Just like Medicare, except Australians don’t want it

Dash says:

06:23am | 13/10/11

That’s funny because I don’t understand how anyone could vote for a decietful pack of socialist morons who are using the environment as an excuse to redistribute the nations wealth and in three years time redirect our wealth overseas to shonky carbon credit salesmen!

I don’t understand why the ALP continue to want to punish the people who educate themselves, work hard and strive for a better life for themselves and are successful.

I dont understand why the ALP are run by union hacks when unions represent less than 14percent of the people working and their members contribute less than 5percent of the PAYG tax base?

I don’t understand how people continue to fall for the ALPs lies! Grocery choice, fuelwatch, 260 childcare centres, the coast guard, root and branch tax reform, cheaper better childcare, more affordable housing and all the other promises down the drain. Not to mention East Timor, Malaysia, insulation, green loans etc.

I don’t understand why the ALP has allowed its party to be controlled by the socialist faction who are allowing the greens to dictate policy.

I don’t understand why the independants sold out their conservative electorates for the ALP.

I don’t understand why my family has to fork out over 1200 dollars for the carbon tax with no compensation, when families who pollute more end up hundreds of dollars better off and the coal and steel industries get compensated for polluting! I don’t understand how that’s making the big polluters pay?

And I don’t understand why the government sees this as the right time to inflict a trillion dollar cost on our economy?

Oh, nor do I understand why the ALP cover up fraud, why the union movement issue death threats or give 1.3mllion of their members subs to GetUp!

Max Vaunted says:

07:05am | 13/10/11

Negative? What’s negative about supporting the first political leader to call bullshit on the gross hyperbole, exaggerations and outright lies being propagated by the Greens, the corrupted IPCC and the professional environmental lobby? What history will show is that Abbott’s campaign has been masterfully subtle and devastating. And there’s nothing negative about his constant opposition to the amateur-hour incompetence and relentless profligacy that has characterised every facet of Australian government from the moment that Kevin Rudd took office; it’s no more than we should expect from the Opposition; that’s what opposition is for.

onlooker says:

07:06am | 13/10/11

They depress me, I try to keep hostility at a very very low level in my life and yet every time I turn on the news it seems, there is Tony Abbott or some snarling Liberal and they are so negative and hostile. Shame really because I love the news and lately I just turn it off. A smile and some laughter would be nice, seems to be too big an ask.

David says:

07:22am | 13/10/11

Problems for Australia ? We are are a young country , in fact the infants in the world of old and great populations and we will take a long time to grow up so there will be problems . The Labor dictum of ‘’ soaking the rich ‘’ will never work here because we need people with foresight who will support the ‘‘rich ‘’ so that real jobs will be created and profits made . These socialists will tax the people to the limit . Forget about compensation for the carbon tax - that’s smoke and mirrors stuff .
Bring on the Libs and let’s forge ahead . May those lying socialist criminals rot in their soon to come graves .
I am old pensioner but still working part time to survive and have seen quite a few governments and there is no doubt whatsoever that if it was not for the Libs we would still be in deep faecal matter with thanks to old Gough .
Apparently you are the negative bastard !!!!

dovif says:

07:23am | 13/10/11

Tony Abbott was part of the last competent government in Australia. Therefore most Australians have much more faith in an Abbott led government, then our current government. Who sold out the Australian people to the jobs destroying Greens

Quite simply, when the grocery and power bill goes up next year and people loses their jobs like they did with the ETS in Europe, blame this incompetent Green led government

acotrel says:

07:38am | 13/10/11

@onlooker
’ every time I turn on the news it seems, there is Tony Abbott or some snarling Liberal and they are so negative and hostile.’

They are only like that because they are BAD LOSERS !

Paul says:

07:48am | 13/10/11

Get your hand off it acotrel.

They are in opposition. Its their job to say no to bad policy, and hold the government accountable for its policy failures.

During the campaigning stage of an election, policies are put on display, and voters can make up their mind.

It is the same with EVERY opposition.

The constant accusations of ‘nothing but negativity’ is old, boring, and given (from your posts) you are clearly an intelligent person, the argument does not do that intelligence justice.

dovif says:

07:53am | 13/10/11

onlooker

The ALP are actually worst then Abbott, the ALP started the opposed everything to try to take power trick. The last opposition that was constructive was the Liberals, who help passed a lot of Paul Keating and Bob Hawkes’ reforms.

The ALP was against the GST, eventhrough Paul Keating had first proposed it, they were against waterfront reform and mining sector reform, that help made us the lucky country, they were against every major reform of the Howard government.

The different between today’s ALP and the Howard Liberals, is that today’s ALP stuffs up so much more, that there is a lot more to be negative about

But Keating, Beasley, Latham, Crean was all like Abbott, they opposed everything. The only difference is that this ALP is a bad government

mammal says:

08:03am | 13/10/11

those negative bastards..well I am old enough to have seen Keating propose a GST in government and be reelected by opposing it…..dont look for consistency or integrity in politics..look who gets the votes…bye bye Julia

Nick says:

08:10am | 13/10/11

Well said Dash! you have described exactly why the polls are heading south for Labor .Its only the rusted on and the socialists (commies) left in this country that don’t understand how much damage this lot is doing.

Mickey T says:

08:19am | 13/10/11

Is there anything Dash understands?

Peter says:

08:20am | 13/10/11

@onlooker,that is because you either are too naive or dumb to understand the reality of this failed government.Have a read of Dash’s comments and you might then realise why the majority of Australians are truly worried.

acotrel says:

08:28am | 13/10/11

@Paul
‘They are in opposition. Its their job to say no to bad policy, and hold the government accountable for its policy failures.’

So that’s an excuse for poisonous rhetoric ?  I’ve been conscious of politics for about 60 years .  We’ve never before had a parliament with so much toxicity ! How did we ever manage in the past without someone like Tarzan’s slimy offsider doing his thing ? He really should not be in parliament, he should rejoin the seminary, and use his poison to save souls !

L says:

09:17am | 13/10/11

Here’s a tip. Totally OT but galling to the exteme. Remove the bloody ‘!’ and ‘?’ from the keyboard.  You have absolutely no idea how or when to use them.

Your posts look like a child’s scribble.

Capitalist Morons says:

09:20am | 13/10/11

Dash’s comment is just News Ltd. conservative rubbish. Lies and innuendo they have been spreading for years.
Wake up to yourselves.

BP says:

09:22am | 13/10/11

@acotrel. When bad policy is promulgated it is the oppositions job to ensure that it is fought tooth and nail every inch of the way. Of course the opposition is negative in almost everything they have to say, the current government have made devising and trying to implement bad policy an art form.

Poisonous policy has to be fought in order to highlight exactly how bad the policy is. The worst thing is that without a mandate, this government is attaching conditions to its legislation that attempt to lock out or make too expensive to the electorate any possible changes by a newly elected government.

I can’t wait until after the next election when Labor are back out in the political wilderness and the Coalition start taking a leaf out of this particular book. The howls of outrage from the currently silent left will be deafening, protesting that it isn’t right to lock in laws that can’t be repealed.

You come across as a smart person in some of your posts but YOUR hatred and negativity toward anything the Coalition have to say appears to be blunting your intellect. I read most of your posts for the times you do have a valid point, however I find that I have to skip a lot of your posts due to your own poisonous rhetoric. You are almost the classic example of a pot calling a kettle black.

SusanM says:

10:31am | 13/10/11

BRAVO @Dash

You say it all really….I thank you

Economist says:

11:19am | 13/10/11

@Dash, I don’t understand how Australian’s accept higher costs of living and a reduced standard of living thanks to the GFC. Higher interest than otherwise would have been, due to increased costs of borrowing funds. Trillions in forgone income lost from superannuation, figures far greater than Dr Ergas’ estimates of the trillion dollar cost of the carbon tax till 2050.

I don’t understand how potential increases in unemployment will be blamed on the carbon tax/price when the deregulated finance markets caused far more unemployment.

I don’t understand how no one has been held accountable for the GFC and it’s effectively business as usual.

I don’t understand people that criticise stimulus packages in general but fail to acknowledge that China’s stimulus package helped our economy.

I don’t understand that cost blow outs on government projects of up to 10% are considered the end of the world, yet the same criticism doesn’t occur when cost blowouts of the same magnitude occur in mining and construction projects, and are effectively ignored as though they don’t increase the prices we pay.

I don’t understand that people don’t understand that price signals from the carbon tax/price will change behaviour as it does with other goods and services we consume.

I do understand the argument that a better postition would be to pass the legislation to facilitate the carbon tax/price but not implement it until other nations, mainly our trading partners implemented similar schemes.

Clayton says:

12:00pm | 13/10/11

Conveniently ignored in this debate, is the vitriolic and poisonous diatribe from Paul Keating, Beasley, Mark Latham ( promoted from behind the bench by Julia Gillard) and Rudd - all negative and all opposing John Howard’s policies.

Keith Hammersmith says:

12:06pm | 13/10/11

Hey Acotrel, Watch or listen to an interview with Gillard or swan or any labor front bencher about the carbon tax or the failed Malaysia deal,  now COUNT how many times they mention or blame Tony Abbott for not agreeing with them.  You think it is just tony being negative - seriously Labor blame all their problems on Tony,  and that’s not negative??  In fact like yourself, they cant shut up about tony abbott.
I guess that happens when all else has failed,  blame Abbott.

Murray says:

12:10pm | 13/10/11

I simply cannot understand why Australians are so apathetic as to continualy vote for the ALP, Libs or Greens.
These utter mongrels could not give a stuff about the country and only have a vision that lasts until the next election.
Maybe we need a benevolent dictator to take control for a decade and bring this country to its senses - we are in a lucky position (through mineral wealth and recent demand)  but the opportunities are being wasted by incompetent party hacks exemplified by Swan, Hockey and Robb - the 3 stooges with big mouths and little competency.

John A Neve says:

12:13pm | 13/10/11

Please,please,let’s just move on.
The continually regurgitated comments on this topic have become boring.
Tony has promised to repeal this legistlation if elected. It does not come into force for some months and no one, I repeat, no one knows how it will impact on us.
I can’t wait to read the posts on this site six months after it comes into being.
Tony is the next best thing to the Pied Pipper, it must be the way he plays with his whistle and we all know where he tucks it, don’t we?

Felipe says:

12:27pm | 13/10/11

You are being negative acotrel.  What is your evidence of fact that all these works will disappear.  When Tony Abbott says no to the carbon tax it was because Gillard herself did not believe in it before the election or she really really lied to everyone.  Constructive is a word that can work both ways.  Tony Abbott is constructive in his criticisms of the carbon tax because it will be a very painful exercise for everybody without exception.  This carbon tax is a money merry go round whether you believe it or not.  And the fact that Labor and Gillard have made this tax a shackle to prevent dismantling by a Coalition government without huge costs is beyond everybody’s comprehension.  That is labor for you a picture of cowards in government.

dovif says:

12:40pm | 13/10/11

Keith

The ALP cannot point to their horrific record of failures and sellouts to get re-elected of course they have to find someone to blame

Lukew says:

12:47pm | 13/10/11

I agree with Dash

dovif says:

02:13pm | 13/10/11

John A Neve

Of course we know what is going to happen, the EU have a ETS for the last 6 years so we can see what will happen.

The EU has flooded the market to drive down the prices of the carbon permits to 6 Euros ($9 AU) because of the damage being done to the EU economy. We plans a carbon tax more then 4 times the EU pricing

There has been little green jobs created in Europe, most of them are in Wind farms and Nuclear. The Wind farms are a waste of taxpayers money, and are highly unprofitable. The EU imports millions of Solar panels, these are made in China

Recently there were calls in the EU to have a carbon tariff, to reduce the amount of jobs lost due to their ETS.

The EU was smart, they hand out free carbon permits to every industry that might be affected by cheaper foreign trade. However this has not stopped the job losses. Of course, the ALP are not smart enought to give as much help to Australian companies

sandra says:

03:30pm | 13/10/11

Abbotts job is opposition leader—this means to OPPOSE bad legislation especially when the electorate have been lied to about its existance. sad this has to be explained to you!!!  But then you are a labor rusted on so understandable

Noah says:

04:54pm | 13/10/11

Poor Dash, has to make stuff up so his situation sounds worse than it really is… Don’t worry mate, it worked, you got some pity from SusanM and a few others..

Funny though you mention you pay 1200 with no compensation.  I guess though some people will lie for pity.. None here though, it was an amusing read, after reading it though I CAN understand why you understand so little..

Malcolm says:

05:13pm | 13/10/11

@ acotrel.  You’re such a bunny.  We’re all pwned.  (Foster’s now too) We’re not a real country. The sooner your generation pushes off so we can get our own head of State the sooner Australia can start creating it’s history.

@ dovif.  Yep.  Not smart enough to realise they’re being played from beyond our borders.

@ Murray.  Perhaps because Aussies aren’t actually apathetic. They’re actually clued up to the fact that Australia isn’t a reeal country and that Parliament is a bit of a side show. Nothing will change while our head of state has interests in other counties (that oft conflict with ours). Australia will remain a Grabocracy.  One giant exercise in redistributing the wealth of this abundant land we swiped of the Aborigines.

@ Economist Yep.  Can’t have those antipodeans getting all rich and then coming over here and you know ... like .. buying our newspapers n stuff.

Sodapoppy says:

06:26pm | 13/10/11

Well, Alcatrol, you know what Julian Burnside thinks of Tony Abbott! Well, until he got a severe dose of guilt diahorrea! Coloured yellow!  But just to point out, if you’re up to thinking outside the Labor circle of thought. Aren’t you aware Bob Creepy and his Green Frighteners are playing Gillard like a flathead on a hook. They force her to make the laws they want, but she has to cry for Tony Abbott to support her on the laws she wants. How dumb is Laboy?

Think says:

01:32am | 22/04/12

You’re right, despite what the paid right-wing trolls here are spewing. the Noalition hasn’t got an original idea between; all they can do or want to do is push Australia back into a Right-wing, misogynist, religious darkage. Everywhere we look, far Right bias; the far Right have an absolute monopoly on mass media in this country and daily stack the social media sites with their astro-turfing mud flingers and lying demagogues. Team Abbott are so exetremely regressive and out of touch with both normal Australians (no Rich or inbred) and material reality itself, we should all be justifiably afraid. It is no exaggeration to say Abbott will ruin this nation setting it back 100s of years; because everything he and his wealthy elitist puppet masters hate is everything decent, thinking Australia workers fought for for generations with blood, sweat and tears; individually contributing to movements that made a real difference. If people wont to live in a mean, backward, class riddled, unenlightened, authoritarian corporate plutocracy; they should immigrate to the USA and stopping trying to ruin Australia for most of us. Shame on the thoughtless and immoral Right of this country; they are a detriment to us all and future generations.

max headroom says:

06:15am | 13/10/11

What’s going to really hurt labor is the majority of people who feel offended by the passing of this bill are traditional labor voters. Its mostly green and the elites and the canberra press gallery who really favour this the rest of us are doing it tough and we doubt this government’s ability to control the outcomes. It’s actually a little scary we just don’t believe they have the capacity to put a cohesive and workable plan together from past performances. From all those smiling faces yesterday in parliament maybe 50 percent will be out of a job come the next election

ALP = gone says:

07:25am | 13/10/11

At least 3 terms, I know at least 30 people in my office, who will vote Liberals for the first time next election and they cannot wait for the chance to kick Labor out, If there is a center left alternative, this would be the end of the ALP

MarkS says:

08:02am | 13/10/11

I have never voted for the missnamed liberals in my life. Even in the last NSW election I just could not do it. Told myself that my vote was not needed to get rid of the NSW ALP government.

Next Federal election, I will not have have certainly & will be forced much to my disgust to vote for the tories.

Don says:

08:26am | 13/10/11

Only three terms, Angela ,  can’t you make it six ?  This fool carbon business , which so many scientists involved with the ICCC are now saying the whole thing has been turned political , and has little or no effect on the Environment . People like onlooker may well not like Tony Abbott , tough . Surely Labor has better people than the ones at the top .

LNP = Gone says:

08:35am | 13/10/11

Labor will continue to govern for at least 3 more terms, I know at least 30 people in my office, who will vote Labor for the first time next election and they cannot wait for the chance to send a message to the do NOthing conservatives to get their act together, purge the right wing extremists and come up with some alternative policy

Peter says:

09:16am | 13/10/11

Abbott high stakes game has come to an end.
Having bet his political life on preventing the Carbon scheme from being enacted, the little credibility he had is now gone.
What the polls turn against him.
Will he see out the year?

Son of Anarchy says:

09:39am | 13/10/11

Abbott had credibility?
I must have missed that millisecond.

bye bye Abbott and good riddance to bad rubbish.

RIP ALP RIP says:

09:54am | 13/10/11

LNP = Gone

Maybe you need to check the polling

29% is an important number, almost 3 out of 4 people are not supporting the ALP

-40% is another important number, this is the net satisfaction for the worst MP in our time

Nonmus says:

09:57am | 13/10/11

Lovely thoughts @MarkS, but you must be harking back to the Old Dart - there are no Tories in Australia.

Super D says:

10:15am | 13/10/11

@LNP = Gone - by office do you mean Centrelink Office?

RyaN says:

10:26am | 13/10/11

@Peter: You keep living in dream land buddy, you better get used to having him as your prime minister because that is what he is going to be for a very long time after this betrayal. You have only the Labor party to blame for this and what is to come.

Bald Eagle says:

10:30am | 13/10/11

No Super D.
I work within the ASX and we’re loving this.

Old Cobber says:

11:26am | 13/10/11

@Acotrel, You obviously had nothing to play with as a child. Now, son, here,s something to lighten that dark Socialist space between your ears take a look at positively obscene shot of Rudd tongueing Gillard!
Judas could not have done better.

Maree says:

03:03pm | 13/10/11

Angel. She is celebrating how she was able to surrender to the nit wit greens, and successfully ‘conned’ most of the AUSTRALIAN public. For a very ordinary politician, I would say ‘well done’. I can now look at a used car salesman and know I would trust him more than the PM.

Arthur says:

06:16am | 13/10/11

I’m furious.

I want industrial laws that protect workers…...BUT…...I don’t want all this other rubbish the Labor party stands for. As you say Against the Man. Labor are finished. They’ll be crucified at the next election. That scares me because of what those other fools wanted to do with workchoices. I’d like the media to press LNP all the way to the election to not only have repealing this tax as a “blood” promise” but also some “blood” promises re industrial relations.

What’s going on in Bligh???? State bi-election?

Nathan says:

06:34am | 13/10/11

Where did you pull the stat 80% don’t want it?

Nonmus says:

07:21am | 13/10/11

Probably miss-typed; the national stat is +/-60%, including Tasmania where many strange customs abound, and it’s more like 90% in my workplace of 30+ graduate engineers. Gillard should enjoy her kissy-kissy giggle fest while she can because the ALP will definitely suffer for this new betrayal.

NicoleG says:

08:31am | 13/10/11

Here you go Nathan

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/

Check ou the poll.

Tell It Like It Is says:

08:57am | 13/10/11

I totally agree. Where’s the victory in an alleged democratic country going against the wishes of the majority!  And these politicians are in no better position than the average voter to make a decision on such matters and have access to no more information or facts. All political. Even if the carbon tax was right, it’s definitely for the wrong reason and MOST DEFINITELY at the wrong time and time in history. Reckless governance and grandstanding.

Thomas says:

07:18am | 13/10/11

Nathan, can you explain why we need to tax carbon if there will be no change at all?
Can you point me to a study that exactly determines how much temperature rise will be averted by this tax.

This tax borderlines, no, it is in the realms of hard core basket case insanity.

Why on earth would you hinder business if there is zero gain?

Col. of Blackburn says:

07:19am | 13/10/11

@Nathan

‘we need to price carbon….’

Why?

David says:

07:30am | 13/10/11

Why carbon taxing anyway . Why not change the whole taxation system to make it fairer .
The laborites have no idea because of their communistic bent .

dovif says:

07:30am | 13/10/11

Nathan

This will not be effective, the only thing it will do is cost tens of thousands of jobs in Australia, which happened with the ETS in Europe.

As long as China and India are increasing their emittion at their current rate and the US do nothing. Nothing we will do will matter.

Dash says:

08:14am | 13/10/11

@Nathan - do we need a socialist exercise in wealth redistribution with it though? What point is a “price on Carbon” when that price is eliminated by compensation to the Coal and Steel industries? It’s socialism dressed up as environmentalism. The Greens have formed an entire party built on the basis of that fraud.

Everything that depends on electricity is going up. Way to go ALP you morons!

Wasted says:

08:22am | 13/10/11

Nathan must be 26 years old and still live at home in his parents mortgaged house, they are also probaly paying for Nathan to go to Uni and let him use their car on weekends….Nathan needs to get into the real world!  The tax will not protect Australia from the rest of the world, we are not fenced off from the rest of the world…as much as the Greens and Labor like to pretend we are….this tax is to pay for all the stuff ups in the last 4 years….we will all be paying for Labor’s entry into Government for a long time.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

03:49pm | 13/10/11

“we need to price carbon, not really sure if this is the answer but hopefully it leads onto something that is more likely to be effective” - looks like the outcome of the modelling done by the Labor government for the carbon tax - half-arse and devoid of facts. Did you copy this from the Labor Party memo Nathan?

sunny says:

10:30pm | 13/10/11

The world needs to price carbon. This is not a localised or fleeting problem. Australia can’t say to the rest of the world “you all need to price carbon” without first walking the walk. Which thankfully we now do.

acotrel says:

06:07am | 13/10/11

@Arthur
‘For me this is the puzzling bit.  Perhaps there actually is, albeit misdirected and illogical, real conviction. ‘

Not ‘conviction’ - scientific reason ! It is about managing the risk !

max headroom says:

06:20am | 13/10/11

acotrel managing the risk by reducing temps in 20 years by .0002 of a percent. yahoo what a bargain we have just saved the snow fields! Far better we plan to adapt by using nuclear and town planning and population control and irrigation and in the north of Australia etc. this folly is pain with no gain.

Arthur says:

06:21am | 13/10/11

No acotrel. The scientific risk tells us there is climate change occurring.

A carbon tax will do nothing to change that. You use twisted logic, as Labor does, to come to a carbon tax.

Managing the risk would mean leaving it in the ground. Short of that, it ain’t achieving anything but satisfying illogical ideology..

Dash says:

06:35am | 13/10/11

And yet the science says this policy will not impact global temperatures by a single degree!

Why do we need to use the environment as an excuse to redistribute wealth? Why do we need to implement a policy that redirects the nations wealth to carbon credit salesmen overseas when that money couuld be retained here?

This I not about the environment! Its socialist tax policy by stealth. Ecerything that you consume that relies on electricity is going up! For nil net gain to the environment! Congratulations ALP you deceitful pack of morons!

The science is in says:

07:41am | 13/10/11

An interesting scientific research report last week said that there is evidence that the rate of photosynthesis is increasing rapidly.  Could this be nature’s way of taking advantage of all that lovely CO2 to grow and reproduce furiously?  Climate change has been going on for eons, long before humans came along, and somehow the world survives and will survive the virus called humankind.

dovif says:

07:57am | 13/10/11

Arthur
There is no real conviction. Gillard was desperate to form government, so she sold us out to the Greens, there is no conviction necessary.

dovif says:

08:04am | 13/10/11

Ace troll

The European had been “managing the risk” at a cost of hundreds of thousands of jobs for 6-7 years now, has climate change stopped yet?

And Europe do not rely on coal, unlike us, they get a large portion of their energy from Nuclear

Christian Real says:

08:06am | 13/10/11

dash
The only ones that are being decitful is Tony Abbott and those condoning his misleading lies.
Before the last federal election Julia Gillard said that she would legislate a carbon price in her next term,and she has done that and kept her promise.
The only one calling it a ‘Carbon Tax” is Tony Abbott and his rabble of supporters.
This extract is from a story in “The Australian”, “Julia Gillard’s carbon price promise”, written on August 29. 2010 @ 12 AM and written by Paul Kelly and Dennis Shanahan.
“Julia Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.”

Arthur says:

08:22am | 13/10/11

@dovif…“so she sold us out to the Greens, there is no conviction necessary. “

I know what you mean. What doesn’t make sense to me is, wouldn’t be less politically damaging to renege on the Greens instead of angering 60 to 80% of voters? The Greens would have just sulked, but would never gone to an election and given up their self serving positions.

Arthur says:

08:29am | 13/10/11

@The science is in

I’ve read similar things years ago that suggested phytoplankton would grow more actively in a richer carbon environment. Easily proven in the lab I guess. Either way, I think there’s more than enough proof to suggest we should be doing stuff to fix (as opposed to, make less worse) the environment. This stuff obviously wouldn’t include the ridiculous, achieve nothing carbon tax.

Dash says:

08:51am | 13/10/11

@Christian Real - how much compensation do you get from this policy? Please let us know so that we can evaluate your support for this deceit.

Just to clarify, the direct quotes are:

Julia Gillard - “There shall be no Carbon Tax Under the Government I lead”

Wayne Swan -  “it is a hysterical allegation that we are moving to a carbon tax”

Yesterday they delivered a carbon tax. Not only that, they are actively redistributing peoples wealth from those who are sucessfully working hard and paying lots of tax, to those on the welfare take, those still living at home and those paying little if any tax. That’s socialist bullshit and it has nothing to do with the environment. And the only reason I can think of for your support, is that you are on the ALP gravy train while the rest of us work!

nonmus says:

09:16am | 13/10/11

@ Christian Real, not very Christian to spread misinformation. Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMVc0IbtyAQ

RyaN says:

10:31am | 13/10/11

@acotrel: care to point to any time in history where humans have been able to manipulate the weather? I mean this is what we are claiming we want to do right, we want to stop climate change, somehow we are going to stop the climate changing?
What utter tripe and just an abysmal fraud!

RyaN says:

10:35am | 13/10/11

@Christian Real: The ones being deceitful is you and your Labor mates!
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-finally-admits-its-a-tax/story-e6freuzr-1226085918836

Whats that Christian, that your credibility shot to hell. Oh well!

andye says:

12:20am | 14/10/11

@nonmus - Check this out.

Tony Abbott: “If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax? Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why? not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price on carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74#!

Christian Real says:

06:03am | 14/10/11

Dash
In every article I have pulled from online newspapers Julia Gillard has said that she will put a price on carbon, she has done that, she has put a price on carbon
The only one that has called it a great new tax or carbon tax is Tony Abbott and his supporters.
The passing of the price on carbon in Parliament was yet another defeat for a negative opposition Leader like Tony Abbott

Wayne Kerr says:

06:34am | 13/10/11

@Mahrat,  While I’m not a big fan of Tony Abbott, As I posted yesterday in another Punch article,  there was no way Tony Abbot could get any of the Independants to vote aggainst the Carbon Tax.

The ALP only got the majority Government becasue they negotiated the support of the Independants and the Greens based on getting in some sort of ETS as well as any other interestes they had..

No way would any of the Independants then turn around and vote against the tax regardless of who tried to convnce them.

I think the LNP have done a good job of convincing the public that this tax is a bad thing as reflected in the Polls the other day

John Jones says:

06:57am | 13/10/11

@ Mahhrat - Could it be that Tony had nothing to offer in exchange for their votes!! Only the Government is in a position to offer inducements and these Independents are masters of grabbing whatever they can in exchange for votes with the merits of voting against legislation completely irrelevent,

acotrel says:

07:15am | 13/10/11

@John Jones
’ Only the Government is in a position to offer inducements’
You are the ultimate victim ! Tony Abbott would have been leading the government ! He could have offered plenty of inducements ! ! !  He was simply completely incapable of negotiating - it’s a flaw in his character !  It’s impossible for him to be PM of Australia even for a short time!

Nathan says:

07:15am | 13/10/11

@John Jones
Maybe Tony should not of screwed up in the negotiations so badly. You know little things like not cooking the books then this would not be happening.

Woff says:

07:26am | 13/10/11

“Gillard promised to not do this under any government she led”

Does this mean once the senate passes it that she will resign?

dovif says:

08:33am | 13/10/11

Nathan and Acrotel

Maybe Abbott did not have as much to give in negotiation and Gillard had too much to lose. I cannot see Abbott selling Australian out like Gillard did.

Mahhrat
The Independants does not want another election, their 5 seconds of fame ends with the end of this government, they are not going to rock the boat, Oakshoot and Windsor have no chance to win at the next election and Wilkie is only backing it, so that he might get his Pokie law changes

Mahhrat says:

08:43am | 13/10/11

@Wayne, I don’t disagree with your statement per se, but you presume that meant that he’s only had this opportunity to sway them.

The man has had since the election to sway them - or at least compromise - or reach some kind of bipartisan base - or do SOMETHING on ANY TOPIC to get them to swing.

Part of the “great fear” of a minority government is it gets stopped on all kinds of legislation and no work of note gets done, exactly because nobody is ever sure who’s going to vote for what.

There is very precious little of that on ANY of the topics we’ve so far seen.  Given he only needs one vote to go his way twice to start trigger a double dissolution, his failure to prevent any of the 150 or so pieces of legislation so far clearing the lower house is not a good record, given his apparently “powerful positions” within the community!

Borderer says:

10:43am | 13/10/11

It’s a house of cards situation, if the independants don’t back the tax, the greens don’t back Labour, Labour lose government and can’t deliver on the pieces of silver. You’ll notice that the independants haven’t had their policy payments yet, Julia can’t have them having a moral crisis too soon.

Arthur says:

06:05am | 13/10/11

“I’m still struggling to understand how a party who has shown such little respect for democracy can ever hope to win an election again.”

I don’t get it either Super D. It makes no sense. All those Labor politicians that we all well know are self serving. There MUST be more to the plan. Hopefully we are not dumb enough to let them take us any further down the track of their ridiculous socialism.

acotrel says:

06:13am | 13/10/11

@superD
You forgot to mention ‘freedom of speech’ ! !

Nathan says:

06:37am | 13/10/11

Did we get to vote on the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, if you are worried about the money they cost far more. Where was the moral outcry then

Dash says:

06:42am | 13/10/11

Welcome to the Australian Socialist Republic!

Trevor says:

06:59am | 13/10/11

@Supes

“If the world doesn’t take significant action to make binding agreements then it won’t be hard to paint our Government as not only out of touch with the electorate but out of step with the world.”

What would you right wingers think if the rest of the world does follow Australia’s lead, or even worse, an alternative energy industry grows here? Will there ever be a point at which you will concede that the Carbon Tax was a good idea?

jg says:

07:41am | 13/10/11

What would you right wingers think if the rest of the world does follow Australia’s lead

And if the rest of the world does stuff all, which is highly likely, will the ALP withdraw the tax?

Arthur says:

07:45am | 13/10/11

“Will there ever be a point at which you will concede that the Carbon Tax was a good idea?”

Absolutely. BUT. It’s not. I can tell you why.

It won’t stop the entire eventual consumption of fossil fuel. So, with new innovation or not, it achieves nothing. If all countries adopt a carbon tax (they won’t because their voters are smarter than us) it will achieves nothing.

In fact it achieves less than nothing, because for this green bloke, and no doubt many others, I can no longer hear the word environment without cringing.

This government and horrifyingly, the Greens, are dithering with this while the real issue, horrendous over population both here and over seas goes unsaid, not mentioned, ignored, pushed aside.

We are mad, and time will prove something Trevor, and that is we had a chance to do something to save the planet and put most things in front of it. In the case of the carbon tax, that something is socialism. Don’t be fooled. It is a con.

Ask Tim Flannery. Hey Tim, do you think the biggest environmental problem is over population or carbon pollution? Tim Flannery says we should have no more than a population of 12 million in Australia. We don’t hear much about that do we? Did we hear anything re population come from the environmental gab fest in wherever it was? No. Because big business don’t like declining populations so politicians don’t like declining populations. It’s time people educated themselves, stop believing the Labor lies and get someone in that will reduce population.

This debate should go down in history as the biggest scam ever. At the expense of humanity itself.

Dash says:

08:08am | 13/10/11

Trevor, If this is about the environment, why do we need a socialist policy of wealth redistribution? That’s the point. It’s not about doing the right thing by the environment. This policy is not about the environment. It’s about redistributing the nations wealth.

Why do we need to send the revenue base of this policy overseas? It’s stupidity. Even if you agree that we need to cost carbon, why should that revenue be sent to shonky carbon credit salsemen overseas. That’s revenue lost to our country forever on the promise that some fool in Europe or Asia will plant a tree. Give me a freakin break!

The point is, that prople do not agree with the way this has been rolled out. Firstly it is being done on the back of an election eve lie. People feel betrayed and rightly so. Then the ALP tell us its about making big polluters pay, yet they are discriminating against households on the basis of income. Not on the basis of pollution, not on the basis of carbon footprint . All the ALP and greens are interested in is what we earn! And why? Because they are using the environment as an excuse for a socialist exercise in redistributing wealth. That’s all this is.

The science is clear on the fact that this policy will have nil impact on the global environment! We are going to sell coal to China in increased quantities year after year for at least the next 10 years! And the ALP are compensating the industries providing the means to pollute, namely the coal and steel industries.

Those people expected to pay for the flood levy are the ones now expected to pay for this carbon tax. And they just happen to come from a demographic which is not traditionally ALP! Funny that!

If you are educated, not a union member, work hard to make a better life for yourself and your family and are successful, you have a massive ALP target on your back. If you are 20something living at home, pay little if any tax, or are sitting on your arse on welfare, the ALP rewards you. That’s why people are pissed off!

It’s the same people, time and time again who are doing the heavy financial lifting for this country. And those people are now seriously fed up! Why work hard if your government just takes it from you to give to someone who’s bludging on a beach somewhere? It’s bloody wrong.

Arthur says:

08:38am | 13/10/11

“And those people are now seriously fed up! Why work hard if your government just takes it from you to give to someone who’s bludging on a beach somewhere?”

Eventually we wouldn’t work hard Dash. But by the time the individuals give up and do less, probably about where we are now, the country’s broke. And then, the system must change, that would also be about now. The people with the brains and skills will again be the ones that thrive and hopefully we can recover from the western curse of socialism

Trevor says:

10:41am | 13/10/11

@ JG
“And if the rest of the world does stuff all, which is highly likely, will the ALP withdraw the tax?”

Well that would depend on the level of success in building an alternative energy industry and other associated benefits that are realised.  However if the ALP can weather the Murdoch-led media storm I would think that it would be too firmly entrenched by the time of the next election to repeal. Remember Kim Beasley originally wanted to repeal the GST?

@ Arthur
“It won’t stop the entire eventual consumption of fossil fuel. So, with new innovation or not, it achieves nothing.”

I can’t ever remember this being part of the marketing campaign, it was more about the environment. However you touch on a very important and ironically oxymoronic issue for you ‘business-as-usual’ flat-earthers. I refer, as always, to Peak Oil, which incidentally runs into your second point.

A common comeback to resource depletion problem goes something like this:
“The Stone Age didn’t end because of a lack of stones. Neither will the oil age end with the lack of oil.”

Conventional oil production has been plateauing since 2006, with massive declines forecasts in the not-too-distant future. Where are the alternatives? In truth, there is no real alternative, however solar, wind, geothermal and others are only in their infancy. Electric and hydrogen cars have been ‘just on the horizon’ for decades.

The 2005 Hirsh report (commissioned by the DOE) advised that the global economy needs at least a 20 year lead-in time during which a “Manhatten-project sized” effort is needed to mitigate the potential impacts. Here is a link:

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf

My question is this: With Governments around the world having to lower corporate tax rates to attract offshore investment, lowing income taxes to appease the voter base etc, where are the funds going to come from to fund this, or similar, projects? Private Enterprise? Not much short term investment incentive there. Government? They can’t even try to get insulation installed or run an internet connection to Australians without withering criticism from some economically-offended interest group.

So in essence, the NO NO NO NO attitude from the right combined with wishful ideas about ‘benevolent capitalism’ will end up contradicting the very catchphrase they put forward to discredit people worried about Peak Oil: The oil age will end because no alternatives were developed in time. Don’t fall for linear thinking, civilizations have collapsed (indeed inevitably collapse) so don’t think that it can’t or isn’t happening here.

Which runs into your second point re over-population. I agree with you and Tim Flannery entirely.  The population growth that has gone hand-in-hand with the use of oil has been phenomenal. We are now in population overshoot, just as Thomas Malthus predicted. Once we go ‘off the cliff’ and oil becomes more and more expensive as supply dwindles, we will see the supply chains that keep 7 billion people feed wither and die. Then as the fertiliser, diesel fuel and other fossil-fuel based products the permits modern agriculture becomes unavailable/unaffordable, we will see the population problem start to correct itself.

Why haven’t western governments addressed the population issue? Well, what are they going to do? Implement a one child policy? Selective euthanasia based on Tax File Numbers? None are very politically appealing in a western democracy, and many neo-liberals still hold the ridiculous line that the more people there are the more probability that a genius will be born somewhere that can fix all our problems. Check out this link, I think you’ll find some articles of interest:
http://www.energybulletin.net/

@Dash
“Trevor, If this is about the environment, why do we need a socialist policy of wealth redistribution? That’s the point. It’s not about doing the right thing by the environment. This policy is not about the environment. It’s about redistributing the nations wealth.”

You sound like a Tea Party member or over-zealous communist hunter with the way you parrot this tripe. 

Capitalism is a form of economics is it not?

And economics is the study of wealth distribution within a society?

Well then capitalism must be a crappy economic theory if it needs the state to step in with unemployment benefits, universal health care and education etc as it can’t equitably distribute the wealth of the nation.

My heart bleeds for those hard working CEOs who make about 42 times that of the average worker. Who incedentally will not be personally affected by either the Carbon or Mining Taxes one tax-minimised cent.

Wayne Kerr says:

12:05pm | 13/10/11

@Trevor, Yes Peak Oil will be a big problem.  Yes we do need to find a replacement energy source that is renewable well before time.  However, like Dash I don’t see this tax providing any incentive to achieve that for reasons that have been repeated on this topic ad nauseum. Nor will this tax make any difference to the environment again for the oft repeated reasons which are regularly ignored.

To be fair, it’s now prettty much a done deal so I genuinley hope this tax does achieve what it promises before it kills our economy.  Unfortunatley, I’m quite sceptical though.

Dash says:

12:47pm | 13/10/11

@Trevor - sticks and stones mate. Any chance you may answer my questions about the need to use the environment as an excuse for socialism? Any chance you’ll tell me why we should transfer this nations wealth to some shocky salesman sitting Europe or Asia under the promise they’ll plant a tree?

How much compensation will you get?

dish says:

01:28pm | 13/10/11

Capitalism created this environmental disaster in the making.
Only Socialism can save the world.

Unless of course you can save the cheerleader first.

dovif says:

02:21pm | 13/10/11

Trevor

Do you even understand how a Carbon tax or ETS works?

A Carbon tax increase the price of Electricity, so that other forms of electricity generation are comparable, it do so by increasing the cost of
steel production, mining etc in Australia.

If the rest of the world does nothing, and Europe has had an ETS for 5 years, and the USA, China and India had increase substantially their Carbon emmittion in that time.

We have made all our industry uncompetative against the world market, we will like Europe cost ourselve hundreds of thousands of jobs

Malcolm says:

05:27pm | 13/10/11

@ Super D. Democracy is merely a salve. Medicine for attacking the symptoms of society’s ills.  There is no curing the cause of society ills.  When they try and wipe the salve off.  We keep applying it. The problems are never cured. Your mission is to avoid your genetic line being terminated in the next war. As for Gillard’s disrespect for the office of the PM through lying to get there? Kinda validates the ABC’s comedy about her doesn’t it.

@ Dash.  Republic?  Are you for real? Our head of State is a monarch.  Who is also the head of a religion. Nothing’s changed. We say the Lord’s prayer at the beginning of each day of parliament.

Trevor says:

10:15am | 14/10/11

@Dash
You have certainly swallowed the reds-under-the bed Kool-Aid haven’t you!

FYI, we already have many aspects of ‘socialism’ here in Australia. All forms of taxation that permit the Government to perform essential functions are by definition ‘socialist’. Our ‘socialist’ SAS are currently OS defending Australia’s national interest in a number of theatres. If your Hire-a-Hubby van gets stolen, our ‘socialist’ police force will track it down. When said business goes under because you can’t understand simple concepts such as ‘living in a society’ and need the dole, the ‘socialist’ Centrelink will help your selfish arse out.

“Any chance you may answer my questions about the need to use the environment as an excuse for socialism?”

If Socialism is the only thing that can save our precious environment, without which NO economic activity would be possible, then just call me Karl Marx. Totally capitalist societies have existed many times before in history. These examples provide direct evidence as to why we need a socialist backbone in this country to avoid the shocking results of unbridled capitalism. You want to live in a society where the unfortunate die in the street, sick are turned away from care, the powerful are totally unaccountable etc? Read a bit of history mate. Maybe putting a cost on pumping shit into the environment might finally help the environment enter the economic sphere which you right wingers will finally then be able to understand.

@Dish
“Unless of course you can save the cheerleader first.”

WTF? Is that a threat? I’d like to see you try.

@Dovif
You are the one who doesn’t understand how the Carbon Tax works. It has two prongs, to make it more expensive to buy traditionally generated electricity, and to provide an incentive and funding for Australia to develop alternatives. It was the second point to which I was referring above.

“We have made all our industry uncompetative against the world market, we will like Europe cost ourselve hundreds of thousands of jobs”

Bullshit. Generating electricity isn’t like making iPads or plastic trinkets. It can’t be just sent offshore. Likewise we can’t export electricity, so how are we uncompetitive? How will we lose jobs? The amount of power to run society will remain essentially the same.

What about the jobs that will be created in the newly funded alternate energy industries? What about the public service jobs that will be created in the regulatory authority?

You hand-wringing right-wingers go on about job losses, yet when there are productivity increases to be made by embracing the lastest in manufacturing technology, your concern for people’s jobs gets trumped by want of profit. Ultimate hypocrisy.

marley says:

07:46am | 15/10/11

@trevor - if you think the various things you describe are “by definition” socialist, then you need to look up the definition of “socialism.  ”  Hint:  who owns the means of production?

Paying taxes to the government so that the government provides services is not part of it.  And oddly enough, the first government pensions, which you would no doubt call “socialist” were introduced by that renowned lefty Otto von Bismarck.

Most of the things you describe are not in fact “socialism.’ 

As for socialism being the only possible way to avoid environmental degradation, perhaps you might care to look at the devastation on the environment wrought by 70 years of “socialism” in the USSR.  Compare the environmental regulations there with those being put in place in capitalist economies from the 70s and on.  For that matter, compare the safety controls on American or European reactors with those in place for Chernobyl.  I think you’ll find that capitalism did a much better job on all fronts than socialism.

acotrel says:

06:17am | 13/10/11

@DavidC
That’s democracy - your tax dollar in action !  You helped make it happen by supporting Tony Abbott.  Turnbull has at least a modicum of negotiating skills, he’d have got the independents on side, and be PM right now !

LC says:

08:48am | 13/10/11

You do know that leadership of political parties is an internal decision, thats not up to voters, right?

David C says:

09:05am | 13/10/11

and how did I support TA in the vote to become opposition leader?

Dash says:

09:12am | 13/10/11

acotrel - $10million of our tax dollars were handed to the “climate institute” to write reports supporting the ALPs position. $13 million of our tax dollars were used for propaganda mailouts. Our tax dollars in action??? And you want to tell us that’s democracy?

Let me remind you;

On the eve of last election, Gillard said “There shall be no carbon tax under a government I lead”. Wayne Swan said “it is a hysterical allegation that we are moving to a carbon tax”.

This is a deceit and a fraud. And that’s part of the reason why the party you are a paid up member of, is going to get smashed!

Peter says:

09:27am | 13/10/11

How much did Howard spend on advertising the GST?

How much is that in today’s money.
Our tax dollars in action there.

If the shoe fits i guess.

Dash says:

12:37pm | 13/10/11

@Peter - If the shoe fits take the policy to an election rather than lie about it on election eve. Pack of socialist cowards!

Peter says:

01:50pm | 13/10/11

@Dash, what was the 2PP vote for the GST?

Talking about cowards, the libs set the precedent.

Tator says:

04:08pm | 13/10/11

Peter,
How many seats did Howard win as that is all that matters.  Howard won a majority of 13 seats.  We in SA are living with an ALP government who only got 48% of the TPP.  Plus Hawke got in with a minority TPP in 1990.  But compared to Gillard not even winning the largest number of seats in parliament with only 72 seats in total which actually equals the Coalitions total (not counting Tony Crook who could be brought into the fold in the near future depending on negotiations between the WA Libs and Nats).  Plus she only got 37.99% of the primary votes compared to the Coalitions 43.62% primary vote.  So no wonder there are quite a few people annoyed to say the least with the ALP.

Dash says:

04:28pm | 13/10/11

@Peter - what? By having the guts to ensure the people had the right to vote about a policy that was going to have a significant impact on households and the economy. As opposed to your lot who deliberately lied about their intentions on election eve for political gain and then railroad it through the parliament?

This ALP are a pack of cowards. They caved in to the independents, they caved in to the Greens. Gillard dropped her pants and bent over for Brown just so she could be PM! They have no shame, no honour and are a gutless pack of morons!

All the ALP want to do is protect their own backyard. I’ve never met a dole bludger yet that didn’t vote ALP!
If 2pp was what matters, this disgraceful excuse of a government would not exist!

Peter says:

10:25pm | 13/10/11

@tator @ dash

Howard took the GST to an election and LOST the 2PP vote.
The MAJORITY of Australians did not want the GST introduced, I hope you can understand percentages.

Maintain the rage.

Magpieboy says:

10:53pm | 13/10/11

@Peter - At least Howard took the GST to an election. Gillard doesn’t have the guts to do it.

Rose says:

09:25am | 13/10/11

Spare us the drama queen act. What exactly is your problem with an ETS? What damage to our democracy has been caused? Our democracy suffered a far worse battering when Howard took us into an unjustifiable war against Iraq, when he steamrolled Workchoices through the Parliament and when he tried to avoid Australia’s International responsibilities by introducing the Pacific Solution (Gillard is doing even worse there in her race against the Libs to the bottom).

Larch says:

10:03am | 13/10/11

Democracy is our elected representatives moving the nation forward and addressing the important issues of the day.
An example of that is the Carbon Tax.
More than 50% of our elected representatives have voted for the move to an emissions trading scheme. - Looks like democracy in action from where I stand.

Perhaps you should crawl out of your conservative bunker and have a look around at the world in the 21st century.

Oh, and please stop crying, it’s not a good look.

HeatherG says:

07:04pm | 13/10/11

Larch, with apologies to the Princess Bride, people keep using this word “representative”. Clearly it no longer means what we thought it means.

The independents Wilkie and Oakshott were voted in by a conservative voter base yet sided with the Labor Party—they did not “represent” their voter base, i.e., the people who voted them in, they represented their own best interests.

The only indy who had the guts to tell his electorate who he would side with in the event of a minority gvt was Mr Green in Melbourne, Adam Bandt. He then did so. He is “representative”. Wilkie and Oakshott? Are not representative of their voter base—the people who voted for these men to represent THEM. They are done, and they know it.

Therefore, not democracy in action at all. Being truly “representative” is to be in synch with your voters, not to betray them.

Larch says:

12:00am | 14/10/11

Heather
The meaning of the word representative is quite clear.
Elected by the majority of the people to represent their electorate.

Do you know what the word independent means?

Get a grip and don’t pretend to speak on behalf of an electorate, but by all means bring forth your prejudices and vent your confected rage.

Toady says:

07:11am | 13/10/11

The real agenda is the ALP want to stay in government in the short-term, they need the Greens, and they want more money to squander on rubbish policies, and this massive tax will be their magic pudding.  Only a fool would believe it is about anything else.

Trevor says:

08:22am | 13/10/11

Peak Oil

That’s my pet theory anyway.

Amused says:

04:08pm | 13/10/11

Money for Gillard’s severely depleted national account.  The money has run out due to ridiculous spending and she has just found another way to fill the coffers. She thanks Bob Brown for his good idea !!

Mickey T says:

03:22pm | 13/10/11

Nice comment Watcher but don’t believe tnat the rest of the world is doing nothing, you may have been misled by the propaganda being spewed forth by Doctor “Goebells” Abbott and his army of scaremongerers.

OverTheHill says:

08:01am | 13/10/11

If Democracy was dead that handful of unsavory old pensioners protesting would have been sent to the nearest old peoples home instead of being evicted from Parliament. We have a vote at the next election, if we don’t like the Carbon tax we can vote them out..that is Democracy

dovif says:

02:24pm | 13/10/11

“Ministry of Incompetants” or “Ministry of incompetance”

I am going to refer the ALP as that going forward

Toady says:

07:50am | 13/10/11

Union leaders supported Labor in this for one very simple reason - many union leaders aspire to lofty position within the Labor Party.  With Labor and the upper levels of unions, it is all about jobs for the boys and looking after yourself at the expense of others.

Andrew says:

08:20am | 13/10/11

“Even though Saddam Hussein didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, just look at how much freedom we’ve brought to Iraq.”

LC says:

08:52am | 13/10/11

Your arguement would have merit if the carbon tax had an impact on petrol prices…

Peter says:

09:31am | 13/10/11

Well said shane, however you will be jumped on by the loonies.

I hate pies says:

10:37am | 13/10/11

...if only we had viable alternatives. By the way, when do the green jobs kick in? The polluters have 2 or 3 years of compensation to prop them up? What happens then? Do all their workers walk out the front door into their new green jobs?
The average major project takes a good 5 years to implement, so we’d better hope that the green projects are at least 2 years down the track, or we’re going to have a heap of people out of work in the near future.

Dash says:

09:02am | 13/10/11

Knemon - yep I’m bitter. But I’ll happily debate your accusation of ignorance.

Andrew says:

09:04am | 13/10/11

Knemon, so you find it entertaining that Julia Gillard stated prior to the last election that she wouldn’t introduce a carbon tax, only to begin to implement one yesterday?

Peter says:

09:35am | 13/10/11

If she won the election we would have an ETS scheme.

She didn’t and the rest is history.

Aitch B says:

09:41am | 13/10/11

I suspect that Knemon’s a greenie….. hence the happiness.

Utopia here we come!!

Al says:

09:44am | 13/10/11

Sorry, I am neither a conservative or a sceptic.
However, how is a tax (or trading scheme) where money is taken from a number of specific companies and the majority of that money is then distributed to the general public going to do anything other than ‘wealth redistribution’?
As I commented previously, it could be justified if these funds were to be used for R&D of solutions or even in reducing the government/departments carbon footprint it could be justified. This is NOT the case and as such will not achieve anything other than wealth redistribution. Some companies may look into other options if the costs of implementing such options is cheaper than paying for carbon emmisions, but at the moment they are not for the majority of the companies.

Bald Eagle says:

10:16am | 13/10/11

I must admit, I find it very amusing.
The mock indignation melds brilliantly with the conservative born to rule mentality.

and so, the longest dummy spit in history continues.

RyaN says:

11:33am | 13/10/11

@Knemon: is that you Julia?

Knemon says:

03:00pm | 13/10/11

@ Dash - With the utmost respect, you do seem to be showing some ignorance in relation to this issue, your main grudge seems to be based around “wealth re-distribution”.

How much better off are the low income earners going to be? You make it sound like they’re going to recieve some sort of windfall at the expense of yourself and other high income earners, like all of a sudden your 150K becomes 100K and their 50K becomes 100K.

This legislation is aimed at big polluters and forcing them to clean their act up, it’s not aimed at you or me…one day your children will thank you for personally sacrificing little to gain a much better envieonment for all.

Dash says:

04:54pm | 13/10/11

Knemon, what I know is that this is going to cost me at least $1200 next year and will increase over the next two years and I receive nil compensation whilst others who pollute more will be hundreds of dollars better off. And the ALP are going to compensate the coal and steel industries. How is discriminating against people on the basis of their income, and compensating the corporates responsible for the pollution “making big polluters pay”? It’s not. It’s just an exercise in punishing those creating the nations wealth and rewarding those that are destroying it.

If this is about the environment and not aimed at me, why do I pay and why does my money get reallocated to householders that have a bigger carbon footprint than me or pollute more? Why does my money get allocated to the big polluters of the steel industry and to the coal industry? Answer, because this just another tax on the so called wealthy! It’s an exercise in making the big taxpayers pay not the big polluters pay. This is a green and ALP exercise in socialism. And people like you who swallow the environmental bullshit and vote green allow this type of vandalism to occur.

And another thing, explain to me why in 2015, the revenue base gets pushed overseas. Why would we be so stupid that we inflict a cost on our economy and then send the revenue off shore to some shonky carbon credit salesman in Asia on the promise he’ll plant a tree? Give me a freakin break! If you want to impose a tax, at least keep the revenue here in Australia! This is just nonsense!

So yes, if the ALPs costings are to be believed, there is a cost to me and a windfall for others based purely on income! That is bullshit. People get my money for sitting on their arse even if they pollute a thousand times more! How is that fair and how is it a market signal?

It’s a fraud. And quite frankly, I don’t need your respect.

fml says:

09:36am | 13/10/11

Im interested, what did the office of Tony Abbott have to say?

AdamC says:

09:42am | 13/10/11

Very well put, Dash. It will be interesting to see what the uncritical Laborites have to say in response.

John Smythe says:

09:46am | 13/10/11

Well done mate. For fear of having yet another post not make it through….I’ll leave my comment at that.

Peter says:

02:53pm | 13/10/11

Did we have a hung parliament or are you just an idiot?

Was Rudd’s CPRS scheme called a carbon tax too?

Super cherry picking.

Michael says:

09:20am | 13/10/11

If you have a look at the things the Prime Minister has been saying since she came to power you may see the underlying desire to leave behind a lasting legacy of her time as PM. Statements about being on the right side of history, reminders that past ALP PM’s have left legacies such as Snowy Mountains Hydro, Medicare and free higher education.

The PM has accepted that it may be the end of her as a politician and has accepted that the ALP may pay at the polls, her legacy will remain and she is betting on being on the “right’ side of history when future generations look back.

Time will tell.

I hate pies says:

10:44am | 13/10/11

I guess it doesn’t matter that she doesn’t believe in it does it Michael? Gillard vehemently opposed Rudd’s scheme; she wasn’t going to introduce her own scheme if she won the election; then she did purely for power and political expediency. Gillard has absolutely no conviction for environmental policy; she was excited yesterday because her policy is far more aligned with her communist beliefs than the environment.
Her legacy will be one of a person whose only conviction was to grab poewr at any cost.

Aitch B says:

10:45am | 13/10/11

@Michael

And don’t you reckon Kev is spewing big time?

It was going to be HIS legacy but Julia stole it from him!!

Poor chap…...

Michael says:

11:14am | 13/10/11

Pies, no it probably doesn’t matter what she believes personally, it’s about the legacy, wanting to be remembered for giving Australia…

Aitch, yep Kev’ probably is pissed, he got shafted and Julia got the Carbon Tax/ETS.

That’s politics.

I hate pies says:

11:32am | 13/10/11

Michael, it does matter what she believes personally, because it influences her actions, and therefore her legacy.
She will not be remembered in a positive light.
And please don’t abbreviate my name to “pies”... I prefer “I”, or “hate”

Al says:

12:01pm | 13/10/11

Some are NOT a majority and I am sure that a majority of Australians want to keep Medicare. If you had a majority wanting to get rid of it they would do it as it would give the government more funds to funnel into their pet projects.

Next.

Bald Eagle says:

10:17am | 13/10/11

Krusty the clown?

Peter says:

02:43pm | 13/10/11

Don’t be too optimistic eagle

jack says:

05:59pm | 13/10/11

peter jack says
PYNE as leader he has not even got enough brains to do the job he has in the parliment at the moment,  he would be the most disruptive politician I have ever witnessed in 70 years, for god sake how do idiots like him represent us in government

gh says:

10:00am | 13/10/11

cuckoo cuckoo

RBarron says:

10:41am | 13/10/11

gh
The Natural Heritage Trust is to be largely funded by the partial sale of a publicly owned telecommunications utility.
This is word for word straight off the UN website.

At Copenhagen in 2009 with their Draft Climate Change Treaty.
In the document straight from the UN website
a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country
But in the Agenda 21 document word for word off the UN website
Section IV
Means of Implementation
Chapter 33
Financial Resources & Mechanisms
INTRODUCTION
MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION
33.13. In general, the financing for the implementation of Agenda 21 will come from a country’s own public and private sectors. For developing countries, particularly the least developed countries, ODA is a main source of external funding, and substantial new and additional funding for sustainable development and implementation of Agenda 21 will be required. Developed countries reaffirm their commitments to reach the accepted United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of GNP for ODA and, to the extent that they have not yet achieved that target, agree to augment their aid programmes in order to reach that target as soon as possible and to ensure prompt and effective implementation of Agenda 21.

I find it funny that 0.7% of GDP is the figure in both documents.

The Carbon Tax is about paying for and putting Agenda 21 in place.

So that 0.7% is the figure that the UN wants by any means but in law.
Get your Calculator out

If we look at the 48 countries that are members of the EU, OECD, G20 or G8 together the 48 countries GDP is 56.310 Trillion Dollars or 89.5% of the World’s GDP 62.911 Trillion Dollars. The Public Debt against the 56,310 Trillion depend upon the source is as high as 45.192 Trillion Dollars or 80.26% of their 48 countries GDP.

0.7% of 56.310 Trillion Dollar $394,170,000,000 a year not a bad money spinner for the UN.

I can’t help it if you know nothing.
Go and read the documents straight from the UN websites.

10% of the Carbon Tax goes straight to the UN.
Tell the Australian people Gillard first said that all the money collected will go back to the people and families. The words were in fact 100% of the tax would go to the people.
That is not true because 10% already agreed to goes to the UN.
In you option I may be a cuckoo cuckoo because you don’t know anything but in my option you are Dodo.

RBarron says:

11:59am | 13/10/11

In order to achieve their goals they need to lower the standard of living that we have in Western Countries and raise the Standard of living in the 3rd world. What they are doing is playing 1 against the other. It is about uncoupling the old World Money and re-issuing the New Currency and transferring the wealth from the people and out of the countries.
Part of their plan is to privatise all of the Essential Public own Utilities. The sale of the Essential Public Utilities goes against common sense and National Security and is a theft of prosperity from future generations.
In every 3rd world country that the IMF and the WorldBank comes into the 1st thing that happens is the all public resources are sold off. In western countries this is being done by stealth.

In my option there is many things that are facing the people of the world but Dangerous Climate Change driven by the increase of man-made Co2 is not one, it is a non-issue.

Population, Resources, have been muted for a long time. We are going to have to change from oil and gas because as a resource they do have limits. A greater problem then Population and Resources is a system were the growth is build upon debt. Our World’s Economy is nothing more than pyramid scheme that is a non-sustainable. World’s Economy is nothing more than a house of cards build with no plans and worse it has not foundation either.

If we look at the 48 countries that are members of the EU, OECD, G20 or G8 together the 48 countries GDP is 56.310 Trillion Dollars or 89.5% of the World’s GDP 62.911 Trillion Dollars. The Public Debt against the 56,310 Trillion depend upon the source is as high as 45.192 Trillion Dollars or 80.26% of their 48 countries GDP.

It doesn’t take much for the whole system to fall down and there is no Gold Standard anymore.
That is a Fiat Currency System a piece of paper and paper alone.

Co2 or the reduction of man-made Co2 will service a lot of purposes, control Population growth by setting up conditions and in turn reduce or slow the demand on the Resources. It will also be the one thing that will unpin the new world currency when we get it. But things will also have to get worst in order for them to achieve their goals and that is One Government and One World Banks with one Currency that will save the world from the non problem of dangerous Climate Change driven by the increase of man-made Co2.
Up until now in Australian both political parties have been hand in hand and been doing the bidding of the UN and selling out the Australia and the Australian People.

RBarron says:

12:40pm | 13/10/11

Climate Change is just a small part of UN’s Agenda 21 and what the Club of Rome have been saying since the 1970
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml

Taken from Agenda 21.
Section IV
Means of Implementation
Chapter 33
Financial Resources & Mechanisms
INTRODUCTION
MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION
33.13. In general, the financing for the implementation of Agenda 21 will come from a country’s own public and private sectors. For developing countries, particularly the least developed countries, ODA is a main source of external funding, and substantial new and additional funding for sustainable development and implementation of Agenda 21 will be required. Developed countries reaffirm their commitments to reach the accepted United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of GNP for ODA and, to the extent that they have not yet achieved that target, agree to augment their aid programmes in order to reach that target as soon as possible and to ensure prompt and effective implementation of Agenda 21.

I find it funny that 0.7% of GDP is the figure in both documents.

The Carbon Tax is about paying for and putting Agenda 21 in place.
Agenda 21 encompasses the whole way of life and is already encroaching on our way of life.

Paragraphs
2.International cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in developing countries and related domestic policies
3.Combating poverty
4.Changing consumption patterns
5.Demographic dynamics and sustainability
6.Protecting and promoting human health conditions
7.Promoting sustainable human settlement development
8.Integrating environment and development in decision-making
9.Protection of the atmosphere
10.Integrated approach to the planning and management of land resources
11.Combating deforestation
12.Managing fragile ecosystems: combating desertification and drought
13.Managing fragile ecosystems: sustainable mountain development
14.Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development
15.Conservation of biological diversity
16.Environmentally sound management of biotechnology
17.Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas, including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, and coastal areas and the protection, rational use and development of their living resources
18.Protection of the quality and supply of freshwater resources: application of integrated approaches to the development, management and use of water resources
19.Environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals, including prevention of illegal international traffic in toxic and dangerous products
20.Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous Wastes, Including Prevention of Illegal International Traffic in Hazardous Wastes
21.Environmentally sound management of solid wastes and sewage-related issues
22.Safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive wastes
23.Preamble
24.Global action for women towards sustainable and equitable development
25.Children and youth in sustainable development
26.Recognizing and strengthening the role of indigenous people and their communities
27.Strengthening the role of non-governmental organizations: partners for sustainable development
28.Local authorities’ initiatives in support of Agenda 21
29.Strengthening the role of workers and their trade unions
30.Strengthening the role of business and industry
31.Scientific and technological community
32.Strengthening the role of farmers
33.Financial resources and mechanisms
34.Transfer of environmentally sound technology, cooperation and capacity-building
35.Science for sustainable development
36.Promoting education, public awareness and training
37.National mechanisms and international cooperation for capacity-building in developing countries
38.International institutional arrangements
39.International legal instruments and mechanisms

40.Information for decision-making

Al says:

10:21am | 13/10/11

Why is that creepy?
If you don’t believe in God or an afterlife why WOULD you fear the afterlife (that you believe doesn’t exist)?

Chris L says:

04:25pm | 13/10/11

Technically an atheist could have any view of the afterlife because their only unifying factor is not following a theism. For example, I have read accounts by mediums and people who have experienced NDEs and I could subscribe to that, despite being atheist and not believing in any gods.

LC says:

08:26pm | 13/10/11

I mean a direct impact on petrol prices, not flow on effects. As in the tax also applies directly the carbon released by burning petrol. Julia exempted it at the last minute in an attempt to gain back some of the votes they’d been bleeding. People are complaining about high petrol prices and any government which deliberately increases them is going to cop it. There will be knock on effects, but the increases in price that causes would be trivial, the price would rise by more when the high-end of the weekly price cycle comes around. If petrol was to be taxed directly you can expect a rise of between 10-15 cents/litre, or an extra $10.20 to fill up a Ford Falcon. This is small fry compared to that.

And of course, before you can start taxing car use so dearly, you have to do something the shocking state of public transport in this country.

Al says:

11:07am | 13/10/11

Not quite the same, Howard took the GST to an election before bringing it in, as such he had a mandate to introduce it.

The Carbon legislation (tax whatever you want to call it) was never taken to an election by Gillard, in fact the contrary was taken to the election, and she did it anyway.

Babs of Syd says:

12:35pm | 13/10/11

Al - Julia will have to take this to an election too.  Come 2013 she can’t escape any longer and nor can Labor and / Greens / Independents because they have all supported her and are as culpable.  They think they can sway public opinion and they will try, but this contempt of Australians democratic rights will last long after 2013.  Come election time, they will understand the depth of contempt voters have for all of them.  Until then, we are out here simmering.

Al says:

01:52pm | 13/10/11

Babs: True, but that doesn’t impact on the fact that it wasn’t taken to an election BEFORE the legislation was introduced, which Howard did before introducing the GST.

Dobbo says:

02:20pm | 13/10/11

Let’s just straighten things up a bit here.

After the 1998 election and declaring its intention to look at a GST, the Howard Government finished on a two-party-preferred vote of 49.02% at the election, suffering a swing of 4.61% to Labor on 50.98%.Hardly a mandate folks unless you saw things through Howard’s tunnel vision.

Anyway I’d say come the next election people will have got past the Chicken Little cries of “the sky is falling! the sky is falling!” and see things go on pretty much as before.

Then again I could be completely wrong and we may all be living off lawn clippings.

Another thing…Abbott’s boy scout “signed in blood crap”. How many cynical businessmen would seriously believe a Government would walk away from a line of tax revenue?

Joel B1 says:

11:30am | 13/10/11

Managed to drag yourself out of bed in your inner-city flat in time to get your orders and start pumping out the left propaganda?

Peter says:

01:57pm | 13/10/11

It ain’t propaganda Joel its facts.

Get used to it.

John says:

03:18pm | 13/10/11

Wow-what are you on Gordon? I am very happy that I voted for the Greens in the upper house. Why should it be that MP’s must vote according to their constituents’ wishes? They should vote according to what is best for Australia.
This is hardly treason and certainly not undemocratic.  People can always vote them out-this is democracy in action. As for the Greens being out and out Communists-this is silliness. In any case it seems you could do with a bit of Socialism sicne it may make you a more caring individual!

Al says:

03:02pm | 13/10/11

So in the first state budget they introduce in 16 years they give us a deficit - Labor having delivered 15 surplus budgets.

You mean the deficit budget created by the former Labour party in power hiding a huge amount of funds ‘missing’ from the budget claiming it was in surplus when it was, in fact, in deficit?

AdamC says:

03:22pm | 13/10/11

Kleia, seems to me it would have been braver for Gillard to have been honest before the election about her intent or willingness to implement a carbon tax. I mean, what is so brave about going back on an explicit commitment? Indeed, I submit ‘dishonest’ would be a better adjective that brave.

NicoleG says:

03:28pm | 13/10/11

LOL! That’s the second time this week, while I had a mouth full of water, it just spurt out of my nose. That is bluddy hilarious Kleia

She is so brave isn’t she? So why is she delaying her wonderful Malaysian solution vote? And why does she refuse to answer questions directly? Take off those rose coloured glasses.

PS It doesn’t matter which side of the fence you sit, it’s extremely low to bring politicians families in to the argument.

AdamC says:

03:45pm | 13/10/11

Is this the refrain of the day or something?

In any event, why wasn’t Gillard prepared to make the unpopular decision before the election, like, when its unpopularity mattered and she might have had to convince people it was the right idea?

Chris L says:

04:30pm | 13/10/11

The ‘07 election was won with an ETS. Before the last election Gillard said no carbon tax, instead a carbon price. Not her fault if people weren’t paying attention.