sight of the goal.

Labor’s halting, stumbling, uncertain progress towards decisive action on climate change has been a lesson in serial dissembling. Yet despite that, progress apparently is being made. The self-imposed July 1, deadline for finalisation of the carbon tax details, looms large.

What stands in the way now is not so much Tony Abbott’s muscular opposition which, as Donald Rumsfeld might have characterised it, is a “known known”.

No, the most unfathomable obstacle now is the massive sun-obscuring edifice of egos emanating from the MPCC. And today’s reaction to Wayne Swan’s release of some data materially helpful in their (putative) cause, is the perfect demonstration of their warped priorities.

Let’s be frank. What Swan released was some pretty underwhelming data that showed the carbon price would shave a tenth of a percentage point off growth as it could normally be expected to proceed in the next four decades - ie to 2050.

It is highly speculative, predictive, and by virtue of the huge timelines involved, almost certainly wrong. But it beats a wild guess and is useful inasmuch as it shows the tax will not lead to the collapse of life or the economy as we know it.

Now you’d think the concerned and responsible legislators who make up the MPCC, those guardians of the planet, those paragons of transparency, accountability, and democracy would welcome this helpful research? Sadly no.

Senator Christine Milne described it as “an act of bad faith” because the committee which had sought the modelling, had not been given it first.

And Tony Windsor, a man who all the circumstantial evidence suggests is shaping up to play ducks and drakes with his pivotal vote right up to the last minute - he’s previously warned he may not declare his position at the end of the MPCC like the others but may await the final vote on the legislation - he went further.
“I’m not happy,” he said. “If they want a phantom process they can do that on their own.”

Phantom process - what, from unveiling some 40 year modelling?

This is the response to one piece of ultimately fairly meaningless information getting out to the people who actually matter - ie the voters and unwitting funders of this malarkey. It says everything really - about the process and about the tentative way this Government is going about its business.

The best thing about the next election will be the removal from centre stage of a bunch of self-important windbags whose claims to moral superiority and democratic purity are daily shown to be so much self-serving nonsense.

Most commented

273Modern Christians can trump Bible thumping fundies
271Class war: sounds crazy but it just might work
266Even New Zealand supports gay marriage
263Climate change and the crisis of communication
257Tell it to the court, Craig
24212 bigger issues than gay change and climate marriage
222Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone
214Voters won't forget the way Labor has conducted itself

103 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • C1 says:

      01:13pm | 07/06/11

      Mark,

      Great last paragraph - well done! Although be careful or you shall be tainted as one of the ‘hating media’.

      I think this time the Government got ahead of the Greens who on past performances are very skilled at releasing the material (with the appropriate accolades) prior to those who actually did the hard yards.

      Given the data is pretty underwhelming as youd escribed, it is a measure of the Governments deparation to have something, anything on this issue.

      As for Windsor-well enough said.

      Reply

    • C1 says:

      01:24pm | 07/06/11

      Sorry for the typos - I should not type and eat my lunch at the same time (indigestion aside).

    • Damien says:

      02:04pm | 07/06/11

      Kudos on the final paragraph from me too Mark, it pretty much sums up the ‘new paradigm’.

    • Diogenes says:

      02:58pm | 07/06/11

      This modelling is from the same Treasury that hasn’t correctly predicted the surplus/defecit +- 10% with the year half gone for the last 10 years - somebody explain to me why this modelling is any more accurate

    • loulou says:

      04:04pm | 07/06/11

      Especially good last paragraph

    • nihonin says:

      01:22pm | 07/06/11

      Mark, they are trying to change the climate, the one they find themselves in at the moment, where 60% of the population (voters I’m guessing)have seen through the Tax grab, to a change, in the voting climate, where we all “Say Yes’ like drones.

      But like all the current new ‘Deniers’ they don’t see they are doing the denying, when the polls tell them it just ain’t so and more people aren’t listening to their message.

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      01:27pm | 07/06/11

      A breath of fresh air. I tip my hat to you Mr Kenny.

      Reply

    • Andy D says:

      01:29pm | 07/06/11

      I know it’s a too serious an issue and shouldn’t be funny but it amuses me no end that in my circle of friends, the ones who get really worked up and shout loudest about how we “NEED a Carbon Tax or the planet will DIE!!!!” (their punctuation, not mine) are the exact same people who a few years ago were working themselves in a paroxysms of rage because “Schapelle Corby is INNOCENT and our government should send in troops to BRING HER HOME!!!!!”

      If this tax goes ahead, I sure hope those friends of mine are showing better judgement this time around than they did with the poor “innocent” Schappelle smile

      Reply

    • C1 says:

      01:38pm | 07/06/11

      @ Andy D,

      I agree and before Schapelle, it was ‘Free East Timor’. Seriously that crowd have been at a loss since Nelson Mandela was released.

    • Andy D says:

      01:53pm | 07/06/11

      Maybe we could lock up Mandela again to give them something to really focus their energy on (and give me a good excuse to play The Specials undisputed best song over and over again)? We could throw his good buddy Mugabe in there with him.

      .....sadly I must admit, back in my youth I was very proud of my ‘Free Tibet’ t-shirt, though I was far too naive and uninformed to wear it as anything more than a fashion statement.

    • Tbowler says:

      01:57pm | 07/06/11

      I agree..

      I’m amazed at how people can be so very sure of:
      1) That the planet is doomed to implode in a fiery post-apocalyptic hellscape in the next few years and:
      2) That the ‘hellscape’ scenario can be avoided by making Carbon emissions cost $20 a tonne.

      The same crowd is no longer sure about Afghanistan or Iraq but they are pretty damned sure that we should try to starve the only middle-eastern democracy out. They still manage to somehow blame the inaction and failure of their beloved Labor government on the opposition in a stunning display of faulty logic and willing suspension of disbelief.

      It is total fucking insanity. When we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan we were evil imperialists; When we failed to invade indonesia to defend a drug-dealing bogan we weren’t sufficiently protecting the interests of our citizens. When we failed to send tanks to Hamas we were racists (somehow) When we fire a lazy or inept worker we are capitalist pig-dogs; When we protect the jobs of workers in general by protecting the economy we are soulless gaia-rapists.  When we stopped people risking the lives (and more importantly the lives of their children) by crossing oceans in ricketty shit-tins via the Pacific Solution we were effectively child-rapists (somehow). When we disagree with the ‘Malaysian Solution’ - which involves sending unaccompanied minors to a non-signatory (like Naru) then we are some other form of evil conservative racist bigot.

      Can’t these people do something useful like organise a flotilla to China to help the tibetans and see what people who don’t put value on human life REALLY look like?

    • C1 says:

      02:10pm | 07/06/11

      @Andy,

      I forgot about that song (am now playing it whist typing this reply).

      As for the t-shirts, I had one which said - ‘Free Tibet! - with every case of riot control gas”

      My Dad quite liked the ‘Free Norm - with every thousand tons of building supplies’. He saw it posted on a building site.

    • Crap Filter says:

      02:58pm | 07/06/11

      “1) That the planet is doomed to implode in a fiery post-apocalyptic hellscape in the next few years and:
      2) That the ‘hellscape’ scenario can be avoided by making Carbon emissions cost $20 a tonne”
      Well, there’s the problem, right there.

      1) The only people saying that? You lot.
      2) The only people claiming that? You lot.

      A rise in temperature by 2050 above +2 degrees looks likely to make some expensive mess around the world. That’s what we’re on track for under “business as usual”.

      A rise of +4 to +6 degrees by 2100 looks likely, under “business as usual” . Very very very expensive to deal with.

      We may be able to slow warming to +2 degrees or a bit more, if we start soon. We should have started a decade ago. It may still be expensive to deal with, but doing nothing is worse.

      Now we have maybe a decade left to get our act together, make a start on emission reductions, and have a fair chance of learning to live with +2 degrees.

      Have a read: http://climatecommission.gov.au/topics/the-critical-decade/

    • ausspud says:

      03:53pm | 07/06/11

      crap filter
      you lost all credibilty by linking the climate commission site

    • RyaN says:

      04:16pm | 07/06/11

      @Crap Filter: how many degrees from the average over the last million years has it increased already?

    • B says:

      06:35pm | 07/06/11

      Crap filter,  Its funny how your name is an oxymoron.  You claim to be a crap filter.  But you must be a pretty darn bad one!!

      I agree.  Linking to the climate commissions website loses you ANY credibility you had after naming yourself Crap Filter.

    • AnthonyG says:

      09:52pm | 07/06/11

      egzacary. the sheep movement have spoken.

    • AnthonyG says:

      09:57pm | 07/06/11

      as they say when your young and dumb you vote labor because you think you can save the world. Then you grow up, well most of us grow up and you start voting with your head and vote liberal.

    • Erick says:

      01:34pm | 07/06/11

      The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee includes every party - except the parties that currently have around 52% of two-party-preferred support.

      It’s an unrepresentative joke.

      Reply

    • Andy D says:

      02:22pm | 07/06/11

      To be fair though the other 52% were invited but they chose not to join. As much as I support Tony Abbott on the no carbon tax issue it is not really reasonable to criticise the Climate Change Committee or their overlord Bob Brown for being unrepresentative.

      It would have been better for the Liberal/National Coalition to join the committee and let the nation watch them getting railroaded by the Labor/Greens/Idiot Independent Coalition.

      I see why Tony Abbott vetoed the Committee but I think it was a bad choice.

    • persephone says:

      02:25pm | 07/06/11

      Erick

      that was the Coalition’s choice.

      There’s still a seat at the table reserved for them.

    • Bryndal says:

      02:28pm | 07/06/11

      Their choice not to be part of it…..obviously they dont want to be represented even though it seems that Tony had a few good ideas on the introduction of a carbon tax.

    • Matt says:

      02:44pm | 07/06/11

      Problem is persephone, they should have half the seats reserved for them. Instead, there is just one.

    • Erick says:

      03:18pm | 07/06/11

      Don’t you remember? The terms of reference of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee were such that it could only talk about how to implement a carbon tax.

      The whole thing was a trick. If the Coalition had joined, they too would have been party to the carbon tax that Gillard promised would not happen. Abbott didn’t fall for it.

      That’s why the MPCC is a joke. It was set up to produce a given result right from the beginning - any alternative view was strictly prohibited.

      Just like everything else Julia says, the MPCC is a lie.

    • Jay Santos says:

      03:20pm | 07/06/11

      “..that was the Coalition’s choice…”

      There is no choice.

      A pre-requisite for joining the MPCCC is that you profess a profound belief that man is heating the planet toward oblivion.

      Such evidence-starved religious rapture is hardly the starting point for a rational discussion on anything.

    • PTom says:

      04:03pm | 07/06/11

      Erick,

      You use a poll to call it unrepresentative. How about you use the last election result of the TPP?

      Is that because it represent the majority and that upset you little applecart.

    • Mark says:

      04:15pm | 07/06/11

      It’s a pity neither John Howard nor Malcolm Turnbull are still around. Oh, wait ...

    • Steve Putnam says:

      05:29pm | 07/06/11

      They were invited but chose not to participate despite the fact a majority of their elected representatives believe AGW is real and happening at an ever increasing rate. They are fiddling while Rome burns.

    • B says:

      06:39pm | 07/06/11

      PTom, really?  I thought the government lost the last election?  They didnt get a majority vote.  They only won via creating a socialist/communist alliance with the Greens and Independants to subvert democracy.  Any view to the contrary flies in the face of the evidence.

    • Richard says:

      11:55pm | 07/06/11

      @ B

      You thought wrong.

      The Coalition lost the last election.

      Are you the only person in Australia who still doesn’t understand how the Westminster system of democracy works ?

    • Que says:

      01:36pm | 07/06/11

      There is one feature of every member of this panel. They are all narcissists.

      Conspiracy theories aside, this issue has become the ultra-focal point for a battle between left and right idiologies, between pre-enlightment romanticism and modern logic, between disdain for people and celebration of the individual.

      There is a lot more at stake here than 0.0005% of C02 emitted.

      Reply

    • James says:

      02:00pm | 07/06/11

      I do hope you are not referring to the current Liberal party when you say “Modern Logic”...

    • Que says:

      03:53pm | 07/06/11

      Not referring to any particular party.

      ‘Modern logic’ where observations drive conclusions seems a little lost in this discussion. ‘Post-modern logic’ where conclusions drive observations seems to be the approach of this mob.

    • B says:

      06:41pm | 07/06/11

      @James

      Well he is CERTAINLY not referring to Labor or the Greens!!  To do so is just offensive to any Logical thinking person.

    • Richard says:

      08:49pm | 07/06/11

      Totally agree Que, this Carbon Tax issue has become our political Stalingrad. Think about it: Its not a strategically vital “reform” (in fact, in the context of international lack of action, there is actually no need for a carbon tax at all, certainly not a pressing need for one within the next 12 months or before the next election or whenever). But the government, like Hitler, has let their ego and their personal thirst for power prevail over their common-sense, and turned this into an ideological fight to the death, at huge cost for all.

      I just find it so stupendous that all these left-wing opinionists like George Megalogenis and Mark Kenny and a bunch of others just accept the conventional wisdom that if the government can actually get the legislation up and running then they will have won the battle and all will be well with the world and Labor will romp home in the next election over a broken and defeated Tony Abbott.

      HA!

      Where is the evidence for this? It’s complete nonsense~ you guys are all dreaming, lucidly dreaming.

      There is no victory in this fight for the government, just like there was no victory for the Germans in Stalingrad. Even if they had managed to push the Russian defenders out of the city, so what? They still would have been fatally weakened, because their mobility and initiative, their swift and fluid lines of attack, had been lost. They got bogged down in a bitter fight against an entrenched enemy who will not yield an inch, and they ended up sacrificing an entire army of their best troops for no good reason.

      Say the government does get its legislation through… They will be in an even worse predicament then they are now. Electricity bills, which are already high, will rise even higher, and there is no possible way that the government can compensate households adequately. Electricity bills in Australia are like what the Russian winter was in Stalingrad: they will prove more deadly to the government than even all the withering vehemence of the Opposition’s resolve to defend to the bitter end.

      The cost of energy permeates through every molecule and atom of the economy. Energy is wealth, or to be precise the applied use of energy is wealth. To make that energy artificially more expensive, you necessarily decrease the totality of wealth in society. So you can redistribute as much as you like, but the pie will be smaller: you shrank it, so there’s less to go around for all.

      This is a manifest reality that will be facing the government if they are unlucky enough to have their tax pass through the house.

      There is a very real possibility that Australia will be in recession in barely 3 months time. Do you think that the voters don’t realise its because the government picked fights it couldn’t win and recklessly attacked fortifications it didn’t need to? Of course they do, and if the government succeeds in ramming a carbon tax down our throats, and the economy gets even worse, more and more voters will realise how much damage this government has truly inflicted on our once high living standards and cast their votes accordingly.

    • Ben81 says:

      10:35pm | 07/06/11

      Very well said Richard. 
      Labor and supporters of this tax must be mad to think there’s light at the end of their tunnel when the result will be more people facing the reality of pain for no gain.

    • Mike says:

      11:49am | 08/06/11

      As much as I like Abbot and the coalition, what interests me is if the carbon tax gets through parliament, and then when labor gets whitewashed from office, will abbot get rid of the tax or will he try and keep all that extra income coming in, and then blame the tax on labor.
      Because as much as they opposed it, labor has not once tried to reduce or get rid of the GST

    • Knemon says:

      01:38pm | 07/06/11

      Our pseudo PM seems rather happy in the accompanying picture, as do his deputies!

      Reply

    • neil says:

      01:39pm | 07/06/11

      Just as we saw with Rudds ETS, the ego’s and opposing priorities of the Greens and independants means there is no middle ground, if either side doesn’t get what they want they will vote it down.

      The socialists “if you’re not with us you’re against us” attitude makes a left wing minority government disfunctional from day one.

      Reply

    • BL says:

      01:48pm | 07/06/11

      I’m still hilariously laughing at Wayne Swane claiming every single man, woman and child will be over $8000 better off under the carbon tax with th average income increasing by 16% in 8 years. Very much reminds me of another Labor hack’s claim that no Australian child will be living in poverty by 1990 rofl. :D

      Reply

    • C1 says:

      02:15pm | 07/06/11

      It is like their claim of creating 750,000 jobs in the last 3 years. Mike Rann got sprung last year when his government claimed that 150,000 jobs were to be created under their schemes when in fact 80% would have been created even if nothing had been done.

      It is these wonderful claims that make you wonder what they are on sometimes.

    • St. Michael says:

      02:19pm | 07/06/11

      It will be technically correct if he inflates the Australian dollar to make it happen.

      On the other hand, the extra $8000 would be worth about 8 cents in that scenario, so ...

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      01:51pm | 07/06/11

      With all these talk about Modeling I like to make two points.

      Firstly modeling of the future climate is well known to be difficult. In fact it is interesting to note that Lorenz, a professor at MIT, trying to understand climate modeling developed some of the original concepts of Chaos Theory. This Chaos Theory says it is very hard to predict the future in models of climate as small changes in the INITIAL conditions in a model can lead to very large changes in outcome. This is better known in the public as the “Butterfly Effect” which says the flutter of the wings of a butterfly in the Amazon may create a cyclone in Northwest Australia.

      Come to the models done by Garnaut, Treasury and who else?? I like to point out that there is a very serious Accounting Error in the latest Garnaut Report. It proposes that 55% of the carbon tax goes to some taxpayers, 35% goes to aid business and 10% for R&D in renewable energy. This makes a sum total of 100%.

      But the Minister of Climate Change, Combet, had signed an Agreement at Cancun last December to give 10% of the tax collected to some UN Body.

      Also any serious Modeler of financial models knows you must allocate some costs for Admin. to collect and implement the complex policies of the carbon tax. If I do the Modeling I would allocate 20%. But to be generous let us assume that Admin costs is 10%.

      In Summary the Garnaut Report and Recommendations have a serious shortfall of 20%.  Does this mean that some taxpayers get 35% instead of the proposed 55%? All the people busy modeling the proposed carbon tax lease note this Accounting Error.

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      02:11pm | 07/06/11

      I am glad you brought this line of the debate up. In terms of the article Dr B, if it is posited that economic modelling over such an extended period of time is essentially wrong then how can any science not also be deemed “highly speculative, predictive, and by virtue of the huge timelines involved, almost certainly wrong” ??

      Particularly when we are talking finances - a tangible notion that has been effectively measured in the past and predicted into the future on the shortscale.

      I’m not denying anything, but what is good for the goose has to be good for the gander and this is my ongoing issue with all talks of climate change. We are being told to believe one side of the equation and trust on the other, yet the supporters are slamming its opposition for trusting and believeing in other things. It just doesn’t make sense, which to me simply screams political motivation.

    • Eddie says:

      03:06pm | 07/06/11

      @ fairsfair
      I guess you are making an assumption that any normal person would make and that is that the government is honest.  It is not even remotely honest.  None of this has anything to do with the climate, it is purely about political survival.

    • Pat says:

      03:14pm | 07/06/11

      Completely agree fairsfair with your last comment.

      2 quotes come to mind
      “Never doubt the influence of self interest” and “Follow the money”  put them in either order and it applies to climate change.

    • Matt says:

      12:01pm | 08/06/11

      Climate scientists haven’t been able to accurately predict the weather a decade in advance, (some scientists claiming a majority of australian capitals would be out of water by the end of the last decade), and why now should we just ‘say yes’ to their assumptions

    • Harquebus says:

      01:57pm | 07/06/11

      Mark, well done. Also a good reference photo, the egg hasn’t landed yet.

      Reply

    • BobM says:

      03:19pm | 07/06/11

      Good to see you will be voting for Tony Abbott come the next election, nossy. At last, some common sense…..

      Next thing we know, Persephone will be his campaign manager.

    • Jay Santos says:

      03:35pm | 07/06/11

      Gillard and her Fourth Estate minions must be beyond desperate to invoke this as proof Abbott wanted a carbon tax.

      Even a preschooler understands the context in which this question was answered.

      Compare that with the definitive unequivocal lie: “There will NO CARBON TAX under the government I lead”.

      They don’t come any bigger than that.

    • Coop says:

      04:46pm | 07/06/11

      “Even a preschooler understands the context in which this question was answered.”

      This is exactly why Nossy is having trouble with it. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

    • Franklyn says:

      02:19pm | 07/06/11

      This picture says it all. The thought of power has gone straight to their heads. Makes me want to vomit.

      Reply

    • Henry says:

      02:30pm | 07/06/11

      What a motley crew of dinosaurs.

      These fools fiddle while our economy is in neutral.

      Turnbull ought to be ashamed of himself and just give up on the Goldman Sachs profits he would have made and get back to being a statesman.

      Reply

    • William says:

      02:35pm | 07/06/11

      The Carbon Tax enforces!
      If you agree with a carbon tax then have a look at the guys who are behind it. Still want a carbon tax? Just a bunch of ego pumped morons.

      Reply

    • Against the Man says:

      02:51pm | 07/06/11

      Let me say the key problem is that the government never approached this policy in a sane, logical and respectful manner. Gilltard said no carbon tax during the last election, so if she wanted to introduce it she should have provided us with the details, and the alternative policies and based on the polls take this to an election.

      But Gilltard was never taught to be respectful. Did Rudd ol’ boy get any respect? Did the ALP voters get any respect when Gilltard backstabbed her way to the top job? Did the voters get any respect when she lied about introducing a carbon tax? Did she show the East Timorese politicians respect when she came up with the East Timor refugee solution without discussing it with them? See the pattern….....

      Hey while we are distracted with this crap what is going on with health care or gay marriage or home insulation projects?

      I would be grateful if climate change expect Seano can clarify the above issues for us. He isn’t confused by the carbon tax see link:
      http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/13-eminent-plumbers-speak-out-on-the-carbon-tax/

      Reply

    • Seano says:

      07:10pm | 07/06/11

      Seek Help!

    • Brad says:

      03:01pm | 07/06/11

      And still nobody talks about the elephant in the room. Until something it done about global population you can carbon tax youself out of existance because AGW (if it is real) is just a symptom of too many people. Good luck with “fixing” it.

      Reply

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      03:27pm | 07/06/11

      @ Brad.  I support you 100%.

      The No 1 global problem is the exploding population. The critical global food crisis will most likely occur before 2050.

      Australia occupies a special place in the coming global food crisis because many people outside Australia think we are a vast empty continent with very few people. They do not understand that a large part of Australia is very dry and the continent cannot support too large a population.

      We are hence the most likely No 1 target from a tsunami of millions of boatpeople from a pool of over 3,000,000,000 hungry Asians. Australia can then be overrun.

      The nasty effects of global warming are no where in sight at that time of a global food crisis. I have not read that we face any big disasters of similar scale before 2100 due to global warming.

      This is not a resurrection of the Yellow Peril Fears. China with its one child policy will survive the critical global food crisis and China may well help Australia to defend itself then together with Japan, Korea and USA as these countries would want to have access to the resources of Australia by trade.

    • BobM says:

      03:34pm | 07/06/11

      Don’t worry so much Brad - nature has a way of dealing with overpopulation. Starvation is one way, and combined with global wars over scarce resources, I don’t think we really have to worry about the world becoming overpopulated. Remember, its all about survival of the fittest….and smartest.

    • fairsfair says:

      03:48pm | 07/06/11

      Elphaba mentioned something along those lines in Rishworth’s article this morning. She was cried down by the usual crowd and rather than her suggestions be considered she was labelled “unnecessarily strident” because she dare question…..

    • ausspud says:

      04:09pm | 07/06/11

      brad
      maybe we can abort the next 50 aussie babies to save the world from overpopulation,a bit like the carbon tax isnt it.

    • Robert Scott says:

      03:14pm | 07/06/11

      Who cares what Swan said. He lied, just as he lied prior to the election that it was “hysterical scaremongering” that Labor would move to introduce a carbon Tax. Nothing this liar has to say is of real interest and the fact that he has upset the poor Greens and Tony (I hate the Liberals/Nationals) Windsor is just laughable. Everyone knows jobs will be lost and prices will rise. Hell, the government themselves have admitted it and then out comes Brutus Swan and introduces his ‘model’ to show all will be rosy. At least it points out what can be done when self serving clowns use their models to demonstrate whatever result they require.

      Reply

    • nihonin says:

      07:06pm | 07/06/11

      lol gotta laugh at the Karma Sutra comment nossy, but Labor lately have discovered even more positions, on any policy.  mwahahahaha

    • NSW says:

      03:37pm | 07/06/11

      Thank you Brad. Carbon taxes, electric cars, whatever - these are not going to fix anything - THE problem is and has always been too many people. The government should be pushing contraception and abortion. For once - keep your legs SHUT/get on the pill.

      Reply

    • Muzz says:

      04:03pm | 07/06/11

      We must act on Climate Change, Climate Change is real. Say YES, go gay today and save the planet.

    • NSW says:

      05:08pm | 07/06/11

      erm…..no thanks.

    • Stuart says:

      03:49pm | 07/06/11

      Forecasting to 2050??!!!  Come on, treasury has enough trouble forecasting out 12 months let alone 39 years.  Seems to me the assumptions just may have been “massaged” to get the answer they want.  How stupid does this party think Joe Public is.

      Reply

    • Steve Putnam says:

      05:35pm | 07/06/11

      Not as stupid as Joe Hockey.

    • The Galah from Hervey Bay says:

      07:55pm | 07/06/11

      Steve Putnam , so you think Swan is a genius ?

    • bikinis on top says:

      04:13pm | 07/06/11

      winter is the climate for a takfest angry talk as the heated discussion room and the heated discussion keeps one warm for as long as the conference goes..

      Reply

    • mel says:

      04:14pm | 07/06/11

      What a sickening photo of the Self-Important Windbags.  And yet, many Australians voted for them.

      Reply

    • Bris Jack says:

      04:27pm | 07/06/11

      Labor’s verbal diarrhea is becoming contageous. Gillard and Bowen have a bad case and now Swanny.

      Reply

    • Steve Putnam says:

      07:54pm | 07/06/11

      You talk it but you can’t spell it.

    • Jay Santos says:

      08:16pm | 07/06/11

      “...You talk it but you can’t spell it…”

      Check the dictionary before you gulp down another bowlful of stupid.

    • Eddie says:

      12:02am | 08/06/11

      @Jay Santos

      Well how do you spell contagious?

      You might want to take your own advice now, stupid.

    • Jay Santos says:

      08:41am | 08/06/11

      Eddie,

      You must have missed this bit:  “...You talk it but you can’t spell it…”

      Oops.

      You can have a big spoonful too.

      Fish. In. Barrel.

    • Bris Jack says:

      09:32am | 08/06/11

      Diarrhea (from the Greek ???????? meaning “flowing through”, also spelled diarrhoea.
      contagious, contagious, contagious, contagious, contagious.

    • Eddie says:

      07:12pm | 08/06/11

      @ Stupid Santos

      “You talk it but you can’t spell it.”

      Which of those words is incorrect, stupid?

    • Dash says:

      05:07pm | 07/06/11

      How can two parties form a “multi party committee”. And what makes a leader of the ACTU suddenly a climate change expert? And how the fuck that constitutes the “guarding of our democracy” Mark is beyond me! you are bloody kidding yourself pal!

      In terms of representation, 50% of the population at least is not represented within the committee! And polls would suggest, the committee is out of touch with what 60% of the population want. Democracy??? Bahahahahah!

      We were promised a Citizens Assembly during the election and ended up with a committee where every member is aligned to the ALP. And taxpayers are funding reports written by climate “experts” hand picked by the Gillard government to tell us what the ALP want us to hear.

      And now Swan releases a treasury report that says we’re all going to be better off yet they haven’t even set a price! Who’s buying this crap?

      And the media just sit back and accept it! What a load of bloody nonsense.

      Reply

    • loulou says:

      05:38pm | 07/06/11

      @Dash   Are obscenities now okay on Punch?  Or do some commenters have a special dispensation?

    • Harquebus says:

      05:58pm | 07/06/11

      Protecting their reputations they are but, at this late stage the egg is unavoidable.

    • Dash says:

      09:21am | 08/06/11

      @loulou, sorry to offend. It was a hard day yesterday! I get angry sometimes (actually recently quite a bit). Point taken though, I’ll try to tone it down.

    • Daniel says:

      06:15pm | 07/06/11

      The ALP needs to get ot and sell this to the public just like the Liberals were out there selling the regressive GST that they promised never to bring in.

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      06:48pm | 07/06/11

      Please explain how GST is a regressive tax?

      Also, I’m pretty sure the GST was an election platform. If the public didn’t want it, they wouldn’t have voted it in.

      Too bad the same cannot be said of the carbon tax.

    • Steve Putnam says:

      07:45pm | 07/06/11

      @Matt Its a regressive tax because everyone irrespective of income pays the same. At the GST election the ALP vote exceeded the Coalitions by 41,000 on first preference. Hardly a mandate.

    • Max Redlands says:

      09:11pm | 07/06/11

      @ Daniel “the regressive GST”


      on the contrary

      I pay GST and PAYG, as you do when you are self-employed.

      The GST makes me a de facto tax collector.

      The PAYG component is progressive insofar as my future tax liablities are accounted for based on present income.

      The GST was a big let down because, in my circumstance at least, promises of elimination or reduction of State levies and stamp duties (et al.) were never honoured.

    • Matt says:

      10:50pm | 07/06/11

      Try reading something other than the Greens policy website Steve. You may learn something.

      http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/taxes-giveth-as-gst-taketh-away/2005/07/08/1120704557532.html

      Looking at one part of the tax system and declaring it regressive in isolation is like a blind man trying to identify an elephant by feeling its tail.

      As for it hardly being a mandate, the Coalition had a majority, so yes, it was a mandate. That’s how it works, Steve.

    • AnthonyG says:

      06:34pm | 07/06/11

      I’m going to print the Heading picture and place it on my fridge as a reminder of the people who are putting us into unwarranted debt and lowering the standard of living for all Aussies forever.

      Reply

    • loulou says:

      07:08pm | 07/06/11

      I’d do the same, only I couldn’t have Christine Milne’s grinning face on my fridge -  it wouldn’t be decent

    • fairsfair says:

      07:23pm | 07/06/11

      It’d be a top diet though loulou. The constant feeling of nausea generated by the site of her would certainly stop you heading for the fridge!

    • Ben81 says:

      10:41pm | 07/06/11

      How about under the seat lid on the shitter?

    • Richard says:

      07:46pm | 07/06/11

      Mark I’m sure you really do believe that Treasury’s modelling “is useful inasmuch as it shows the tax will not lead to the collapse of life or the economy as we know it”, but in fact this is totally incorrect and a dangerously blasé attitude to hold.

      I mean we all know that Treasury has been corrupted an politicised under Ken Henry, as evidenced by his recent appointment as personal advisor to Julia Gillard, as evidenced by the shameful manner in which Treasury tried to cover Julia Gillard’s ass during the election campaign by fudging the figures on the RSPT/MMRT estimates, as evidenced by the despicable manner in which they manipulated the Independents after the election with lies about ‘Black Holes’ (it has since been proven that the Coalition’s figures were more accurate than Treasury’s), as evidenced by a host of other clues and tells.

      This situation is no different. Treasury is completely compromised, and their predictably sanguine forecasts on the effect of the Carbon Tax are to be taken entirely in this context. There is just one thing and one thing only we voters can be sure of, and that is that this government’s only known mode of operation is to over-promise and under-deliver, to make optimistic predictions and then have to face up to pessimistic realities, and to assume the best without preparing for the worst.

      There is every possibility that our once thriving economy could be in recession in merely three months time, and it is extremely irresponsible of the government now to be focusing on imposing a tax on productivity at this time instead figuring out a way to get our economy back on track and strong again like it was in the good old Howard days.

      Reply

    • thatmosis says:

      04:43am | 08/06/11

      The modelling is akin to someone trying to make a model of the QE2 with the pieces from a Titanic kit. It doesnt compute. Have a good look at the Committee and we can all see the problem, wanna bes and swollen heads one and all and not one has the expertise to handle “all” the scientific information that is available but will decide on their own beliefs instead. This committee shows just how far the Government has sunk trying to convince themselves and the public that this new tax will save the planet when even the most fervent believer must admit it will do nothing except cause pain and suffering to the people of Australia for no discernable decrease in CO2. We are in the hands of people who’s agenda is their own and their findings such as they are are tainted with what they believe and not backed up by solid evidence. We are being taken down a path that will see Australia become the laughing stock of the world as our exports become too expensive and our cost of living skyrockets to appease the few nutters that belive the sky is falling.

      Reply

    • Lapun says:

      11:18am | 08/06/11

      Nobody should be too worried about Tony Windsor’s vote.  He is a master of posturing and in the process getting publicity for himself.  There is absolutely no doubt that when the time comes, for whatever reason he conjures up, his vote will go the way of the Government.    Nothing like self-preservation!

      Reply

    • Sick of Stupid Greens says:

      12:07pm | 08/06/11

      We should go to the Polls over the Activity Tax. There is no scientific basis for it - it’s a wealth distribution tax, part of the watermelon agenda. It can’t survive the hardsh light of reality - only propaganda and spin can save it.

      Reply

    • Harquebus says:

      01:02pm | 08/06/11

      The biggest joke is, there ain’t no such thing a renewable energy. I am having a great laugh watching these idiots try to explain perpetual energy and taxing us into using it.

      Reply

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      02:32pm | 08/06/11

      This is not a committee it is a sort of old-style Socialist Politburo.
      It is too up itself & arrogant, yet at the same time scared shitless, to conduct any discission let alone have an open debate.
      They seem to think that a debate is between people all of whom believe the same thing.
      It’s membership is restricted to only those who believe the same thing.
      You cannot have a debate without opposing views being brought into play.
      It is quite impossible.
      Just who are on this inane committee?
      ALP appointees - at least they do have a respectable percentage of the National Vote.
      The Greens: 1 House of Reps member with a tiny majority &, as so ably pointed out by ALP Great Paul Keating, the rest come from that House of Non-Representative Swill the Senate
      The rest? Independents, two of whom, it has been widely reported, went against the wishes of the vast majority within their electorates & sided with the ALP. They are, on a National scale, irrelevant & have far too much control.
      The other is nothing more than a pseudo-ALP MP & is every bit as unrepresentative & irrelevant to Australia as the others. He has far too much influence given his very tiny electoral base. The ALP &, yes, the Libs, will do their damndest to unseat him in 2013. Just watch the 100s of 1000s of dollars they will pour into that electorate.
      Gillard & Swan refused to allow those Swan referred to as “Scoundrels” to even be allowed to take part in this farce. Why? Because some, even very moderate but pro-climate change people, had questions or some doubts about the entire science of Climate Change being forced down our throats by the Unelected Federal Australian Greens Government of Australia and their sidekicks the ALP.

      Reply

    • TheRaptured says:

      10:20am | 09/06/11

      “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order”!

      Mikhail Gorbachev quoted in, “A special report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its war on Mankind” by Marion Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review, 1996, p.5).

      Reply

    • Twiggy says:

      11:15am | 14/06/11

      Stands back from the keyboard in amazement! Thkans!

      Reply

    • Darnesha says:

      04:57pm | 14/06/11

      More posts of this quialty. Not the usual c***, please

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 17 May 12 01:10PM

RT @toplitigator: @farrm51 I think I have found the winner: 'Bladder and Bowel Website'

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 17 May 12 12:53PM

RT @toplitigator: @farrm51 Very difficult to believe the excitment of 'Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme' website doesn't have ppl all over it.

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 17 May 12 12:52PM

RT @toplitigator: @farrm51 As for the 'Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping' website, just how do you contain your excitement?

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 17 May 12 12:38PM

RT @lynlinking: @farrm51 Well the links should be posted on Twitter more, by people that care about the Government. Perhaps the MSM could help cheers lyn

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Reports of Ron Paul’s death are greatly exaggerated

by Paul Toohey

1

Reports of Ron Paul’s death are greatly exaggerated

Reports of Ron Paul’s political demise have been greatly exaggerated and his tactical genius is…

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

by Anthony Sharwood

99

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not…

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

by Richard Marles

74

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

Ten million children vaccinated. 2.5 million people with access to safe drinking water. And 30 million…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Real women like men who drink beer

Real women like men who drink beer

British comedian John Cleese calls them “beer fairies”.  It’s a euphemism for… Read more

198 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed