Apologies in advance to those with fixed views on a carbon tax. It is time the majority of Australians had a say. Well over half of us have shifted from supporting carbon pricing leading into Copenhagen to now opposing. In early 2008, my seat of Bowman had the highest carbon trading scepticism of seats polled by the Climate Institute; at 16 per cent. It now runs at nearly 70 per cent and it helps to remember why.

Cartoon: Bill Leak

Let’s deal with the shame issue up front. Most Australians have little interest in national shame, be it border policies, the apology, shame about our live exports or the fact we mine and smelt.

Most Aussies are tired of being told by the elite we should be ashamed of our per capita emissions. We don’t leave our vehicles on in the garage at night. Our emissions correlate perfectly with our wealth, our energy intense export profile and that with the world’s second lowest population density; we travel further. I see no shame in that

We are sceptical of the European Union and their rules on everything. They have weird trade protection quotas, which actually undoes the great work their foreign aid provides. We are unmoved by their guilt trips on how we manage our borders, because the jury is still out on their approach. No shame there either.

We are in the lead pack of nations on renewable energy, neither out in front nor lagging. I don’t want to fall in a hole like Spanish solar, nor have a €75 billion feed-in tariff like Germany which delays the onset of global warming by nine hours.

Our massive trade competitors like Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico and Chile may be poorer, but we don’t want them taking our commodity jobs and investments in the name of ‘a climate solution’. Massive miners like the US and Canada are actually walking away from action.

No US Presidential candidate will take a carbon tax to the 2012 election. The UK is ultimately part of the EU and much like them, so we understand them joining in. But in our part of the world, the vast majority of south-east Asia watches us tax ourselves for the inputs they value add and export world-wide. The emissions according to the EU are ours.

The world reaches agreements not by going it alone, but through coalitions and confidence-building. We don’t sign landmine treaties on day one; we get everyone on the page and sign together. In fact, once you sign up, you actually surrender much of your diplomatic suasion.

It’s the same with trade negotiations. Nothing was achieved by simply dropping trade barriers and feeling good about ourselves. It is a painstaking and detailed process and Australia should depart from that approach with caution.

With 16 new or increased taxes from this Government, why can’t the 17th (the climate tax) be in place of an existing one (Norway replaced part of its payroll tax and called it a carbon tax) to reduce the cost of living burden. Why should we give our PM nine billion dollars a year to hand around as she sees fit, when much of the last $110 billion was spent so poorly during the crisis? (Surely I don’t need to list the programs).

There is not even a whiff of a carbon tax among our top three trading partners or among any of our commodity competitors. Outside the EU, nations like Singapore, Korea and New Zealand are hardly likely to move in on our share of export markets. Being brutal, Australia’s carbon tax announcement has led to no new nations contemplating one. So the momentum argument lacks just that.

China is busy selling the world cheap solar panels and replacing old dirty coal-fired power stations at the end of their life with new ones. But that isn’t emission trading. Even India’s a dollar a tonne on carbon is economically negligible. Far from inspiring others to join us, going it alone generates hundreds of commercial asymmetries which our competitors will rationally perpetuate by not acting.

The other great irony is that Australia’s ‘compassionate left’ appear unmoved by possible job losses at home. Back in 2007, they railed that ‘not a single worker be worse off under (certain) extreme laws’. Suddenly losing an industry or two, reducing growth, viability or new jobs barely rates consideration. Union bosses will always back a bad Labor Government over any Coalition alternative, so they happily abandon their own members and support the tax.

Last, there is the NBN argument, that we are wealthier if we transform our economy early. But solar power still costs 42cKwH, well above the residential tariffs we pay of 28cKwH and 6cKwH for coal. It is equally the case that others do the heavy and expensive lifting and Australia capitalise on new technology when it is cost-effective.

‘There will be no tax under the Government I lead’ will be Gillard’s political obituary. Some jest that Bob Brown leads, others wonder if it was naked deceit, or just a post-election strategy to appear to be a ‘conviction politician’ Gillard’s best excuse for the deception has been that she never foresaw a hung Parliament. So name the cross bencher who gave Gillard an ultimatum of ‘deliver on a carbon tax or I join Tony Abbott?’ The answer is no one.

After an impressive career in Opposition, too few days in the Lodge and facing a resurgent Tony Abbott, Gillard simply panicked on that pre-election Wednesday. That’s OK.

But given the choice between a promise to 22 million people and a pet policy, she chose the latter. That’s why an overwhelming majority of middle Australia remain sympathetic to the climate issue but want nothing to do with the PM’s new tax. 

371 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • AnthonyG says:

      06:09am | 03/08/11

      We can thank the left and the greens for losing our democracy. we now are ruled by a “dictatorship”. Labor Polatitians will not listen and act on behalf of their constituants and will “all” be blown into the stratasfere and never win a seat again. The People have long memories and will never forgive these Pollies for wrecking our country. The only bright side is with every day an election is getting closer and we will have great pleasure in disposing of these numbsculls.

    • Amused says:

      07:05am | 03/08/11

      Your correct AnthonyG, its similiar to the drought, everyday we know we’re getting closer to rain - but its hell while we’re waiting. 
      I cant believe so many of these Labor politicians are watching their party being decimated by Gillard and Brown. Do you think perhaps they prefer to be in opposition - no responsibility and can just hark and criticise all day - seems to me that is what they are best at, cant handle money or responsibility and look like amateurs more and more.

    • The righteous one says:

      07:52am | 03/08/11

      No he’s not his spelling is dreadful
      polatitians = politicians
      constituants = constituents
      stratasfere = stratosphere
      numbsculls = numbskulls

      The thing that puzzles me about Tony Abbott is why he thinks he has to do a Putinesque action man thing.  I mean really, if he was ever PM the silly bugger would be out riding surfboards, bikes, horses, etc. It’s a wonder he hasn’t taken up sky diving Tony, you are beginning to look like a contestant on one of those TV dating shows

    • TomTom says:

      08:17am | 03/08/11

      Summed it up well AnthonyG. It is great consolation that, like you say, every day an election is getting closer for smart Australians to take a good hard swing at these Labor clowns for the pain, anxiety and frustrations we have to endure.

      Carbon tax doesn’t worry me anymore because it is out of my control, I simply can’t do anything about it because we are going to have it whether we like it or not. It is sending human beings seeking asylum to a third world country that bothers me and I find shameful as an Australian citizen.

    • Luke says:

      08:24am | 03/08/11

      Democracy died in Australia (and a lot of the world really) when it simply came down to two parties, both of whose policies mirror each other. The Liberal Party is virtually the same as Labor, the only differences are tweaks in proposed legislations.

      Now the media plays their game too, we are becoming a dumber country. Instead of reporting that (purely as an example) “boat people make up less than 5% of illegal immigrants” the media plays up this lie that we’re being flooded by refugees. The politicians are already on that bandwagon to make names for themselves.

      After being informed by Andrew to read the Liberal policy on “a cleaner future” I found a 50 page document of which 45 pages were simply bagging Labor. There was scant information in there. Not that I am going to defend Labor at all, as they spend half their time throwing vitriol at the Liberals.

      Our country is being pulled apart by bi-partisan politics, where the party matters more than the population. Refusal to work with the “enemy” means we are lumped with the stupid situation where both houses of parliament have to be controlled by a majority of the same party to get legislation through. How is that any good? What happened to negotiation and listening to facts? What happened to acting on behalf of those who voted you in?

      This country could be a glorious beacon of best practice (developed here, or taken from external sources, it doesn’t matter). Instead we are inundated with superficial politicians offering poorly thought out or knee-jerk legislation, typically designed to favour the rich (research who benefits from carbon trading; it’s not the general population, I guarantee that!). Don’t get me wrong, I love this country, but I’m finding it harder to do with every day that passes full of news of our rancid political landscape.

    • B says:

      08:30am | 03/08/11

      @The righteous one

      Do you seriously think that?  Because you live in a much crazier world than the everyone else does.

      BTW.  The ablility to spell or not spell is not a sign for or against a persons intelligence.  Attacking a persons spelling is for lack of an argument. 

      You comment shows either one of two things:
      1)  Your not intelligent.  Reread your own comment, if you still dont get what I mean then I have made my point.
      2)  Your a troll, and if so, a very poor one.

    • Debra says:

      08:33am | 03/08/11

      The righteous one

      Are you the righteous spelling master or just someone trying to be clever in a blog? You are wasting your time because for goodness sake this is a blog and we come in here have our say and out again as I am sure AnthonyG has a life. If you are not smart enough to comprehend what is being said don’t bother making any comments at all, we are not interested in correcting other people’s spelling.

      What is the matter with having an energetic PM, someone that surfs, rides a horse etc etc better than someone who doesn’t love the outdoors and looks sluggish?

    • jones says:

      08:34am | 03/08/11

      righteous one, play the ball not the man lest you join the ALPs text book method of rebuttal.

    • Tubesteak says:

      08:49am | 03/08/11

      Well said, The righteous one

      If you’re not intelligent enough to spell simple words or understand that democracy is not about conducting an opinion poll about everything every five minutes then you’re clearly not intelligent enough to come to a reasonably formed conclusion based on all the facts.  Your opinion is therefore worthless.

      The fact of the matter is in 2007 the bogan was eager to deal with climate change. Then when the bogan saw that dealing with it might mean paying more for certain things it thought that it’s SUV and McMansion might be in jeopardy so now the bogan doesn’t want to do anything about climate change. Therefore, the bogan has hitched it’s trailer to the shock jock’s bandwagon and opposes all manner of thigns designed to deal with the problem.

      The bogan is a fickle beast.

    • Mick S says:

      08:50am | 03/08/11

      I suppose that someone has to point the logical fallacies in your comment.
      One the one hand you state that we are “losing our democracy” and “ruled by a “dictatorship” and you then state that “every day an election is getting closer”.
      May I suggest that it is one or the other.
      Thank you for providing the best example I have seen of Orwellian “doublethink” that I have seen for some time.
      The simple fact of course is that the Carbon Tax will become law, and take effect.  At which point Tony Abbott’s scare campaign will be shown to be a joke.

    • acotrel says:

      08:53am | 03/08/11

      @The righteous one
      ‘No he’s not his spelling is dreadful
      polatitians = politicians
      constituants = constituents
      stratasfere = stratosphere
      numbsculls = numbskulls’

      Are you writing a new version of Roget’s Thesaurus so us iggerant people can unnerstand the LNP supporters? Can we really expect people like Anthony to understand that an industrial economy based on maximum utilisation of resources is unsustainable in the long term, and that the industrial revolution cannot last forever? What sort of world will we leave our descendents?

    • B says:

      09:09am | 03/08/11

      Tubesteak and acotrel I would like to know why you think spelling is linked to a persons opinion or ability to conprehend rubbish spouted by the ALP and Greens?  Do you have some facts or stats to prove this?  Or is this just “what you heard”?  Like the big Climate Change lie?

    • Will says:

      09:46am | 03/08/11

      Although I agree with the frustration and angry sentiment a lot of people hold, as I do myself, I tihnk it’s worth curbing the dramatic statements like “democracy is dying”.

      I voted Liberal in the last election and am appalled at Labours policies and performance.

      The anger and frustration is at the effectiveness of a minority government. Minority governemnts are a part of democracy, I just think we have all learnt a lesson on how pathetic they can be.

      It may not happen straight away, but await the investigative journalists revealing the pork barreling and back room deals made with the Independants and Greens to secure their votes.

      Now don’t get me wrong, they did get elected fairly, but holding the balance of power has alienated the majority of voters, both Labour and Liberal, who are now disillusioned with Australian politics.

    • Tom says:

      09:54am | 03/08/11

      jones, well said “ALPs text book method of rebuttal.” Play the man. Cue in Tubesteak “The bogan is a fickle beast.”

      Then we get our thought stopping cliche from [Lovejoy] acetrol “Will somebody please think of the children!”

    • The Judge says:

      09:54am | 03/08/11

      Seems like the only thing you’ve got wrong is the spelling and frankly, who cares about that It’s the content the lefties don’t like. If Gillard is so sure of what she is forcing upon us then take to the people.

    • Trojan says:

      10:49am | 03/08/11

      @ All of you Carbon Tax Haters

      Why am I considered left wing if I believe in a free market approach to climate change? People on this blog seem to think that anyone who believes in climate change and/or shock horror thinks a carbon tax is the right approach is somehow left wing? Seems ridiculous.

      Tony Abbott’s climate policies are much more left wing than labors - as far as I can see it his direct, “big government” approach is as socialist as it gets.

      Am I the only person that thinks this way?

    • Michael N says:

      11:15am | 03/08/11

      @ Acotrel. Whilst we are so far off topic here, I must urge you to differentiate between “finite” resources and “infinite resources” when you reference the longevity of a particular industry. As to your consternation regarding Australia’s “maximum use of (any) resources”; you highlight the very reason why the political left is so distrusted with economic management. You are essentially attacking “efficiency”, the cornerstone of an industrialised nation.

      P.S. @ Anthony G. Whilst it might be petty to correct the spelling and grammar of those who post on the forum, if someone doesn’t care enough about their written comments to actually proof read their work (or cut and paste into a word document if they must) then it is hard to believe that there is much conviction to their argument either. Please don’t contribute to the devolution of our language; irrespective of whether the cause is laziness or simply ineptitude.

    • Brian says:

      11:17am | 03/08/11

      A Person who has a user name “Tubesteak” giving Bogans grief while putting other people’s intelligence down…..now that is funny.

    • LC says:

      11:21am | 03/08/11

      Labor isn’t going to disappear because of this, unfortunately. At worst, they’ll spend the next two decades in opposition. It’s not going to be hard, all the Libs have to do to win every time is remind us of all the massive debt Labor has ammassed, and all the incompentency and broken promises they’d bought us.

      The Greens, on the other hand, could end up going down the same road as the democrats because of thier antics this term. Not that it’s a bad thing…

    • Lisa H. says:

      12:07pm | 03/08/11

      Perhaps you are, Trojan (the only person who thinks that way).
      Governments are always to some extent always impediments to the free market.
      To embrace a tax and income transferral system as a ‘free market policy’ is and always will be an oxymoron to me.
      A system that is not as directly interfering with the price decisions and income rewards of citizens seems to be more supportive of the legendary and never-yet-sighted ‘free market’ ideal.

    • Trojan says:

      12:24pm | 03/08/11

      @ Lisa H.
      Ok, I now agree that direct government assistance and regulation is much more right wing than a tax which encourages free market forces to work things out.
      Thanks for the lesson on ideology.

    • Jane says:

      01:22pm | 03/08/11

      @Luke, You nail it on the head, What is best for the country is not applicable. It is a the race to the bottom. Many of us swinging voters would lke to see national interest be of upmost importance but they apparently does not pay.

    • John A Neve says:

      03:01pm | 03/08/11

      Luke,
      You are correct, no one party destroyed our democracy, the two party system did.
      For years any one who voted Independent or for one of the minor parties has had no say in our way of life. The only time the major parties agree, is when a minor party needs to be destroyed.
      Democracy died in this country in the 1950’s when some political parties were outlawed. Since when do people need to be told who to vote for?

    • AnthonyG says:

      07:11pm | 03/08/11

      Oh sorry if i had used spell check some of these dipsticks wouldn’t have any thing to say

    • AnthonyG says:

      07:21pm | 03/08/11

      And a guy that calls himself tubesteak knocks other peoples intelligence WTF. I think they call that a hypocrite.

    • dovif says:

      02:31am | 04/08/11

      Trojan

      Another idiot who thinks that carbon tax is a free market approach LOL

      Free market approach is to let people decide on whether they want a carbon free future. If Australia want that, they would choose not to buy a flat screen TV, they would prefer to pay $1000 a year to a solar power plant for electricity, rather then $500 to a coal fire plant

      A free market is free will and would not include any taxes

      A carbon tax is coercion to force people to use less CO2, this is actually the direct opposite to a free market

      Looks like most of the lefties like swann, need to learn more about how economics works

    • Trojan says:

      06:34pm | 04/08/11

      @dovif

      mmmm…. You resort to name calling - now I know your arguement is thin on the ground.

      So you go and vote for the Liberals’ alternative, “right wing”, “non-coersive” direct action policy then mate.

    • Lachlan McKenzie says:

      10:55pm | 08/08/11

      I love reading theories about democracy by people who can’t even spell.

      Seriously AnthonyG, democracy has no definition. Let’s hear what part of our current situation you would change. Proportional representation? I assume you’re furious the Greens have any power at all. Why shouldn’t they? They have 12% of the vote, they’re the third force, they get a say too.

      If you have no suggestions, only whingeing, sit down.

    • Disraeli says:

      06:12am | 03/08/11

      Elite? What elite?

      Six figure income.
      Swag of allowances.
      Whacking pension.
      Subsidised travel.
      Staff provided. 

      Elite? You <strong>are <strong> the elite, Laming.

      What a hide.

    • Andrew Laming says:

      07:14am | 03/08/11

      Disraeli, Didnt mean to offend. Did you want to run for office if it looks that good? It’s true that opinions are split in every demographic on this tax; I am trying to point out why a shift has occured (mostly among middle- and dual income working families. What’s your point? That a politician cannot criticise the elite because of his salary package?

    • Spikey says:

      07:32am | 03/08/11

      Pollie bashing - nice comeback.

      “Elites” are those who think they are morally and intellectually superior to most of us…not defined by what they earn, but their mindset.  They think they know better than the vast majority of Aussies who are against this ridiculous tax…and we should all just be quiet and do what we’re told by those who know better!

    • Disraeli says:

      07:37am | 03/08/11

      A member of the cosiest club in Australia, and he still says he doesn’t get it.

      Well, *pretends* he doesn’t get it.

      Bloody hide.

      While trying to pretend that anyone disagreeing with the Liberal line is somehow “elite”: patronising, dishonest and plain wrong.

      Bloody hide.

    • Angry God of Townsville says:

      07:47am | 03/08/11

      Andrew, please understand Disraeli, he knows that your article is accurate and as such has no other option than try for the unicorn distraction.

      That he has gone for this option so early in the piece highlights the lack of ability to argue the points contained. You could take it as a backhanded compliment from one of the warriors of the left that he surrendered so easily.

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:01am | 03/08/11

      No, Andrew, we get exactly what we pay for - you and your ilk.

      You’re in politics exactly and only for the power, the prestige and the money, although I’ll grant you that you’ve probably even got yourself convinced otherwise.

      I’ve said for a long time that politicians should be held more accountable but be paid far more as well.

      Look at the hard questions Murdoch is being asked right now.  Can you see any politician being treated like that?  Yet he is a far more influential and powerful individual than any of the sycophants running around in Parliament House.

    • The righteous one says:

      08:29am | 03/08/11

      @ Andrew, Maybe his point is that people are fed up with the viciousness from both sides, probably the reason you work in the parliament you have now.  Stop crapping on about Julia’s line about carbon tax.  We all know that Tony and Co told porkies as well.  Or perhaps , the point was, that the impact on pollies will be minimal, so how can you identify with or know what mainstream Australia is thinking when you live in an eddy.  Polls dont tell you anything except what you want to hear if you commission them

    • John Smythe says:

      08:51am | 03/08/11

      Disraeli, sorry mate but I don’t get what you are on about, outside personally attacking the author.

    • Disraeli says:

      09:11am | 03/08/11

      Let’s get this straight.

      Laming is an elected member of a highly priveleged group. His task is to represent the interests of the electorate, according to the policies of his Party.  His duty is to do that fairly, reasonably and factually.

      He chose instead to post a loaded piece, aimed to appeal to those who agree with him.

      Laming sheets home disagreement with his own Party’s slack and hypocritically presented policy as the work of some sort of “elite”.

      So using loaded terms, such as that hackneyed, weak, patronising, baseless stereotype, he seeks to lecture on the supposed evils of a policy his Party says it doesn’t agree with.

      Result: as a free citizen of a free country, I’ve called him to account, on the loaded terms he’s sprayed about. Don’t like it? Cry me a river.

      As to the “accuracy” of his supposed facts, see elsewhere.

    • Bob says:

      09:18am | 03/08/11

      Agree John. Great article. A concise, clinical examination of the carbon tax. It’s a bad tax, it will damage the nation, it needs to go to an election so the Australian people can have their say. To do otherwise is a gross breach of the people’s trust.

    • John Smythe says:

      11:06am | 03/08/11

      Disraeli are you OK mate? seriously.

    • PTom says:

      01:25pm | 03/08/11

      Andrew,
      Attacking the “Elite” is the flaw. These are the same “Elite” the your party refuse to acknowledge the experts in their field but has no problem using experts that support your theories.

      Don’t you think you are apart of the problem, what if some dismissed you medical work simple because they so you as part of the “Elite”.

      People in paper towers should not play with fire.

    • Steve D says:

      01:30pm | 03/08/11

      Disreali, I now mister Laming, if it was purely the priviledge life he was after and a six figure income with perks, he should have stayed in his previous medical occupation! Just saw my specialist and his bill leads me to believe he is a little bit paypacket then even our Prime Minister!

    • jf says:

      01:32pm | 03/08/11

      Disraeli says:06:12am | 03/08/11

      The term ‘elite’ is used as a pejorative and ironic term for the self-appointed elite.

      Those that believe that we need to be told what to do, that they should be the ones to tell us what to do because they are more enlightened and our intellectual superiors, those that, having made the rules expect absolute compliance by everyone - except them that is, because they are they elite.

      You may never have heard of a book called Animal Farm Disraeli? Read it and you will never have to piddle around with misunderstanding language subtlety or commonly used metaphors.

      Just a hint though, the pigs are metaphors for the elite.

    • Martin says:

      02:39pm | 03/08/11

      @Disraeli,
      LMAO Disraeli,  check out the chip your shoulder ! Ranting and stamping his feet like a little downtrodden Commie! HAHAHAHA Disraeli. Pee of back to the student union offices and whinge and moan with your commo mates, or better still contact Get Up for assistance. “How dare a Liberal speak his mind that privilege is for Labor party dribblers only, right?”

    • Kevin says:

      03:38pm | 03/08/11

      @Disraeli
      Good call.
      We get the following comment from this silvertail:
      “Most Aussies are tired of being told by the elite we should be ashamed of our per capita emissions.”
      “Aussies” indeed.  I bet Mr Laming has to practice his ‘Straylian accent before he uses that line on the bogans he’s trying to suck up to.
      The point, Mr Laming, is that you are one of the elite.
      I bet also that it’s much easier running for office when daddy is an MP.

    • andye says:

      03:56pm | 03/08/11

      Apparently I am part of an “elite” because I hold an opinion that differs from the authors. I mean, I THOUGHT I had looked at both policies and decided the Labor one was less bad than the Liberal one, but now I know that my opinion is entirely due to the fact that I am part of some vague group of people characterised by being annoyingly smug while being objectively wrong. I am probably Politically Correct, as well. Oh, the shame!

      Now I know that only the people who subscribe to the current majority view hold valid opinions, and mine is wrong because of who I am. An elite.

      Do I get anything as an elite? This one bedder in an uncool suburb with no car doesn’t seem to be holding with my title. What exactly are the benefits of being in the “elite”?


      Oh, and p.s. to @Martin, perhaps you should try rereading your post before you go around saying people have a chip on their shoulder. You have managed to write the most childishly bitter and spiteful post I think I have seen on the Punch. This is quite an achievement. Congratulations!

    • Martin says:

      04:18pm | 03/08/11

      @Andye, most self righteous of you.  Typical. Because I don’t see the need for Disraeli to get so wound up and indignant about this stuff and I have a go at him for posting what I would consider a childish, jealous rant, you come running to the rescue calling me “childish, bitter and spiteful” LMAO Maybe I’m having a bit of fun with this stuff and you and your new found mate Disraeli are taking it all a bit too seriously. That I see as your collective problem.

    • andye says:

      06:04pm | 03/08/11

      @Martin - my “mate” who? i wasn’t defending anyone, i was commenting on your post. This is the same as the “elite” thing. guilt by association.

      “most self righteous of you.  Typical.” - yes, i can see you fitting me into your stereotypical view now. im so upset i might run to the student union and whine to my lefty mates or something! Unions! Marxists! Ivory towers! Elites! Political correctness!

      “LMAO Maybe I’m having a bit of fun with this stuff and you and your new found mate Disraeli are taking it all a bit too seriously. That I see as your collective problem.” - Yes it sounded like a real hoot. Very amusing.

      I also see you are joining this disraeli guy and me at the hip. and collective problem? do you notice how you keep pushing towards stereotyping and generalising? you dont seem to want to deal with me as an individual, but i guess thats the price i pay for my eliteness.

      it all just reinforces my point about calling people “elites”. back in the howard years it was the extreme left that was full of bile and bombast. nowadays i see that no side of politics has a monopoly on this kind of stupidity. recent articles about elites and political correctness just reinforce this. those words are about attacking the left: associating the opposing views with the most ridiculous examples and dismissing their voice.

      propaganda tools are propaganda tools.

    • DianaWalker says:

      07:26pm | 03/08/11

      Looks to me like all this sledging is worse than useless. It’s not rattling the targets. And it’s not stopping their pretty effective demolition jobs on the sillier bits of propaganda. Good to see more posters sticking to their views, no matter what crap’s thrown at them.

    • Agasinst the Man says:

      06:50am | 03/08/11

      The fact the carbon tax is still a hot topic after all these months and anger is growing even after all these months, it is a very bad sign for Labor. People are not going to forget and they will get their revenge after being lied to be the incompetent one aka fake PM Gillard.

      Labor and their pathetic supporters want this to go away, they want to ‘move forward’ to new f*@k ups! Guess what? it isn’t going to happen. The ALP strategists know they have been screwed over big time by ol’ Juliar, now they have to find a way to keep the damage to a minimum. Who knew the ALP’s worst enemies were within their own ranks? Lovin it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • LiViN says:

      10:24am | 03/08/11

      Your passionate certainty of the feelings of all Australians reminds me of the certainty of the feelings of QLDers in the last days of Joh Bjelke-Petersen and the Nationals. Many people were certain that The National Party would stay in power and they couldn’t believe it when they didn’t! They couldn’t believe that people would vote Labor.  But they did! They just weren’t making a song and dancey rant about it!

      Take a breath and reinforce your fences because we haven’t started an election campaign yet and how the politicians behave now and the rational discussions they have now will be well remembered.

      If the Liberal party have a better policy to mitigate climate change, i’d really like to hear about it! All this whinging, wining and ranting reminds me of a bunch of toddlers who are tired and haven’t got anything better to do! Find a better game! I think you are protesting too much and you don’t have a better alternative to put on the table, so you are smoke-screening your own ineptitude!

      Please!

      Show me your better policy!
      Otherwise, be quiet!

    • Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

      11:00am | 03/08/11

      @ LiViN .

      Yes there is a very simple and more effective method other than the proposed carbon tax which has negligible impact on global warming and yet harms the Australian Economy.

      Just lift the embargo on uranium sale to India. The amount of CO2 emission which we can help reduce GLOBALLY through India is MANY times the ANNUAL CO2 emission in Australia.

      We must keep reminding ourselves that global warming is a GLOBAL problem and not an Australian problem per se.

      This is where the Economics hocus pocus which underpins the logic fails. It requires the assumption that Australia is the only planet on Earth.

    • John Smythe says:

      11:37am | 03/08/11

      well said there good Dr.!

    • Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

      12:14pm | 03/08/11

      Opps. Silly error!. The last paragraph in my last post should read: This is where the Economics hocus pocus which underpins the logic fails. It requires the assumption that Australia is the only COUNTRY on Earth.

    • PTom says:

      01:01pm | 03/08/11

      Dr B S Goh,
      “Yes there is a very simple and more effective method other than the proposed carbon tax ” So where are they none have been put forward by the Liberal’s because they still have not worked out the science.
      What we did have Abbott talking about a conumer Carbon tax for a interview only. I wonder where that end up.

      As for Nuclear to India how about they you start attacking India to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty first?  I guess India is more interested in making weapons then power station?

    • Glen M says:

      01:28pm | 03/08/11

      @ Livin,

      The problem is you dont really want to here about alternative policies. You have your carbon tax mantra and the eyes and ears are closed to alternatives. Just answer me one question why are we assuming that an economist has the answer to global warming? Maybe we could ask for ideas from say , a nuclear pysicist?  i am sure you would get a different response.  I believe that the actions of man influence the quality and the environment of the planet, we all have a part to play but to blindly accept one policy over another is an ignorant position and deserves to be ridiculed.

    • Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

      01:47pm | 03/08/11

      @ PTom.
      The USA has signed off on Nuclear Energy assistance to India.

      India has been a very responsible nuclear power and has not helped other countries to acquire Nuclear Weapons. Simple reason why India does Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is because NNPT requires India to give up nuclear weapons. That is not realistic if Pakistan does not do so.

      I wish India and Pakistan do give up Nuclear Weapons and also UK and France should give up Nuclear Weapons and there be only one Nuclear Power for Europe.

    • John Smythe says:

      03:31pm | 03/08/11

      Good Dr, it read much better when it was planet, not country smile

      Because that is the the way I interpret the “must act immediately” approach. smile

    • Col. of Blackburn says:

      07:13am | 03/08/11

      After the latest report from our government’s climate change committee, which, among other things, mentioned the dangers of catastrophic sea level rises, I wrote to my local member, Mr Mike Symon, and asked him what his government was going to do to protect publicly owned assets such as Kirribilli House, Admiralty House, Flinders Naval Base and other low lying public assets. Instead of listing the measures that the government was going to enact to protect these places all I got back was a vituperative email telling me that as well as a sceptic and a denier, i also believed in a flat earth!

      I remember before the 2007 election when AGW was a big political issue, that the Honourable John Howard said lets just step back and examine all the evidence from both sides and not do anything hasty, which of course was shouted down by the bed wetters of the ALP and the Greens. Fast forward to the present and we find that, despite any assertions to the contrary, the science is even less and less settled.

    • Joan says:

      08:50am | 03/08/11

      `Catastrophic sea rises `?? And Gillards own Gais doomsday man Flannery has just bought a water front property with a personal jetty.
      The post Al Gor generated world hysteria has died down, and the warmist doomsday soothsayers are spending the money raked in scaremongering the public.

    • SydSteve says:

      02:24pm | 03/08/11

      The science isn’t less settled. Public opinion is less settled. Thats the distinction a lot of people seem to be having trouble with.

    • Jane says:

      04:52pm | 03/08/11

      Does not matter though as both parties have bipartisan emission reduction targets. Sick of hearing about the science. If there is a party out there wanting to renege on the nations pledge to cut emission than it is relevant, otherwise who cares. We have Gina RInehart with billions funding trips for Monckons to stir the pot so she can protect her wealth. She is worth 8 billion and he is the best she can afford? I doubt any main stream political party will repeal that emission reduction target when the advice is form such oddballs. Seriously.

    • Steve Putnam says:

      06:44pm | 03/08/11

      Howard didn’t “just step back and examine all the evidence from both sides” when in his first budget he removed all tax breaks for R&D into renewables.
      Nothing to do with the fact that sixteen of his front bench had coal shares of course.
      The only reason he brought the issue up in 2007 was because he sniffed the wind and sensed his imminent demise.
      The science is settled. If you think differently point me out one peak scientific body that accepts the denialist position.

    • thatmosis says:

      07:17am | 03/08/11

      What jest, of course Queen Bob is the hidden PM of Australia. Bob says jump and Jooliar says how high. Her only interest is staying in power at all costs, even if it means beggering Australia and Australians. The NBN is a failure where it has been rolled out with about 0.6% or less signing up and new technologies already making it yesterdays news. Im waiting for the election and seeing faces of the faceless Labor Pollies as they realise that this is the end of them and the Labor Party for at least another 12 years, it will be worth waiting for.

    • Super D says:

      07:17am | 03/08/11

      If the coalition can successfully pitch the next election as a referendum on democracy they will win with a primary vote of greater than 60%.

      The defense of Australian democracy requires that the Labor-Green Alliance is dispatched and any carbon tax is repealed.

    • Disraeli says:

      07:48am | 03/08/11

      What we’re seeing is democracy at work. Living, real word democracy.

      The Parliament -and the Government in minority - reflects exactly the vote of the electorate at the last election.

      Democracy isn’t getting only the result you happen to personally agree with this morning.

    • Diamantina Dick says:

      08:32am | 03/08/11

      Correct, and democracy next time around will reflect the popularity of several things:

      A Green who finished third on primaries thanking Victoria for ‘going green’

      Formerly conservative independents siding with Labor for apparent revenge on former collegues.

      A PM who sold her party’s soul for power.

      I’m not sure the electorate really voted for that, but the next election will give us the answer and we will see if this parliament is working as per our voting intentions as you suggest.

    • B says:

      08:41am | 03/08/11

      Hmm Disraeli,

      Obviously you havent read what Democracy is.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

      “Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.”

      EQUAL SAY.  I would say that having a minority government consitiutes NOT an equal say.  Sorry to say Disraeli, that democracy is NOT the party YOU want to lead i.e the minority.

    • Joan says:

      09:01am | 03/08/11

      Disrael:  The `No Carbon Tax` lie is a cheat- not democrrcy at work.  Gillard got over the line like some Olympian fueled on drugs. Gillard then paid off the Independents at a cost to rest of hard working taxpayers. That`s no democracy. Add to that the overnight knifing of peoples PM Rudd and the price of bananas and Australia has more in common with a banana republic than democracy.

    • Disraeli says:

      09:18am | 03/08/11

      It’s precisely that equal say that, in our long standing and hard-won electoral and parliamentary system,  got us the result we voted for.

      Finely balanced vote. Equally finely balanced House.

      Working democracy. End of.

    • iansand says:

      09:25am | 03/08/11

      I’m glad the reds are back under the bed, where they belong.

      In the next exciting episode we discover that the peril is coloured yellow.

    • Dash says:

      09:26am | 03/08/11

      @Disraeli - your view of democracy is that it’s fine for the ALP to deliberately lie and mislead the Australian public on the eve of the last election. And then do the exact opposite despite public opposition?? WTF? You believe that a coalition between the ALP and Greens (formed after the election!!) the details of which have not been made public is democracy?? You believe billion dollar bribes made to independents in order to secure support in the parliament democracy???

      And you believe that the removal of an elected PM by backroom factions of the ALP is democracy. God help us if there are more of you in this country. What complete stupidity!

    • Against the Man says:

      09:31am | 03/08/11

      Oh poor Disraeli, I think like TChong your comments are gonna backfire and lose the ALP/Greens even more support. But seriously keep up the good work, the election massacre is going to be oh so bloody for the ALP. Lovin’ it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • TimB says:

      09:40am | 03/08/11

      You’ve got to laugh at people like Disraeli who spout this paticular version of democracy.
      Apparently democracy should only be allowed out of it’s box every three years, and the views of the people should be ignored the rest of the time. Even if the result of the last democratic vote was based on a blatant lie.

    • B says:

      03:58pm | 03/08/11

      @Disraeli

      People who talk like that come from Countries like Nth Korea and the USSR (When it was around).

      You wonder why we dont want minority running the country.  Holding the country to ransom for a few “feel good”, latte sipping, city slickers.

    • Disraeli says:

      09:16am | 09/08/11

      Oh, come on.  North Korea?

      Do you people ever think about what you say, or the implications of your wilder statements? Have you ever bothered to actually check how our system works?

      The seat count was even for the main parties.
      The government party must provide the Speaker.
      If Abbott had negotiated successfuly with the Independetts to form a stable government, we’d then have had a *minority* Lib/NP gov with minor party/independent support.

      Got that: Abbott and co would have been in the same position as Gillard and Labor is now. Minority government.

      It’s provided for, it’s happened before, it works, and it reflects the will of the people at the last election.

      Fo pity’s sake, get a grip.

    • TChong says:

      07:31am | 03/08/11

      Give up now andrew.
      The extreme right of the Punch branch of the LNP dont want any more articles about carbon tax.
      But wait, you’re bagging the tax ?
      Well, thats all right then.
      All the flat earther , Monckton worshipping deniers will run short of superlatives.
      The thin skin of the Conservative blogger, who gets in a hissy fit when a contrary POV is raised, makes Punch one of the most entertaining sites on the net.

    • B says:

      08:51am | 03/08/11

      Are you a flat earther are you Chongy?  I think you may need to look up the history in relation to this because you have is the wrong way around. 

      With the flat earth, the establishment/state and population was wrong, and stated that the earth was flat (Global Warming - sheep), but then came along the thinkers and they stated that the earth was round (Deniers - Thinkers).  The establishment hounded down, in the face of ever increasing evidence to the contrary, any opposition.  Eventually everyone succumbed and the evidence won out.  Which is what will happen here.

      Common Sense and Empirical Evidence will win out over Propaganda and Slogans.  Democracy will win over Socialism.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      08:58am | 03/08/11

      Yeah - where are all of the “righties” complaining about the author’s bias? Oh! He’s one of theirs.

      Move on then, nothing to see here . . . .

    • nihonin says:

      09:02am | 03/08/11

      Agree with your last statement TChong, Punch is one of the most entertaining sites on the net, at least everyone can submit their POV and it’s usually not leaning one or the other in the responses.

    • Adam Diver says:

      09:17am | 03/08/11

      @ Blind Freddy,

      Do you have some sort of intellectual disability?

      “where are all of the “righties” complaining about the author’s bias”

      He is a member of LNP party, he can not be construed as anything other than Bias. If you can not see the difference in Mr Laming offering his opinion, with points as yet undisputed in the comments, to say the political editor of news.com.au offering his gushing opinion of the prime minister with no hint of reality or factual basis, then I can’t even comprehend why you would consider having a debate.

    • Will says:

      09:37am | 03/08/11

      Both sides arc up and polarise the issue.
      You’re just contributing to the discourse as per usual TChong.

      Don’t get me wrong I enjoy reading passionaite responses, but you are exactly the same as the people you despise, except your fanatical support is on the other side of the fence.

      Makes me laugh out loud.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      11:01am | 03/08/11

      @Adam Diver

      “If you can not see the difference in Mr Laming offering his opinion, with points as yet undisputed in the comments, to say the political editor of news.com.au offering his gushing opinion of the prime minister with no hint of reality or factual basis, then I can’t even comprehend why you would consider having a debate. “

      You ask me if I have an intellectual disability and post statements such as that above - it doesn’t make any sense.

      P.S. The author’s membership of a political party has not stopped the “righties” from alleging political bias in the past. Typically they accuse The Punch of bias.

    • The Rock says:

      12:58pm | 03/08/11

      Come on Freddy, you know how the game works.

      Any article conservatives agree with is spot on the money regardless of who wrote it.

      Any article conservatives disagree with is biased regardless of who wrote it.

      It’s the same tactic Abbott is using federally, agree with him and you’re a hero, disagree and you’re a villain. And it doesn’t matter what expertise you bring to the table, whether you’re a scientist, an economist or a British conservative the experts are wrong and Abbott is right.

      The scary thing is that it’s not about holding the government to account or even doing the right thing for Australia it’s about power for the sake of power.

      They’re setting up an awful precedent for the future of political argument in this country.

    • Ben81 says:

      01:08pm | 03/08/11

      When it comes to some people around here TChong has a point, the cries of bias and attacking the author all the time on a freakin opinion site are so lame.

    • Fiddler says:

      07:34am | 03/08/11

      Finally, someone brought up our low population density. One question (this is an actual question, not a rhetorical one).

      Given the complex carbon dioxide cycle and Australia’s fairly low emissions does Australia act as a carbon sink or do we overall put stuff into the air? We only produce 1.5% and have somewhere around I think 7% of the worlds land.

      And for nine billion how many nuclear plants could we make?

    • Seth Brunde says:

      02:51pm | 03/08/11

      Nuclear power, combined with domestic solar panels and massively improved public transport.  That would wipe out most of our emmissions wouldnt it?  How much would that cost? About the same as the NBN?  But I forget, we are not talking about taking action in a way that will positively decrease pollution, we are talking about the carbon tax.

    • Tator says:

      03:44pm | 03/08/11

      The cost of a nuclear reactor varies with what type of reactor is built.  For example, a dual reactor plant using Westinghouse’s Gen III+ AP1000 model reactor cost in 2008 between US$2500 and US$3500 per kW ( or between US$5.6 and US$8 billion ) for over 2 gigawatts of generation capacity (1154 megawatts per reactor) compared to the current 1.8 gigawatts of total capacity that NSW alone has, it would replace the vast bulk of NSW’s coal fired capacity.  Plus the AP1000 is a modular design where adding additional reactors to each plant reduces the cost of each additional reactor.  For a different perspective , the AP1000 has its own wikipedia page has further information about the design etc.

    • Stunned says:

      07:37am | 03/08/11

      “It is equally the case that others do the heavy and expensive lifting and Australia capitalise on new technology when it is cost-effective.”

      HA!!!!! Anyone remember the digital TV debacle that was presided by your lot? The utterly worst, mismanaged, bad outcome “capitalising on new technology” ever.
      A decade late.
      A standard that is ONLY the standard in Australia.. the rest of the world has cheaper gear cos there’s more of them using it.
      Massive new bandwidth - NO NEW BROADCASTERS. Gotta keep Kerry & Rupert happy, dont we liber-holes?
      Hamstringing TiVO and other digital recording devices, again on the demands of your preferred media outlets.
      Leaving infrastructure to… nobody. Broadcasters not required to assist, consumers given any number of ‘dates’ by which something may or may not blah blah - and when a labor government said they’d just dump diogital boxes on everyone - you morons said it was a bad idea. Utterly useless.

      So excuse me while I continue to associate ‘liberal party’ and ‘technology’ with failure, rejection, delay, nepotism and mismanagement.

      Given that this is how you treated something that you *wanted* to do…. why would we expect any improvement in delivery of non-fossil energy infrastructure which you DONT want to do..?
      Back in your box little liberal. Let the big people look after this one.

    • B says:

      09:04am | 03/08/11

      What?  You mean the elite?  The BIG GOVERNMENT (Brother)?  The NANNY STATE?  Communist China?  The Greens?  Those people?  Mate, take a plane due norh and stop off in either China or North Korea.  There style of government is a bit more suited to your polictical affiliation.

    • Bob says:

      10:58am | 03/08/11

      @ Stunned - Don’t you mean James not Kerry ?

    • stevem says:

      11:25am | 03/08/11

      I’m not quite sure how the Digital TV argument came about, but you have no idea.

      DVBt is a worldwide standard and all the DVBt chipsets support every countries’ broadcasting standards. The DVBt standard has a plethora of configuration options and no two regions have the same set of options. The biggest change in Australia is the 7MHz channel width - mandated by our 50 year old analogue system.

      The rest of the world has cheaper gear because our prices for everything is higher. If you haven’t noticed how cheap things can be bought O/S I suggest you try this wonderful thing called “internet shopping” You’ll save a fortune!

      As for no new broadcasters, when every broadcaster needs both analogue and digital there will be no room in the spectrum until analogue is turned off, then the number can double.

      Finally why should government pay for a set top box or new TV? What has happened to the world where a TV is needed? Using your perverted logic any household without a TV should be given one. Perhaps government funded upgrades from record players and cassette recorders to CD players and MP3 players?

    • JA says:

      11:29am | 03/08/11

      Poor old Stunned, had to wait for his digital television signal, gee and I thought it was more important to have a sound economy with sustainable debt and reduced government waste.

      Thank you, Stunned for allowing me to see the light – in future I will vote for digital TV ahead of good government (not).

      By the way, take a look outside at all the third world cables that blot your streetscape – can you remind me what political party is responsible for those?– how handy that the high tech network dictated by Keating is now totally useless for Labor’s NBN fiasco.

      The ALP will never deliver on its technological fantasies and their history of mismanagement proves it.

      All they stand for is more taxes, more waste and more lies to satisfy the lust of their blind supporters.

    • Stunned says:

      01:28pm | 03/08/11

      Bob - no I mean Kerry. Packer Snr was still alive and telling little johnny how to run media policy back when the digital world was first placed behind the multiple walls kerry wanted.
      And to everyone else - i’m sorry. Of course I’m wrong. I mean the fact that technology which is now fifteen years old is still not universally available in Australia is gold-plated proof of the liberal party’s embracing of the brave new technological world. The fact that they did prevent and stall and delay this technology until they could be certain that their mates would not face any competition, and manufacturers would be forced to produce equipment that limited the application of program-recording software… hey.. its clear proof that the liberwads are way ahead of the technology curve. I dont know how I ever got any other impression.

    • Joan says:

      01:54pm | 03/08/11

      Just watched Malcom Turnbull at National Press Club, logically and comprenhensively rip to shreds Gillard/Conroy NBN monopoly model. As always the press club members proved that they have the attention span and brains of a gnat, as only about three members understood the topic and asked relevant questions. Stand out `off- the topic `gnats were Mike Riley, Michelle Grattan and a bizarre Lenore Taylor who read off a screed of taxes- whatcha gonna do . The gnat award of the day award goes to the guy who went back to last century and nattered on about   Turnbull Republican time. What a pathetic press club membership. obviously their brains can’t cope with anything more than twitter bite size information.

    • PTom says:

      02:01pm | 03/08/11

      @stevem. I think you find that is talking about the HDTV and SDTV. and the fact that all current Broadcast got extra channels and no new ones where allowed. Even TVS was left of the list at first.
      I wonder what it would be like if a Prime, Win, NBN, Sky or even TVNZ could brodacst across all Australia.

      @JA, I guess your talking about Optus and Foxtel PayTV cables that went in under Howard as another broken promise.
      http://www.ducts.com.au/ducts-articles/1996/4/24/tv-cable-rollout-to-continue-alston/

    • John the Zombie says:

      02:30pm | 03/08/11

      So what is labor doing about how Australians are ripped of by apple itunes or the fact that apple is restricting our ability to buy products such as the next samsung galaxy tablet and before you say it i due to a court case, why is it not been done overseas as well like in the US market.

    • stevem says:

      03:02pm | 03/08/11

      PTom , DVBt is standard under which digital TV is broadcast (Digital Video Broadcast - terrestrial as opposed to satellite). The standard defines how the TV decodes the signal. Each “channel” (technically a multicast) contains several video streams (eg HD, SD and alternate channels) several audio streams and several text streams as well as a way of linking them together. e.g. SD1 may be video 1, audio 1 and text 1; SD2 might be video 1, audio2, text 2 for same picture, different language; HD1 might be video 2;audio 1 and text 1 etc…

      Each existing network was allocated a spectrum for a new multicast corresponding to their old channels which will be returned to the government once the cut over to digital is complete. The then purchased the digital equipment to use it (with the exception of TVS which had funding problems).

      So the TV networks determine how to split their multicast up over several “channels” each of which share the same space as one old channel.

    • JA says:

      05:06pm | 03/08/11

      PTom

      No, the blame for the Optus and Foxtel third world cable rollout rests with Keating and the ALP, the article you linked to only confirms that the Libs were unable to limit the damage once they were elected (something about $96Bn debt to repay). 

      Keating allowed the contractors town planning exemption, which made it too costly to stop the damage.  A similar thing will happen when the Libs stop the NBN rollout in 2013, some already completed parts will remian but the rest will be tossed in the name of commn sense.

    • bleD says:

      08:06am | 03/08/11

      A few commentators have stated that the people have long memories and will despatch Labor to oblivion for many a year. I disagree, they have short memories; Labor will certainly lose the next election and then people will forget. They always do.

    • iansand says:

      08:08am | 03/08/11

      The stupid thing is that I doubt that there is a business in the country that could not save 5% (the current target) of their energy consumption by paying close attention to the efficiency of their operation.  In most cases it would take a bit of thought and some different decisions when it comes to plant replacement during the normal business cycle.  At the moment there is no real economic incentive to take those steps.  With a price on carbon there is.  If the decisions are made in that way there is no effect on jobs, or local manufacture.  The scare campaign epitomised by this article would be sound and fury, signifying the usual.

    • Disraeli says:

      08:29am | 03/08/11

      Not only that, Ian. Through the crbon price scheme there are new tax breaks to encourage/help them to do so.

      Just one example: the vast open fridges at Coles and Woolies, and the *needless waste” of power they create. Who pays for *that*?

      Right now? You and me, already.

    • TimB says:

      09:17am | 03/08/11

      “At the moment there is no real economic incentive to take those steps.”

      Yes there is. It’s called the price of electricity.

      Reducing consumption by 5% results in a reduction of the electricity bill of 5%. That remains constant with or without a carbon tax. All you’re doing is articfiicially inflating the price of power.

    • Joan says:

      09:26am | 03/08/11

      Disrael; And we are gonna pay more courtesy Gillard carbon tax. Worse still Gillard does not guarantee base load power as she closes down coal fired power stations . You bet we will have power shortages and ice cream will be dripping , food rotting on those supermarket shelves come increased power need.  a hot summers day or cold winters day . or wind stops blowing, Australian landscape turned into massive industrial zone by useless wind farms standing still. Blacked out doctor surgeries filled with sick headaches and medical wind farm generated illness. The unemployment queues stretching down the road as more jobs gone off shore. Scarey days ahead courtesy Gillard

    • L. says:

      09:37am | 03/08/11

      “In most cases it would take a bit of thought and some different decisions when it comes to plant replacement during the normal business cycle.  At the moment there is no real economic incentive to take those steps.  With a price on carbon there is.”

      Or..

      The likes of Ford, Holden (GM) and Toyota cansimply simply move production off shore to where they don’t have to purchase expensive new “Green” production techniques, and just import their products…

    • TimB says:

      10:47am | 03/08/11

      iansand says:09:21am | 03/08/11

      “Here is an example of what I mean.”

      You mean they did it *without* a Carbon tax? Le shock.

      Thanks for showing us why a carbon tax is unnecessary iansand.

    • iansand says:

      10:59am | 03/08/11

      TimB - Congratulations on your new maturity.  If you keep this up I may start reading your posts again.

      So what if the price goes up by 5%?  Consumption is down 5% and we have a zero sum game.  But if you do not reduce your consumption your costs go up, which is the whole point.  Even better, if you reduce by more than 5% you can sell your excess permits into the ETS and make a double buck - once by reducing your cost of production and again by flogging your spare permits to some luddite who won’t.  I love capitalism.  Imagine what Tamburlaine would have made with an ETS in place?

      L - Why do you think efficient plant is more expensive?  Another benefit of an ETS is to create a market for more efficient plant.

    • L. says:

      11:32am | 03/08/11

      “L - Why do you think efficient plant is more expensive?  Another benefit of an ETS is to create a market for more efficient plant.”

      You’re kidding right..??

      When car makers cancel models because costs rise a pultry $100 ~ $200 cost per $45,000 car, you cab rest assured that these plants are running as effeciently as humanly possible. These organisations spend millions on “efficiencies”, and are world leaders at it. All “effeiceicies” that Labor / Greens seek to impose will only serve to raise costs.

      Today Ford announced that it has backed out of making the new Focus here in Australia (a 2007 promise) because of cost concerns, and you think that these companies carrying the full weight of a carbon tax will lower costs and reverse such corporate decisions..??

      You really have no idea…

      Ford will soon import all Falcon sized cars, and Holden will follow soon after they lose there export deals.The Hybred Camery is already a dead duck model due to costs..and you think raising those costs more will be a good thing..??

    • iansand says:

      12:08pm | 03/08/11

      Ford are probably playing the Mitsubishi game.

    • stevem says:

      12:11pm | 03/08/11

      iansand NSW electricity prices just went up 18%. Indeed, prices have risen 76% since June 2007.

      Unfortunately demand for electricity is fairly inelastic. When prices go up people usually skimp elsewhere and pay the bills regardless. The carbon tax isn’t likely to make people replace every piece of electrical equipment if they haven’t already. Just how high do you want prices to go?

      Most large companies with huge power bills are among the most efficient in the world. Buying new equipment in Australia isn’t an option. Relocating to a cheaper country is, especially with the high price of the dollar. Companies like Bonds and Blundstone pride(d) themselves on being Australian and still relocated overseas.

      Your logic would have had us drop usage by 76% and the world would be fine. This just doesn’t happen in real life. I’m willing to bet that your bills have gone up considerably despite your posturing.

    • iansand says:

      12:15pm | 03/08/11

      Got a link to that, L?  It is not that I don’t trust you, but I have learnt to be sceptical of claims that I can’t find on other news sites.

    • L. says:

      12:24pm | 03/08/11

      “Got a link to that, L?  It is not that I don’t trust you, but I have learnt to be sceptical of claims that I can’t find on other news sites”

      What..?? The Ford announcement..??

      Sure..

      “Ford says it has no regrets about backtracking on a plan to build the Focus small car in Australia but has refused to rule out changing its mind again.”

      http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/no-regrets-about-aussie-focus-ford-20110802-1i8rh.html

    • Shifter says:

      01:12pm | 03/08/11

      @TimB - it raises the suggestion that the price of power is not prohibitive enough for some businesses to increase their efficiency in it’s use.

      This is also coupled with the notion that the way to do business in Australia is just pass the costs down to the customer. It can be argued that this practise is a result of low competition in various sectors. The businesses see no consequence of passing on these costs.

      In markets where this cost is seen, such as ones where local producers are competing with importers, big business can simply walk away and become an importer. Local business will likely innovate or die, and I’ll bet that dying will be more likely than the rapid adaption needed.

      It’s known that for the amount of mining of base resources we do, there is little value add done in the form of refinement, to manufacturing. If you’re looking at economic incentives, there’s even less of one with a carbon tax present for any new business looking to produce something other than shipping our dirt to other countries.

    • PTom says:

      02:15pm | 03/08/11

      @L.
      The Ford Focus was a new production line the was killed of last year.
      Not a existing line nor just announced.

      If you read the article it also say the price of the dollar has been having a impact and they had no plans to close their big car lines as it cost about the same to make a small car as a big car but the price return is the issue.

    • L. says:

      02:42pm | 03/08/11

      PTom,

      The point being that with the high dollar, the car was still scrapped as an Australian production line… And peop,e expect that the carbon tax will help this issue by making power more expensive and the company being taxed..?]

      As for the Ford Falcon line.. It will be killed off within 10 yrs, and an all new Ford “world car” sold in it’s place. Falcon volumes just don’t justify Dearborn’s continued effort in this country.. hence why the tax payer is giving them $$$ to keep going.

      Furthermore did you see the date of the inital announcement..?? 2007..!!! Say, didn’t we have an election that year..?? Now if you can’t connect the dots….

    • iansand says:

      03:23pm | 03/08/11

      Stevem - Of course my bills have gone up.  And I have taken steps to reduce my consumption.  If you haven’t you either live with teenagers or are nuts.

      You will have to explain the rest of my logic again.  I didn’t follow your first explanation.

      L - You cabn understand y scepticism.

    • sydneyman says:

      08:20am | 03/08/11

      I feel as though I am being governed by an occupying power.

      How did it get to this???

      I hope we can get to an election before they try and outlaw that as well.

    • Steve Putnam says:

      05:58pm | 03/08/11

      Have you seen a doctor?

    • Diamantina Dick says:

      08:20am | 03/08/11

      I suspect PM Julia Gillard was given her marching orders last weekend. They are just now trying to figure out how to make the transition to the new leader once they settle on who it is going to be and work out a plausible excuse to make the change. Question is; can they save the furniture?

      Labor has been dead as a political vehicle with any crtedible ideological integrity since it elected K Rudd as leader. They abandoned that necessity after the Latham Experiment failed.

      This self evident truth may come as a bitter pill for those only now realising they have been lead up the garden path for five whole years!

    • adam says:

      09:39am | 03/08/11

      I reckon they should get Latham, or someone akin to him back in the hot seat Dick. A clear point of difference between the two major parties is what the electorate seems to need.
      Someone who can articulate exactly what they stand for couldn’t hurt either

    • L. says:

      10:17am | 03/08/11

      “I suspect PM Julia Gillard was given her marching orders last weekend.”

      What makes you say that..??

      IMO, a change of leader so soon after Rudd would be the death blow to Labor.

    • Glenn says:

      11:32am | 03/08/11

      @ Diamantina Dick -  Thanks for the heads up. I’m off to the bank to see if I can get a loan to buy Paul Howes home from Tabcorp.

      If this does happen, good luck to the new leader who has to claw back the deals with President Bob and the Independants. (They have said the deals are with Ms Gillard)

      It will be an exciting time, as hopefully the new PM will call their bluff - after all will they change support to Abbott after all the bagging they have sent his way.

      No they will have to sit there and be the insignificant fools they used to be (before the hung parliment) but this time vote with the Government, or withdraw support and force an election and be voted out .

      President Bob and his gang of no hopers in the Upper House will have to wait a bit longer for their comeuppance - until they bring a double dissilusion on themselves.

      Bring it on I say - sure beats the same old crap about the Carbon Tax.

    • Phil D says:

      08:22am | 03/08/11

      Discussion is a bit quiet today ..... where are the likes of Pers. et al…................perhap this piece hits home as the truth always hurts the most.

    • scaper... says:

      09:08am | 03/08/11

      Look at the comment below. Resorting to a name change???

    • Disraeli says:

      08:25am | 03/08/11

      “With 16 new or increased taxes from this Government, why can’t the 17th (the climate tax).....”

      The old high tax myth again, in thin disguise.

      Only trouble is, this year, by Labor tax cuts *already* made
      -  a person earning $50,000/yr is paying $1750 less tax than three years ago.
      -  a person earning $80,000/yr is paying $1400 less tax than three years ago.

      And internationally, how do we stand? Are we highly taxed? Hardly.

      Of 34 OECD countries, in 2008 we ranked 7th from the bottom on “total taxation revenue as a proportion of GDP”
      http://www.oecd.org/document/35/0,3746,en_2649_34533_46661795_1_1_1_1,00.html#charts

      Consistently so. Back in 2003, we ranked 8th lowest on the same measure. Treasury report for then Treasurer Hon P Costello
      http://comparativetaxation.treasury.gov.au/content/report/html/05_Chapter_3.asp

      And on taxes on wages: again, better than the OECD average
      http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3746,en_2649_34533_47420811_1_1_1_1,00.html

      And under the carbon price scheme from 2012:
      - all taxpayers with incomes up to $80,000 will get a tax cut
      - 60% of taxpayers will get a tax cut of at least $300.
      - about 1 million people will fall below the income tax threshold - and will no longer have to do a tax return at all.

      So much for the high tax argument, then.

    • Dash says:

      09:15am | 03/08/11

      @Disraeli - You are wrong!

      Why do people earning $80,000 a year or more deserve to be punished on the basis of their income?

      Why should 20somethings living at home, or people already on welfare and paying no tax, be rewarded but family people with children, mortgage, dependant spouse who have educated themselves are already paying significant tax and are working 13 hour days be penalised?

      Stick your socilism where the sun don’t shine.

      And btw, the ALP has not delivered any tax cuts of their own. That is bullshit! And I object to your spin. To call them Labor tax cuts is a lie!

      The LNP delivered 5 consecutive years of tax cuts and Rudd “me too’d” the tax cuts of the Howard government during the 2007 election. Last budget (after those LNP tax cuts were done) the ALP delivered nil tax cuts! NIL! They have not delivered one cent of their own tax cuts. For you to suggest otherwise is a disgrace. They are high spending and high taxing. And they continue to put the onus on the top 10% of taxpayers who already pay more than 50% of the PAYG tax revenue.

      A two income family on $100,000 (split 50/50) will pay nil flood levy and get rewarded by the ALP. A single income family on $100,000 (who already pay more PAYG tax) will have to pay the flood levy and will get nil tax cuts. And that will happen regardless as to how many solar panels are on the roof, or grey water systems or water tanks or low power globes! Why? Because the ALP not concerned about the environment. It’s only interested in wealth redistribution.

      The flood levy will be paid by middle and high income earners, they have stripped $2billion away from Australian families in last years budget yet can still find the money for their propaganda campaign, they have introduced legislation to means test the private health tax rebate despite a promise not to touch it, they propose to increase the marginal tax rates for the second and third tiers in order to let bracket creep do the work for them and to deny the big taxpayers any tax break. They have removed the tax consessions for people to save for their retirement. Now they are reducing the living standards of every Australian earning over $80,000 a year! And feed us bullshit that this discrimination on the basis of income is “making polluters pay”.

      And they are doing this at a time when retail, housing, tourism figues are all down and inflation and interest rate pressures are up. They are farking morons!

      To try to suggest the ALP are giving tax payers relief is the biggest load of stupid bullshit I have ever read!

      The ALP are a pack of socialist bastards! They reward big union membership and people already on the welfare take and they punish the people working, paying tax and delivering the nations wealth. It’s the tall poppy syndrome gone completely mad!

    • B says:

      09:18am | 03/08/11

      Well take this argument.

      By my estimates with my accountant
      I will be paying an extra $1,754.01 (MINIMUM) per year in EXTRA costs. 
      I get in Tax Cuts:  $3.00 Per Year
      I get in Rebates: $0.00 Per Year
      Im earning: $73,000 a year and my Wife earns $22,000 a year so in total $95,000 a year.

      “all taxpayers with incomes up to $80,000 will get a tax cut”  - ICB

      A tax on success is what this tax is!!!!

    • Joan says:

      09:31am | 03/08/11

      Nothing like using word like levy, price to cover up the taxes. Sneaky tricky Gillard up to her tricks- manipulate the language to pull wool over eyes of hard working tax paayer

    • Anubis says:

      10:04am | 03/08/11

      @ Disreali - Labor has not made tax cuts. The only cuts to personal tax that have happened since labor took over are ones that were already promised through the Howard government.

      As for the tax free threshold - with the same stroke of the pen marginal rates will be increased - 15% to 19% and 30% to 33%. The first party to increase marginal tax rates for a generation. Bracket creep will soon compensate Labor for the increased tax free threshold.

      What have they given us?
      Mining Tax - check
      Flood Levy - check (for two years to cover Labor incompetence)
      25% increase on tobacco excise - check
      Alcopops Tax - check
      Increased fuel GST due to artificially high prices - check
      Soon to be introduced Carbon Tax that will no affect on the climate - check
      Soon to be introduced minimum floor pricing on alcohol - check
      Annual Excise increases on tobacco and alcohol - check

      I’m sure that given two more years and a debt that is now over $110 billion that Labor can come up with more, newer and bigger taxes for us all to “enjoy’

      Back to the Flood Levy - Qld State Labor was that arrogant that they consciously made the decision not to insure the state infrastructure (all other states carry this insurance) because as far as they were concerened if the “unlikely” event of a natural disaster occurred the Federal Government would bail them out. They did, by dipping into our pockets. Anyone who has the delusion that this levy is to assist the victims of the flood are wrong. The levy is simply to pay for what insurance should have paid for, the damage to state infrastructure.

      I have no doubt that, if Labor are still in power when the Flood Levy is due to finish, they will find some reason to continue it or shift it into mainstream taxation revenue.

    • TimB says:

      10:08am | 03/08/11

      “The old high tax myth again, in thin disguise.

      Only trouble is, this year, by Labor tax cuts *already* made”

      Coming up with a few myths of your own I see Disraeli. Those were *Liberal* tax cuts. Budgeted by the Liberals back during their last term in office. Labor initiated nothing.

      And surprise surprise, when the last of those budgeted cuts finally came through last year, what happened *this* year? No tax cuts to be seen from Labor. I wonder why that is.

      You’ve also neglected to mention the fact that offsetting with the rise in the income tax threshold, we also get a lowering of the Low Income Tax Offset, and the rate of the $37,001 – $80,000 income bracket has jumped from 30% to 32.5%.

      The spin is strong in this one.

    • Andrew says:

      11:49am | 03/08/11

      Couple of quick ones:
      1.B your wife will have a tax cut based on her income.
      2.Anubis i didnt know the mining tax was already in place.
      3. Anubis I think you will find taxing tobacco highly has bi-partisan support
      4.Anubis are you suggesting that we dont increase alcohol and tobacco taxes based on CPI?
      5.I think the upper end of income earners have had a decent run under the Coalition, this time is running a bit in the other direction.
      6. Increased fuel GST due to artificially high prices, government doesnt set fuel prices Anubis. If the aussie dollar was back to 2000 levels we would be paying $3 dollars a litre, keep it in perspective.
      7 I will be paying the flood levy etc, my wife doesn’t work(takes care of the kids) and i will be out of pocket with the ETS.
      8. Coalition were the highest taxing government as a % of GDP.
      http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/27/41498733.pdf

    • Disraeli says:

      12:16pm | 03/08/11

      Ignoring all the pointless personal insults, the facts on tax cuts, current and proposed, are a matter of public record, here and overseas.

      No amount of carrying on like porkchops can alter the fact.

      And no amount of personal insult will stop me from posting rational opinion, based on accurate information, from sound published sources.

      See ya.

    • Dash says:

      12:34pm | 03/08/11

      @Disraeli - any chance of getting you to answer my questions?

      Why do people earning $80,000 a year or more deserve to be punished on the basis of their income?

      Why should 20somethings living at home, or people already on welfare and paying no tax, be rewarded but family people with children, mortgage, dependant spouse who have educated themselves are already paying significant tax and are working 13 hour days be penalised?

      Any chance of you being honest about the fact that the ALP has delivered no tax cuts of their own?

      Your response is a nothing response. Arguably because you have nothing!

    • Ben81 says:

      01:20pm | 03/08/11

      Don’t you think it’s a bit much to include compensation for driving up our cost of living as an example of tax cuts we’ll get?

    • Glen M says:

      01:45pm | 03/08/11

      @ Disraeli,

      You have been seriously discredited by Dash’s analysis and as a result of this your time at the Punch must come to an end . Please back away from the keyboard.

    • TimB says:

      02:23pm | 03/08/11

      “Ignoring all the pointless personal insults”

      Easy enough for you to do I guess, seeing as there were none. Closest I can see is where you’ve been acused of spinning. And if that gets your eyes all misty, perhaps you’re a bit too precious.

      In the meantime, if your only arguments to Andrew’s tax point consists of:

      - A strawman about OECD Averages, and how our taxes ‘aren’t that high’. (No-one cares, it doesn’t change Andrew’s point)
      - Giving Labor credit for Liberal initiated tax cuts
      - Trumpeting about all the goodies Labor are showering on the electorate whilst neglecting to mention the part where they’re sticking their hand in our pockets to steal the money back

      ...then it’s no wonder you’re making excuses to beat a hasty retreat instead of responding to our counter-arguments.

    • Martin says:

      02:42pm | 03/08/11

      @Disraeli. Made a fine clown of yourself on here today. LMAO mate.

    • Andrew says:

      02:59pm | 03/08/11

      The numbers don’t lie TimB. I presented it as some were complaining about high taxes from one side of politics.

    • Anubis says:

      03:01pm | 03/08/11

      @ Andrew. point by point

      1. My wife will not receive a tax cut as she is disabled and totally reliant on my income
      2. Not in it’s full glory yet
      3. Yes it has bipartisan support because both parties see this as being the way the public thinks
      4. If it is to be increased every year through CPI increases then stop adding non-CPI increases to them. One or the other. Is your rate of Personal Income Tax increased by CPI every year? If not then why not? (just to extend the logic of increasing taxes by CPI)
      5.The top 10% of tax payers (those above $80k) already pay over 50% of income tax revenue. And they contribute a nigher amount to other taxes including GST. Why should the entire burden of the Carbon Tax be lumped on that small sector of the community. It is punishing people for having the gall to educate themselves and improve their lot in the workforce. It has taken me thirty years in the workforce to get to where I am so what have I done wrong to be penalised for being successful?
      6. However, the price of a barrel of oil is significantly lower than it was when petrol last peaked. Dollar is now worth 30% more internationally, oil has dropped by about 33% yet the price at the bowser is the same. The math isn’t right there somewhere. And it has nothing to do with increased excise because that was frozen and does not increase by CPI.
      7. I am also paying the flood levy, wife does not work (see point 1 above) and children still at home
      8. The Liberal Government reduced personal income tax and other taxes for at least three successive terms and the only tax cut the Labor Government has given is the one that the Liberals had already budgeted for. The Liberal’s tax take increased with the GST (even though it replaced a raft of inefficient, different rate sales taxes). The GST revenue is, however, redistributed to the States. This was done as the states were supposed to remove taxes like Land Tax and Stamp Duty etc. The states, in most cases did not remove these taxes so it is the states that are the beneficiaries not the feds. The Liberals (who I do not support BTW - have never and probably will never, vote for them) were a high taxing party during the Howard years for a number of reasons. The main one of these was need/desire to pay off the huge debt left by the previous Labor incumbents. Unfortunately the Liberals do not believe in infrastructure and were so fixated on surpluses that they continued over taxing even after the national debt had been made manageable. $54 billion surplus over three years indicates two things - overtaxing and underspending.

      Even though I do not support the Libs I can not support our current Numpty Government. They are incompetent, fiscally irresponsible and throw billions of dollars trying to make every brain-fart that they have a reality. They are hostage to the Greens and bleeding hearts of society and are doing nothing (with maybe the exception of the NBN) for the good of Australia. The Carbon Tax is a way to implement Fabian Society agenda of wealth redistribution disguised as caring for the planet. When you get stray Labor politicians acknowledging that it is tokenism (very expensive tokenism) then you have to admit there is a problem.

    • Jane says:

      03:25pm | 03/08/11

      It will cost double under LIberal Policy of Direct Action according to Treasury, with no Carbon tax being levied against the polluters - rather we will fund incentive payments to them…general tax revenue will be hit. Massive job losses in the pubic sector will not be enough to fund it but not being a election Liberals do not have explain the 10 billion dollar shortfall in funding Carbon tax is the cheapest model we have at the moment to choose from. So arguning tax is not really relevant.

    • Andrew says:

      03:36pm | 03/08/11

      @Anubis.
      If i may reply point by point.

      1. I’m sorry to hear about your wife.
      2. Cart before the horse, it isn’t done yet.
      3. I don’t have a problem with it given what cigarettes did to my mother.
      4. Its been like this for a long time, both sides of the fence have supported it, don’t agree with all of it, but don’t think its time to change it either.
      5. I am in that top 10% by your reckoning. I like your hard working attitude, mine is not that different, and I recognise I have a responsibility to society as a whole.
      6. In 2000 for example $1 aud was buying 49 cents. Based on current oil prices that would translate into a doubling of petrol prices, scary indeed.
      7. Welcome to the club.
      8. Yes the liberal did implement taxation reform, however as a % of gdp they are still the highest taxing government in our history.
      9. Infrastructure would appear to be Australia’s greatest challenge, and our greatest failure.

      Thanks for keep the debate civil.

    • Tator says:

      11:08pm | 03/08/11

      Andrew,
      the OECD file you linked to states total taxation, as the historical budget data from the ALP’s last budget had 2000/01 taxation receipts at 25.8% of GDP. 
      Now the states own revenue base grew substantially during those periods from 2000?01 to 2007?08, actual taxation revenue increased by an average annual rate of 7.4 per cent. Tax increases were largest in Queensland (12.2 per cent per year), Western Australia (12.1 per cent) and the Northern Territory (8.6 per cent.).  GDP growth during the same period as recorded by the ABS was 3.3% per annum so state based taxation grew as a percentage of GDP as well, and this is exclusive of GST revenue.  The kicker, during that period, all the states were ALP Governments.
      .Now there were several other structural changes Howard made to the balance between State/Federal funding.  Firstly, the states lost a high court challenge over excise’s on fuel, cigarettes and liquor and such excises were deemed unconstitutional.  Howard took over the regime of excises under the federal umbrella and distributed the revenue as if the state based schemes were still running -  now this is counted as Federal tax revenue but is distributed directly to the states.  In addition, the GST removed several state based taxes such as FID and BAD plus some stamp duties on financial instruments (many claim stamp duty full stop was to be removed but that is not the case).  The removal of these state based nusiance taxes and replacing them with the federally based GST also throws a bias towards the Howard Government being the highest taxing government as they have taken more tax bases from the states but the revenue from those bases remains a state revenue stream.

    • Disraeli says:

      09:50am | 04/08/11

      I suppose it’s not surprising TimB didn’t bother reading Dash’s first attempted lashing. Tedious old stuff,  in the Limp Lettuce class, but there it is, on display at the top of the thread.

      The continued tirade of empty personal insult takes nothing away from my original post and the published tax info, Left, Right and International.

      As for the other Diktats from Dash and Glen M, well,  I decide which topics I post on, and the circumstances in which I post.

      The facts of taxation are as I’ve outlined, and no amount of jigger pokery or slagfest can change that.

      And by the by, the tax free threshold and the income brackets are all annually indexed,  against bracket creep. Take that into account when moaning about marginal rates.

      Byee!

    • Andrew says:

      10:39am | 04/08/11

      Tator if that was the case then the Federal ALP would have maintained the high level of tax revenue as a % of GDP when they came to power. This however is not reflected in the OECD data.
      OECD 2009(some 2008) Tax as a % of GDP is ‘.1
      Opposed to 1.1 in 2004.
      The numbers don’t lie and Howard was the highest taxing prime minister in our history.

    • Andrew says:

      12:11pm | 04/08/11

      Edit 27.1 in 2008 vs 31.1 in 2004

    • Tator says:

      08:50pm | 04/08/11

      Andrew
      I stand by my figures, that drop is explained by the drop in revenue collected in 08/09 which were the acute phase of the GFC.  The estimated tax revenue for the 08/09 budget was $319.5 billion, actual receipts were only $298.9 billion, a shortfall of over $20 billion or a 6.5% drop in revenue.  Yet GDP did not drop during that period as well.
      All figures are from http://www.budget.gov.au

    • Q. says:

      08:29am | 03/08/11

      Labor and the extreme Greens are scaring my family witless. (Some of our family deserted Labor during Kevin Rudd’s incompetent reign, only to be double whammied by the untrustworthy and incompetent Juliar Gillard, courtesy of union hacks like the surly Paul Howes).

      I agree with Super D’s thinking on pitching the next election as a referendum on democracy.

      Abbott should pick up on the wider public mood - fear of the current downgrading of democracy as we have known it and the domineering Labor trend to socialism with its disincentives and punishments for individuals to succeed and prosper with flow-on benefits for our communities.

      I’d like to see an action group that can constructively oppose Get Up. Something along the lines of “Wake Up”, with low-cost membership pitched at aspirational 20-40- year olds who hold conservative values.

      BTW, can anyone here please post Paul Howes’ educational qualifications?

    • Trevor says:

      09:39am | 03/08/11

      No, the Liberal/corporatist sychophants that consitute over 70% of the Australian media are scaring your family witless with their overblown hyperbole. But that’s a great idea Q, let’s start a Tea Party in Australia. That worked out so well in the US didn’t it?! Their brinksmanship over the debt ceiling almost, and still might, devastate their economy all for the sake of being contrarian, much like the Abbott brigade here.

    • L. says:

      10:43am | 03/08/11

      “heir brinksmanship over the debt ceiling almost, and still might, devastate their (US) economy”

      Yeah, and two super expensive 8 year wars and MASSIVE corproate bailouts had nothing to do with that..?

    • Q. says:

      10:51am | 03/08/11

      Trevor, can you please list Paul Howes’ educational qualifications here? His apparent power over who governs this country scares us so his qualifications are of interest.

      I haven’t heard my family say they are scared of “Liberal/corporatist sycophants” as you declare. They are saying that it is the lies, the Bob Brown/Milne over-influence and extremism, the fakery, the outrageous spending, pink batts disaster(s), BER, wasted funding on discarded Green programmes, the successful dismantling of a successful people smuggling racket being replaced with contrarian nonsensical policies and now our hard earned money being spent on political advertising. They’re not saying anything about the US, they are not scared of the US or its Tea Party, they are saying their vote didn’t count because it gave the Greens unrepresentative power.  They are saying that they don’t like what they are seeing. They are saying they feel let down and democracy is disappearing under Australian Labor. That’s all.
      If you think that Get Up should not be democratically held to account by an alternative organisation, and then use a foreign analogy to rubbish the idea, no wonder some Australians are feeling so damned scared.

    • Trevor says:

      01:53pm | 03/08/11

      I looked up Paul Howe’s educational qualifications for you Q and it would appear that he left school in year 9. But according to all of the ‘conservative’s’ (Erick et al) attacks on University education, that should been seen as a positive right?

      And you don’t really get my meaning regarding the media. They are the ones painting Labor as ‘liars’ etc. Let’s examine one of the worst examples of propaganda ever, the Nazis. Joseph Goebbels painted Jews, Communists and homosexuals as evil, liars and perptrators of the demise of the German nation. Who was actually ‘evil’? Goebbels or the Jews etc? The media are playing a very similar game here, with the result that a lot of people are falling for all of the things that seemingly have reduced your family to a frightened, quivering mess. This is the same media that successfully had a PM booted out of office due to their fear campaign over the proposed Mining Super Tax, which would have gone a long way to addressing the two speed economy that is currently threatening to tear this country in two.

      Your examples are silly. It’s called infrastructure spending. It wasn’t the Government’s fault that cowboy ‘tradesmen’ took advantage of the Pink Batts scheme that resulted in some deaths. Sure it was implemented quickly, but remember this was part of the rapid resonse to the GFC that has resulted in Australia having today possibly the healthiest economy in the world. Schools now have much needed infrastructure that they were screaming out for for years during the previous Lib Government. As for the boat people, that’s an issue in semantics. Global conditions have become much harsher under the recent Labor Government, maybe that it the reason more are coming now? Would you rather have Howard sending the SAS to keep refugees out of Australian waters so that he can judiciously hold the line that “If they don’t enter Australian waters then it’s not our problem”? This issue is insignificant anyway, and the media has once again played a massive role in hyping it up to all of the rednecks out there.

      As for the Greens having ‘unrepresentative power’ what a load. The Greens received a large percentage of the votes at the last election and hold the balance of power in a hung parliament. If the independants had of sided with the LNP to gain power then I’m sure we would be having a Carbon Tax too, that’s Australian democracy for you.

      Money spent on political advertising? Are you kidding? What about the millions Howard spent advertising workchoices? Don’t be silly, it’s how Govenments make the poplace aware of its schemes, and unfortunately you need to spend money to do anything in a capitalist economy.

      Maybe your familiy would rather be living with Ruddock’s proposed sedition laws, Hockey’s Workchoices or Abbott’s user-pays health system? If they are reduced to living in fear over some infrastructure spending and a tax that finally puts a costs to all the shit that the multi-million dollar corporations have been pumping into our common environment for decades, then they wouldn’t have coped very well under an ongoing Liberal Government.

      And I think that they must be listening to Tea Party propaganda behind your back Q. To be touting such rhetoric as ‘socialism, disappearing democracy etc’ it sounds to me like they are very familiar with the disfunction that is the Tea Party. But if they are not, tell them to take a look, it might just educate them on the alternative that they pine for. 

      There is a homeless bloke who lives near my work who was telling me he has saved $150,000 by not paying for housing, education etc. I think that this represents the Liberal apprach to financial management quite well, spend nothing so you can point to a ‘healthy’ bottom line.

      @ L: You are exactly right, however it was the contrarians who alomst killed the economy a few months before it dies naturally.

    • Cry in my Gin says:

      08:36am | 03/08/11

      On this subject, but off to left field a bit, can someone point me to a website that deals with the carbon footprint of solar panels and the amount of time they have to produce power to cover it. No “royal family are drug pushers” type conspiracy sites please, I only like facts.
      Thanks in advance fellow punchers.

    • Chinless says:

      10:04am | 03/08/11

      Find your own information you slack bastard.

    • Bruce says:

      08:42am | 03/08/11

      Have just read the governments ‘clean energy future’ booklet received in the mail. A couple of questions. The ‘benefits’ that some Australians might receive depending on your own personal circumstances appear to be quite minimal when calculated back on a weekly basis. However, if the objective of the tax is to reduce carbon emmisions and revenue raised from the tax is to pay for the ‘benefits’, what happens when industry changes their technology or sends processing of carbon poluting substances off shore and the amount of carbon polution is reduced, does that mean government revenue is then reduced ? Will all benefits be guaranteed to remain as stated in the booklet. If so how will the government then pay for these ‘benefits’. By its very purpose, the carbon tax should actually get less and less as industry changes the way it does business to reduce their tax burdon.

    • Anubis says:

      10:13am | 03/08/11

      And there Bruce is the crux of the problem - creative accounting. Treasury has stated that in order for power generators to meet their Carbon Credit requirements they will need to purchase up to $15 billion in Carbon Credits from overseas markets in the first three years of operation. Now in doing this they will not have to lower emissions because their abatement is done through purchasing pieces of paper. But $15 billion will need to be added to consumers bills - this equates to an additional $745 per person (not household) on top of what carbon tax they will be levied. So for a household with two adults and two children the required electricity bill increase will be $745 x 4 = $2980

      Also, this means that this $15 billion will be leaving Australia’s economy to disappear into the pockets of the shonks that ar Trading Credits. An example of this is
      http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/12/us-india-carbon-coal-idustre76b1xi20110712
      Indian and Chinese COAL BURNING power plants are now generating carbon credits.

      How can a coal burning activity “generate” carbon credits when they are creating emissions? (Over ten years 673 million metric tons) Particularly puzzling when you consider the entire Australian annual emissions are 600 million metric tons

      So five Indian power plants create MORE Co2 emissions than all of Australia and they generate Carbon Credits whereas we get penalized with a Carbon Tax.

    • PTom says:

      02:52pm | 03/08/11

      Anubis,
      $745 is crap because you just equate that to a fully individual cost and nothing to government or business.

      Councils pay a hugh amount for street lamps so how much of the $15 billion is spent there?

    • Anubis says:

      03:37pm | 03/08/11

      @ PTom that is derived by dividing the expenditure by the population. Yes councils pay for street lights but, where does the council get it’s money from. PTom you are being disingenious. $15 billion disappearing overseas never to be seen in the Australian economy again, the consumers pick up the bill whether it is paid for through their own power bills or through councils paying for street lights. Council costs increase, rates increase. Homeowners pay the rates (or pass the increase on through increased rents). Either way the cost is borne by the general public.

      And what PTom about the hypocrisy of coal burning power stations generating their own Carbon Credits? No thoughtful insights there?

    • Disraeli says:

      08:47am | 03/08/11

      “With 16 new or increased taxes from this Government, why can’t the 17th (the climate tax) be in place of an existing one (Norway replaced part of its payroll tax and called it a carbon tax) to reduce the cost of living burden.”

      Cost of living burden, eh.

      The carbon price applies to major businesses. Some of the cost will flow to households.

      Some will be absorbed by better business efficiency, some by competitive pricing.

      To the extent cost flows on to households, there’s a range of tax cuts and benefit etc increases to counter that, in top of which those of us who choose to can make better use of energy at home.

      Most of us will actually be better off.
      - on average,while weekly household expenditure may rise by about $9.90/week, on average, households will get about $10.10 in tax-cuts and other assistance.
      - For about 6 million households, assistance (tax cuts and etc) will be at least equal to any carbon price flow-on.

      Overall about 90% of households will get assistance (tax cuts, increases in payments, or both) to help meet any flow on of the business carbon price to their cost of living.

      For those on incomes up to $80,000, the two rounds of tax cuts in 2012/13 and 2015/16 will generally give a tax cut of at least $385.

      And the “cost of living burden” to be born by the “elite”? Well the *real* elite will just have to cough up a bit. Fair’s fair.

    • Dash says:

      09:21am | 03/08/11

      The ALP is not interested in better energy use at home!!! All that matters to them is what you earn! They are discriminating against people on the basis of their income. How many solar panels they have on teh roof makes zero difference. This is Socialist wealth redistribution for nil net gain to the environment. Shame ALP Shame!

      The 10% of household who get nil assistance, are already paying over 50% of the PAYG tax revenue. Wow that’s fair!

      Stick your socialism up your butt! The day we start penalising success and rewarding wealth destruction is a very very sad day in our history! We should be encouraging success, not penalising it. And the ALP should be ashamed of itself using the environment as an excuse for Socialist reengineering.

      Love the way as an ALP supporter you want something for nothing! Typical of ALP fools on the tax take! So the people already paying all the tax should pay more??? WHY?

    • Joan says:

      09:41am | 03/08/11

      Gillard Carbon Tax on everything will not change the weather. Gillard just playing money shuffling permit swapping game using Australians as pawns. Australians will be the losers long after Gillard rides off into the sunset with Tim with her PM pension paid for by the hard working tax payer whom she lied to and ripped off paying deals with independents in the first place.

    • Dan says:

      09:56am | 03/08/11

      But I want more! Make me richer! Give me a bigger car! I can’t afford to send my kids to Kings!

      Australia, you’ve never been wealthier. That’s a great thing, but it comes with responsibility. No country is in a better position to start tackling climate change.

    • Dash says:

      11:35am | 03/08/11

      @Dan, who’s saying that? This is about the government making the decision to reduce some people’s standard of living for no other reason but their income! No one’s asking to be made better off at all! People just don’t understand why the government is using the environment as an excuse to redistribute wealth.

      If we are all responsible, we all should pay for it. Why do you deserve compensation and I deserve to pay for it? Particularly when I have a smaller carbon footprint than you? That’s the stupidity of this policy.

      To be compensating the steel and coal industries because they have a big union, and to force the cost on to only a certain section of the community is wrong! It’s not a free market mechinism, and it makes a mockery out of the ALPs claim to make big polluters pay.

      The people who are being made richer are the select few that the ALP has chosen to redirect other people’s money too!

      Why is the responsibility you talk about, only being forced on to some of the community? And why is the responsibility determined on the basis of income alone?

    • Dan says:

      12:18pm | 03/08/11

      @ Dash

      Who is saying that? Who isn’t? We’re addicted to a ‘Keep Up With The Jones’’ style culture of spending every dollar we earn - living in the largest house, driving the biggest car, sending our kids to the best school possible.

      Who’s saying that? Those on $160 000 that cried “not me!” at the thought of paying a tiny flood levy. Seriously, it’s time for a reality check.

      The very nature of income tax discriminates due to income. Those with more to pay, pay more, for the good of the wider community. Mostly because you’re level of income is generally no reflection on how hard you work. Does a miner on $200k work any harder than an accountant on $65k? Probably not.

      But that’s beside the point. The ‘wealth redistribution’ conspiracy theory is a load of garbage. This tax isn’t aimed at big business - it’s big emitters in the firing line. Many are one and the same, but certainly not all. Labor’s proposing a company tax cut, and cuts to the vast majority of taxpayers. It’s the first time I’ve heard conservatives fire-up over tax cuts.

      This isn’t socialism. It’s a sensible, market-based approach to tackling a major problem. And if it was, I’d be worried about David Cameron’s credibility with his Tory mates.

    • Dash says:

      12:51pm | 03/08/11

      @Dan, Firstly, David Cameron is not implementing a tax!!! He is not proposing to punish people on the basis of their incoome. They are also planning to open nuclear power plants. It’s complete stupidity to try to make any comparison with the UK and what the ALP has dished up.

      The tax will be paid for by big taxpayers, not big emmitters at all. And it is wealth redistribution. People earning over 80,000 a year will get nothing and will subsidise the coal industry, the steel industry and low income earners. That is wealth redistribution. It takes from people on the basis of what they earn, not on the basis of how they pollute. And it gives to people on the basis of what the earn and their demographic, not on how they pollute.

      And this is not a free market mechinism! The government sets the price. The government determines who pays and who doesn’t. The government determines who gets compensated. That’s not a free market mechinism. Come on man!

      If we are all responsible than we should all be expected to pay. To take money from me and give it to someone else for no reason except what I earn is wealth redistribution!

      I could stick a thousand solar panels on my roof, and it would make absoultely no difference. The ALP would still make me pay for it and still send my money to an ALP demographic with a larger carbon footprint! That’s socialism.  And any ALP claim to it being free market is a crock of shit whilst they determine who pays and the market doesn’t. Surely you are not stupid enough to believe that?

    • Anna C says:

      01:05pm | 03/08/11

      “Does a miner on $200k work any harder than an accountant on 65k?”

      Yes, Dan he probably does. I don’t think you can compare doing someone’s tax return, to toiling 1km underground or working in a open cut mine.

      Sounds to me like you have a serious case of envy. How dare those dirty, uneducated miners earn more than you!  No doubt Julia’s wealth redistribution tax (masquerading as a Carbon Tax) must just thrill you to bits.

    • Dan says:

      01:09pm | 03/08/11

      @ Dash

      Of course it’s not a “free market” policy. Did I mention the word “free” anywhere?

      It’s “market based”, and has a lot more to do with the market than anything the Coalition is putting forward.

      It’s the very basics of Keynesian economics…the free market isn’t always right, and occasionally needs to be guided by Government.


      Why should the Government not take out of the pockets of all who pollute? For the same reason they don’t take out of the pockets of all who work, in charging income tax. Not all can afford to pay. From the sounds of things, you can - unlike many others, in those god-forbidden Labor electorates.

      Take from those who can afford to pay, support those who can’t. It’s pretty simple, in fact, it’s the basis of all taxation systems worldwide.

      I’m comparing David Cameron’s words…remember that lovely little note he posted to JG, expressing his support for a carbon tax? And I’m all for nuclear power.

      And finally…if you put a thousand solar panels on the roof, there wouldn’t be much of a power bill to pay. So yes, you would be rewarded.

    • GregE says:

      01:12pm | 03/08/11

      @Dan - what Dash says is correct. It’s not about the progressive tax system which is already in place. No one is arguing against the operation of that system. We all pay our fair share of tax. But what the ALP is doing, is using the environmental debate as an excuse to push even more tax responsibility on to the people who are already paying the most tax! And they are rewarding people who pay little if any tax. And those decisions are being made on the basis of income, not on the basis of how we pollute.

      If this is all our responsibility than we should all pay. The idea that people should get financial reward for doing nothing and that reward should be taken from someone else for nothing is socialism. I don’t like to see a government who punishes people because of their achievement. It’s sad that we seem to be playing class wars here.

      You talk about tax cuts but you ignore the additional burden this policy puts onto families and the economy. And the fact that the 2nd and 3rd tax brackets have been increased means that bracket creep will see people slowly pay more tax.

      Dash seems to be of the view that if this is about the environment, we should not be discriminating against families on the basis of their income. That is using the environment as an excuse for wealth redistribution. It’s hard to argue against that point. And when you consider the nil impact to the environment of this policy, it looks very much like wealth redistribution is really what this policy is all about.

      I think that marginalises the ALP to the left and explains why middle Australia is deserting them.

    • AdamC says:

      01:22pm | 03/08/11

      Dan, a few things:

      1. I pay the flood levy and I earn less than $160,000. And I am not ‘crying not me’ about it, either.
      2. Just because *you* may be obsessed with keeping up with the Joneses, doesn’t mean *we* are.
      3. I would have thought your average CA or CPA would earn more than $65k. But, if they don’t, it’s yet another reason I’m glad I never became an accountant!
      4. The wealth redistribution thesis does not involve a ‘conspiracy theory’. The government have not made a secret of it - it is effectively their marketing strategy. “Don’t worry about the carbon tax, pensioners. I’ve got a big pile of money and a shovel. Open your purses and wallets!”

      In any event, I am wondering whether you have critically engaged with this issue or are just reciting received wisdom. I have a bad habit of giving people way to much credit on the Punch!

    • Glen M says:

      02:17pm | 03/08/11

      @Dan

      Actually done the numbers on solar panels on the roof , I need 240sqm of them to cover my power bills, only problem is the roof area of the house is 150sqm. 

      Which just goes to show how the market based mechanism you espouse will not work. Unles a viable subsitution is available things will not change. Costs will go up and as noted clearly by Dash the government does’nt have an environment policy it has a wealth distribution policy.
      If you want to have an impact on the environment money must be spent specifically and directly on research and development , in other words “Direct Action”

    • Steve Putnam says:

      09:59am | 04/08/11

      @Dash - a flat earther advocating a flat tax system!

    • Dash says:

      08:51am | 03/08/11

      Can someone at the punch please forward this to the PMs office. Since she’s walking the streets answering everyones questions, perhaps the Punch can ask her to respond to this article.

      I’m seriously sick of the bullshit from the ALP on this. And to make matters worse they are using our tax dollars to fund their propaganda campaign.

    • jay-ded says:

      10:55am | 03/08/11

      No, but I can still send your poem if you like Dash hehehehe

    • Against the Man says:

      02:05pm | 03/08/11

      Oh come on! You think this fake PM cares 2 hoots about us. This is all pretend BS from the great Juliar.

      She knows the majority don’t want a carbon tax. She promised no carbon tax. And look what we get! It is all about her.

      Keep hurting her at the polls!

    • Matt says:

      08:54am | 03/08/11

      Anyone that takes the Direct Action plan which is effectively throwing money at big business (no surprises there) instead of a price on carbon is nothing but a well trained Abbott lap dog.  What, does he hold weekly traning sessions for his plebs or something..

      Even you don’t believe it Andrew - what ‘possible’ job losses for starters?  What does the NBN have to do with the carbon price? That’s two swipes at the NBN in two days, but no alternative has been suggested.  We all know coalition doesn’t like technology, that’s obvious with Sophies article..

    • Mick S says:

      08:57am | 03/08/11

      It is of course awful that we are told about Climate Change and the Carbon Tax by the “elite”.
      The “elite” is the Conservative way of describing scientists and economists.
      How dare those with any form of knowledge and experience presume to talk to “most Aussies”.
      Far better that we source uneducated and uninformed opinions.
      Lucky we have the shock jocks.

    • David S says:

      10:19am | 03/08/11

      Sitting in Parliament House, Canberra with the white cars and all the perks is as “elite” and as far inside the beltway as you can get. 
      It reminds me when President Bush decried the ‘elites’.  When they use the term “elite”, it’s just a slur on anyone who disagrees with their position.

    • Damian says:

      08:59am | 03/08/11

      We have no choice but to move towards a renewable economy- get over it and get in with it.

    • John says:

      09:25am | 03/08/11

      renewable economy equals lootable economy for the international banking cartel and their aim to rule the world via socialist internationalism. Global Warning and Climate change is as just as legit as fictional Al-Qaeda organizations and Weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq, This is not about the oil and interest groups, it’s about looting trillions of dollars from western tax payers to fund International Socialism. The international banking cartel’s love is for money and power not nature.

      Damian “get over it and get in with it. ” How about you get over it and that we won’t get with it.

    • Dash says:

      09:31am | 03/08/11

      But that does not mean we have no choice about how we do it! And that does not mean we need to use the environment as an excuse to implement socialist wealth redistribution!

      People who dumb down this debate to be purely about renewable energy, miss the fact that the ALP are running a completely different agenda!

    • TimB says:

      09:33am | 03/08/11

      Not true.

      We also have the option of moving to a nuclear economy. But that doesn’t suit the ALP/Green’s wealth redistributing agenda.

    • Joan says:

      10:36am | 03/08/11

      There is than one way to skin a cat. Direct action is action, a Carbon Tax is a Tax ... money shuffling , permit swaping game built on a hope that something will change., with scam artists out on the make to grab every easy dollar from the gullible Gillard Labor ... pink Batt and BER proof of Gillard hands on tax payer money squandered. Gillard big promises her big give away dollars and big promise to people to make them richer , stuff made of fairy tales-  the witch luring Snow white with apple has got nothing on Gillard promise of richness and stopping the waters rising.

    • jay-ded says:

      10:38am | 03/08/11

      @Damian, no one is stating that we shouldn’t move towards a renewable economy.  In fact, most people are like-minded on this.  What we don’t want is a wealth distribution of the “carbon tax”.  Come up with a better plan and more people will jump on board.

    • The Badger says:

      12:57pm | 03/08/11

      timmie
      The coalition does not support nuclear power
      better join One Nation - besides, it’s closer to your ideology than the Nationals are.
      PS - If we must have wealth redistribution, then I much prefer the Greens/Labor wealth redistribution that eases the burden on those less fortunate as opposed to the Coalition wealth redistribution that takes from the poor and gives to the rich.

    • ausspud says:

      01:33pm | 03/08/11

      Damian
      Nuclear or Coal.
      Pick one or both but not neither.

    • Dash says:

      01:39pm | 03/08/11

      The Badger - Under the Howard government, real incomes increased by 15% during their term. Low income earners had their real income decrease by 3.5% under the former Keating government! Under Howard, unemployment fell to its lowest level in 30years compared to unemployment being over 10% under Keating. I think the poor were much better off under the last LNP than they were under the ALP.

      Howard also delivered 5 years of consecutive tax cuts for all Autsralians. And they did that whilst paying off the ALPs debt and producing surplus budgets! The ALP have delivered nothing but increased taxes.

      Your sweeping generalisation may have been useful in unionised Australia of the 1930s, but it rings very very hollow today.

    • TimB says:

      01:56pm | 03/08/11

      Badger we’ve had this discussion before. You’re right, the Coalition doesn’t (officially) support nuclear power. And that’s a shame. But it’s a situation borne of the usual ALP/Green scare campaign whenever the Coalition *does* try to raise it as a policy.

      So in the meantime, faced with a choice between two main parties who don’t support nuclear power, I’m going to back the one that *doesn’t* have a pointlessly stupid carbon tax as a policy.
      If Labor were to drop the tax and go the nuclear route instead, I’d vote for them in a heartbeat.

      As for your comments on wealth redistribution….

      “Coalition wealth redistribution that takes from the poor and gives to the rich. “

      Examples please.

    • Dash says:

      03:51pm | 03/08/11

      @Andrew - Ha good try. I notice your analysis includes the GST revenue which replaced a number of state taxes (which are not included inthis analysis) and went 100% to the ALP state governments. And we all know what the ALP state governments did with it! And you also convieniently leave off the increased tax take since the ALP have been in office since 2007. Of course the tax take has gone up under Rudd/Gillard but you leave the analysis since 2006 off.

      You also ignore the increase in real incomes under Howard compared to the decline under Keating and compared to this current mob of lefty loonies. Where’s your analysis of disposable income?

      Lies damn lies and statistics. You’ll have to try better than that.

    • Andrew says:

      04:31pm | 03/08/11

      Numbers don’t lie dash.

      2008 Tax revenue as a % of GDP 27.1%

    • Steve Putnam says:

      07:04pm | 03/08/11

      Yes John, and the Royal Family and the Papacy are the ring leaders!

    • nossy says:

      09:02am | 03/08/11

      Two years to go Andrew before an election so anything can happen. The two wallys Gillard and Abbott continue to slug it out. Going on form at present Abbott should be PM but hey weve all seen Tones balls things up before havnt we - the latest being his idiotic sledge at his British counterpart the PM Cameron over Camerons glowing praise re Gillards Carbon tax - the tax that will more than likely do nothing and cost jobs! As a horse racing man when races come up where the field is pretty ordinary and even the bookies cant find a favourite you get up to 6/1 the field - this is one of those races- two very ordinary “neddies” slugging it out up the straight with increasingly many punters just looking on. And of course we have a dark horse in the race - one Malcolm Turnbull who today is addressing the National Press Club in his official role as Shadow Communications Minister - hahhaahh   yes you stick to that role Malcolm - dont worry about being PM - wink wink say no more -  hahahah   Oh how sweet its is!

    • Joel B1 says:

      09:05am | 03/08/11

      Remember, return your ALP/Green propaganda. Just write “Return to Sender” on it and post it.

      PM Gillard (and Rudd BTW) don’t understand the difference between being a “leader” and being a “representative” of the people.

      All politicians need to balance this. They need to be both. And it’s not easy.

      But PM Gillard is convinced (wrongly) that she is a leader only. Indeed, her self-image can be seen in her unlikely self-comparisons with Thatcher.

      If PM GIllard had won an election outright she might be able to claim she’s a “leader”. But she didn’t. And as such, the only rational response is to be more “representative” of the public.

      Not that I care, the public grows ever more alienated by her posturing. The local news showed her latest proclamation with no audio from her. The sight of PM Gillards emphatic but silent head thrusts was illustrative.

    • Q. says:

      04:27pm | 03/08/11

      I put a large sticky label on the front of the taxpayer funded propaganda booklet, and re-addressed it to Mr Combet at Parliament House.  It arrived here in a CARBON FOOTPRINT PLASTIC sealed pack.
      (I thought that plastic wrap is bad for the environment).

    • GB says:

      05:28pm | 03/08/11

      Mine will be getting returned with the appropriate message to Gillard, Swan, Combet, Wong and Brown attached. I’ve already told my wife I don’t want her throwing it in the bin when it arrives, which she would have done otherwise. I won’t bother typing my message here as it won’t get past the moderators.

    • Anna C says:

      09:19am | 03/08/11

      Andrew has perfectly summed up how I feel about this Carbon Tax. I don’t see why we should wreck our economy, lose jobs overseas and sacrifice our standard of living based on some dodgy scientific statistics. While I would support global action on this issue I don’t see why a little country like Australia should do all the heavy lifting, especially as our sacrifice will result in no negligible difference to overall global carbon emissions.

      Also why should we spend $60 - $70 billion dollars on some symbolic gesture just so climate change advocates can feel better about themselves? I suggest you guys go and see a shrink instead, to deal with your self esteem issues. We have better things to spend our money on instead of futile gestures. It is highly irresponsible for a government to impose a new tax (one of many) during uncertain economic times.   

      I am also getting a little tired of the fanaticism being displayed by climate change advocates. The more you guys tell me that I must believe in your cause, the more people like me reject your extremist views. The climate change debate is starting to sound a lot like a religious one with climate change advocates behaving like environmental zealots who don’t care about the economic and social consequences of their actions.

      Where is your compassion for all the people who will lose their jobs under the Carbon Tax scheme? No doubt you guys arrogantly assume you won’t be amongst those who do.

    • Jane says:

      05:46pm | 03/08/11

      Anna,People went to the polls in 2007 and asked for action on climate change. Mandate. People demanded it. Australia pledged action as a result and both parties have bipartisan support for reduction in emissions by 2020 of 5%. So it is not about climate science, that is just extremist trying to de-stabilise the debate amd make it a dishonest campaign.

      Carbon Tax will not actually cost that much for the taxpayer, if anything..well many will be better off. However we must have a policy . Labor wanted to go straight to an ETS scheme but because they did not win majority government have had to formulate policy with Greens which results in a 3 year transition period oF having a Carbon tax but still ends up an ETS policy so very simliar to what she said she would do.

      It could actually be cheaper this way, Plus would we have been compensated under ETS? Perhaps not. Abbot quick to say we did not vote for a carbon tax but is not saying it could actually be better than an outright ETS.

      So I am angry at people like you to be honest. This scheme at least we are compensated and a lot of money is diverted back into the economy plus by cutitng power many people can be much better off financially. I receive my bill and it says I use 25% less than the average so people are rich enough to waste power.  They can cut their use and be much better off under this scheme.

      If this does not go through though then Gillard has every right to implement a straight ETS policy and people like you cannot tell me if that is better. Or they could leave it for Libs policy whether they will be massive job cuts to the public sector, 10 billion unexplained discrepancy in policy and WE PAY the polluters an incentive to stop being so dirty. WE WILL HAVE TO PAY THEM.

      So before you call people arrogant explain how any other policy is better because we must have one. Ignorance is not acceptable anymore.

    • GB says:

      08:31pm | 03/08/11

      Wow Jane. Have you been channeling Persephone on her day off?

    • Adam Diver says:

      09:20am | 03/08/11

      The point made about the Union’s is incredible, it had not occurred to me before. Unions are now political hacks and are obsolete in thier specified role of representing workers. The Labor party has an eerily similar recent history.

    • Elphaba says:

      09:33am | 03/08/11

      I’m not ashamed.  I’d support it if I truly believed that it was going to lower emissions and the money made was going to be put into developing base load power that we can rely on, like nuclear.

      But since this tax is none of those things, I’m not ashamed in not supporting it.  It’s not that I support Abbott and his plan - I have little faith in that one as well.  But I’m not going to be bullied into voting Labor by psychos who accuse me of not being environmentally aware, or insulted by being called an Abbott lover just because I don’t think the sun shines out of Gillard’s arse.

    • Dan says:

      09:45am | 03/08/11

      Curious no mention of the Coalition’s joint commitment to

      a) a 5% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020

      b) 20% renewable energy by 2020

      Given all the hoo-haa about Gillard’s broken promise, I’d be terribly upset if the Coalition spun around and did exactly the same thing.

      So assuming they plan on keeping these promises, how do they plan to do it? With the Direct Action plan, possibly the most absurd policy put before the people in years. Rivaled only by Gillard’s ‘Climate Summit’.

      Spending gross amounts of taxpayers money to pay polluters to clean up their game is ineffecient, and just plain silly.

      The economists, the productivity commission, and nations like NZ and the UK have got this one right. A price on carbon is the only way to cut emissions. The debate is now just whether it’s actually worth doing.

      The time has come for the Coalition to actually represent the views of so many of it’s voters (and the obvious unspoken opinions of so many of it’s MP’s). Scrap a policy of action on climate change, and tell the electorate how you really feel.

      And if you believe the people are behind you, you’ll romp home in 2013.

      (and for all our sakes, let’s just hope they’re not)

    • Anubis says:

      11:02am | 03/08/11

      @ Dan - those cuts are more than a promise. They are a commitment that Labor made onbehalf of Australia at the Climate Conference in Copenhagen. So regardless of whether you, or your party of choice, are sceptical about Climate Change or the extent of the effects of climate change, they are still required to meet that commitment. That is why Liberal have an alternative to the Carbon TAx. It is nothing to do with bilateral consensus on the need to act, it is everything to do with a commitment that has been forced on to us.

      Labor have chosen to go with a Carbon Tax that is all about wealth redistribution and nothing about Climate Change (Treasury forecasts are that our emissions will increase under the Carbon Tax and even Flannery and Garnaut have stated that the Tax will not reduce our emissions)

      Liberals have chosen the route of multiple strategies which includes, as a central point, carbon sequestration.

      Whether either of these “cunning Plans” will do anything about reducing emissions is doubtful. When you look at what the EU classifies as “our” emissions. One third of them are Co2 generated by bushfires, almost another third are the emissions produced by other countries when they “value-add” to our exported products (iron ore, bauxite, copper etc) What we actually generate here in Australia is minimal in comparison to what has been labelled as Australia’s emissions. We have none, or very little, control over two thirds of our stated emissions.

      Even if Gillard’s “cunning Plan” did meet the desired reductions in emissions they have stated,  it has been calculated (using the IPCC’s own figures on what impact a tonne of C02 has on temperature) that this will affect the global temperature by about one-4000th of a degree. Is that value for money when we are looking at a cost of over $70 billion dollars.

    • Dan says:

      11:13am | 03/08/11

      Um, Copenhagen wasn’t a binding agreement. It secured nothing more than an agreement to ‘try’ and make meaningful change.

      It was a failure, for not achieving exactly what you just described - locking in emissions reductions.

      And how many times has Tony Abbott gone on the record praising his party’s commitment to cutting emissions?

    • Anubis says:

      11:28am | 03/08/11

      @ Dan - no witty refutation regarding our National Carbon emissions, or the fact that the Carbon Tax will do absolutely nothing about reducing emissions. While your at it why don’t you throw in a few salient points about why the topic of Nuclear power generation is off the table when by shifting our power generation to nuclear would very rapidly reduce most of the emissions that we actually have some sort of influence over. And don’t start rabbiting about wind, tidal, solar - they do not have the capability to provide either base load power OR cheap electricity.

    • Dan says:

      12:01pm | 03/08/11

      Meanwhile you conveniently ignored my point on Copenhagen, and are yet to justify while the Coalition should have a policy at all, if reducing our emissions does nothing?

      Bushfires are a problem, we have more now than we ever did, mostly because of arsonists. I agree. It’s also harder to tackle than what should be a natural progression away from carbon-intensive energy production.

      And I agree with you on nuclear power - I pull my hair out watching a nation with enormous nuclear capability burn coal instead. The same way I watch a nation with enormous renewal capability largely ignore it. There are a whole variety of ways to produce power - without pumping the atmosphere full of CO2.

      And the “1-4000th’ of a degree figure is thrown around all the time. But this carbon tax isn’t the endgame. A 5% reduction isn’t the final target, and Australia won’t be acting alone. So it’s completely irrelevant regardless.

    • Eddie says:

      09:45am | 03/08/11

      Andrew, your article is the most to the point and balanced opinion I have read from a politician since I can remember.

    • Jack says:

      09:47am | 03/08/11

      Anyone who uses that mystical, undefined group known as ‘the elite’ in an argument can safely be ignored.

      Especially when this shadowy group are trying to tell ‘average Aussies’ what to do, keep ‘working families down’ or any other nonsense.

      Elitist is the new immagant is the new terrist is the new communist.

    • Dan says:

      10:55am | 03/08/11

      Good point.

      I don’t understand how ‘elitist’ is generally used to refer to inner city, moderate income types that occassionally identify with the Greens.

      Surely ‘elitist’, by definition, would refer to mining magnates like Andrew Forrest? Or top-level bankers? Those who as I understand it, are the Coalition’s major donors.

      Throwing ‘elitist’ in the direction of the Greens seems like a shallow ploy to gain the “battler” vote, when really the principles of the Liberals are frequently diametrically opposed with lower-middle class Australians.

    • Dash says:

      12:29pm | 03/08/11

      @Dan - Under the Howard government, real incomes increased by 15%. Low income earner saw their real income drop by 3.5% under the term of the previous Keating government! What was that you were saying about who supports the battler?

      And unemployment was reduced to the lowest level in 30 years uner the Howard government compared to unemployment levels over 10% under the Keating ALP!

      The LNP also repaid $96billion in ALP debt, restored the nations AAA credit rating which Keating had lost, delivered consistent surplus budgets and delivered 5 consecutive years of tax cuts. So far from this joke of an ALP we’ve had record budget defecits, $130m a day being borrowed, rorts, waste and increased taxes!

      Now they want to follow socialist wealth redistribution policy!

      Seems the “principle of the Liberals” do much more for lower to middle income earners than you are willing to admit. Stop reading from your ALP script. Reality proves that script to be a bunch of crap.

    • Matt says:

      12:41pm | 03/08/11

      I agree, especially as Andrew would be classed as elite by the standards of a lot of people who post here..

      I guess it depends on how you want your argument to go - sometimes the Greens are unwashed, bong-smoking dirty hippes, but in Andrews case they’re the elite?

      And considering the Coalition also have a carbon plan, is he referring to himself and his ilk also?  I think Dan nailed it, shallow ploy…

    • Anna C says:

      12:49pm | 03/08/11

      I don’t understand how ‘elitist’ is generally used to refer to inner city, moderate income types that occassionally identify with the Greens.  Surely ‘elitist’, by definition, would refer to mining magnates like Andrew Forrest? Or top-level bankers?”

      Dan, when people are referring to elites in this debate they are generally referring to people who consider themselves morally ‘elite’ or superior to others i.e. people like you. 

      People like mining magnate Twiggy Forrestor may be considered ‘elite’ in terms of his socio/economic status but to people like you he is just an immoral, dirty, rotten scoundrel raping our environment for money.  How dare he!!!!

    • PTom says:

      03:23pm | 03/08/11

      Anna C
      For a comedian you fail. Espacilly when you start attack people about morals.

    • Roddy Sexton says:

      09:56am | 03/08/11

      Why do commentators keep referring to New Zealand? - their economy is nothing like Australia’s. Their mining is minimal as is their manufacturing industry. And look at their dollar.

    • Anubis says:

      11:32am | 03/08/11

      @ Dan - no comparison

      Canada produces the bulk of their power needs through hydro and some nuclear - they have NO coal or gas power generation.

      NZ - have minimal manufacturing, minimal mining and produce the majority of their power through hydro.

      You are trying to compare apples with bananas - it is irrelevant

    • Dan says:

      12:07pm | 03/08/11

      Great - then’s lets start talking about hydro and nuclear. It certainly seems to be working for them.

      Nuclear in particular has the ability to slash emissions dramatically, but faces stiff opposition from all sides of politics.

      It’s time to move away from coal-fired power, our small manufacturing industry survives mostly through Government handouts anyway…perhaps it’s time to look at the successes of other, similar nations?

    • ausspud says:

      01:45pm | 03/08/11

      @Anubis
      Next they will be using Linchenstein as an example.

    • Anubis says:

      02:16pm | 03/08/11

      @ Dan

      I agree with you there. But our numpty politicians won’t even put these on the table. The Greens, in particular, are opposed to hydro on the basis that you have to build dams to produce hydro and, according to them, dams are BAD.

      The Chinese have two stage nuclear, they have normal reactors and what is called fast reactors. The fast reactors use the spent fuel rods from the normal reactors (and can use the same set of rods for up to 20 years). The resultant waste once removed from the fast reactors is far less radioactive than that removed from normal reactors. They are also pumping millions into researching Thorium reactors. This is definitely technology Australia should be involved in, as one of the most tectonically stable continents on the planet earthquakes would not be a major concern.

      The Greens and the NIMBYs are the only thing that is preventing this. Unfortunately the $10 billion Green Energy fund has been handed to the Greens to determine worthwhile technologies and suitable research. Without proper checks and balances this will just become another slush fund.

      I still do not agree, however, that the Carbon Tax is the way for this country to go. Incentives for industries to research and adopt new technologies should be the way to go. The Carbon Tax is all stick and no carrot.

    • Knemon says:

      05:30pm | 03/08/11

      @ Dan - Thanks for that link to NZ, it certainly highlights some benefits of an ETS that flies in the face of conservative negativity that we see here on The Punch.

      “New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme has helped boost investment in renewable energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions”

      “It also appears to have won over a sceptical business community, with 63 per cent of companies saying in submissions to a government panel they backed the climate scheme. Two years ago 78 per cent were opposed”

      “Nearly 80 per cent of energy generation last year came from renewable sources - a 12-year high”

      “In forestry, incentives to maintain existing forests and invest in new plantations turned a net loss of about 18,000 hectares of trees in 2007 turned to an expected net increase of 5700 hectares this year”

      “national emissions had fallen for two consecutive years for the first time since 1990”

      New Zealander’s argued vehemently against the introduction of an ETS in the same way the denialists have in Australia…I look forward to seeing the same results in Australia once we have our ETS fully operational in about four years’ time.

    • David S says:

      09:57am | 03/08/11

      Why don’t all these Liberal Party sceptics just come out and say that they don’t believe we need to do anything about climate change.  At least Andrew Laming says that he doesn’t think we should be “ashamed” of our carbon footprint - whatever that means.
      And if they really don’t belive it, they should just change their policy.  At the moment, the Coalition, including Andrew Laming presumably, thinks that the Labor Party’s emission reduction targets are great - that’s official Liberal Party policy.
      Except that the disconnect between official Liberal Party policy and what most are saying is so extreme that even whispering the official policy brings cries of disloyalty that people like Turnbull have to put up with.
      So, Andrew Laming, if you’re serious out about this, why don’t you force a party room vote on the subject.  If you don’t believe our emission should be reduced, let us know whether getting into office at the next election promising to spend $10 billion on “direct action” to reduce emissions is just the price that Australia has to pay for your idea of good government?
      $10 billion on something you don’t believe in at the cost of schools and hospitals - that’s not what I call good government.

    • Glen says:

      12:27pm | 03/08/11

      I don’t believe in climate change.

      Happy now? Can we have our democracy back comrade?

    • Anubis says:

      03:43pm | 03/08/11

      @ DavidS - and what about the annual $4.2 billion deficit in the Carbon Tax plan (what was supposed to be revenue neutral). And then the $10 billion Green Energy Fund (off budget so no saying where that comes from). This, being controlled by the Greens, will become nothing but a slush fund for whacko Green schemes like harvesting the methane from Bunny farts to power a single light globe. Bah

      There is money that would be better spent on schools or hospitals or any other myriad of worthy and needy causes.

    • The Judge says:

      09:58am | 03/08/11

      Does anyone think ‘The Righteous One’ is Badger????

    • The Badger says:

      11:57am | 03/08/11

      Nope
      Does anyone think The judge is Tuba?

    • Dash says:

      01:55pm | 03/08/11

      Who the hell is Tuba?

    • AdamC says:

      02:23pm | 03/08/11

      Dash, my suspicion is that the Badge is referring to his/her inelegant pet name for Elphaba - Elephantuba. I think he/she thinks that he/she is being clever by implying Elphaba’s fat, despite knowing nothing about Elphaba’s weight. (I assume.)

      Unfortunately, just by pointing this out, I am probably giving the many-psuedonymed one a little dopamine hit. People like Badger thrive on the online attention, whether it’s good or bad. A bit sad, really.

    • The Watcher says:

      02:58pm | 03/08/11

      Slightly off topic but still on the pseudonym evolutionary trail, my suspicion (following his tantrum on the open thread some time ago) is that Seano has returned as “The Rock”. I think “The Judge” is Badger. @AdamC I’d put money on the fact that he has been giving himself more than just dopamine hits for quite some time.

    • AdamC says:

      03:24pm | 03/08/11

      Watcher, I agree. The Badge could easily be setting him/herself up for more attention by being two sides of one exchange and hoping a third person comes in. It’s actually auite a good idea, in a sad way. On the dopamine point, I was referring to people getting a happy chemical hit when somebody responds to them online. I have no idea what meds Badger is or isn’t on. It is interesting to speculate though!

    • The Badger says:

      07:15pm | 03/08/11

      AdamC
      Based on you past posts,
      I’d suggest you are the conflicted he/she

    • AdamC says:

      10:03am | 03/08/11

      I am not a climate change sceptic. That is, I am quite open to the idea that human-caused CO2 emissions are affecting the climate. Having said that, I am not sold on some of the predictions of ‘runaway’ or ‘catastrophic’ climate change. (Quite frankly, the environment movement has form on exaggeration – see the Amazon rainforest.) As I understand it, my stance on the existence of AGW is very similar to Tony Abbott’s and, indeed, Julia Gillard’s.

      The thing I object to most about the climate change ‘debate’, aside from the use of intelligence-insulting terms like ‘carbon pollution’ and the invoking of ‘the science’ as if it were an Aztec deity, is the assumption that acceptance of the existence of AGW automatically means you have to support Australia unilaterally cutting its emissions of CO2. It doesn’t.

      There are two reasons why. Firstly, for any emissions reduction scheme to be effective, just about every country has to agree to cut emissions radically, and then actually do so. There is, currently, no prospect of this happening. The pseudo debate about ersatz emissions reductions in such-and-such a country is a complete smokescreen. No system of global accounting for emissions means no meaningful emissions cuts.

      Secondly, the cure, in the form of deep emissions cuts globally, is likely to be worse than the disease. So far, all the evidence I have seen suggests larger-scale renewable energy is hopelessly sub-economic, and it is ridiculous to imagine that this will suddenly change once a switch is flicked to a ‘low carbon economy’. (There’s another one of those irritating climate change catchphrases.)

      People can adapt to climate change. And, irrespective of what Australia does, we will probably have to. That is what the debate should be about. People should stop squabbling about which saddle to put on a horse that has clearly already bolted.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      10:09am | 03/08/11

      The original poster would have had more traction in his arguments if he had pointed out that a) It is a very badly designed carbon tax and b) The tax is biased against singles and childless couples in favor of families. The arguments used that no one else is doing it and that the PM lied about it are a little weak.

    • Roddy Sexton says:

      10:25am | 03/08/11

      ‘Working’ families Shane!

    • Adam Diver says:

      10:26am | 03/08/11

      The argument that the PM lied about it is not weak, it is the basis of democracy.

    • TimB says:

      10:44am | 03/08/11

      Whilst I agree with your criticisms about the tax, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the arguments used are weak.

      Your b) argument just has no traction with significant sections of the electorate. The lie argument however hits home no matter if you’re single, married, childless, whatever. And it’s working a treat. As it should.

    • Glen M says:

      02:54pm | 03/08/11

      Yes the lie argument is weak.  You cant actually prove Gillard lied. However it is blatantly clear that she made a promise to the Australian people and then to attain power , reneged on that Promise. The statement of “no carbon tax under a government I lead”  was a verbal contract with the voting public. A contract she has broken . Liar probably not, untrustworthy yes.
      in regard to the other arguement that no one else is doing it, well the government is claiming that others ARE doing something and we will be left behind, so do you consider that a reasonable point? or have you swallowed the labor propaganda without applying any of your own critical analysis.

    • Martin says:

      03:34pm | 03/08/11

      Glen M you must be a truly rusted on Labor nong. It seems to me if Julia Gillard handed you a $10 note and told you it was worth $100 dollars you would believe her. If you cannot understand that that was a lie then you are a shining example of why Australia presently in such a mess.  Your statement “you cant actually prove Gillard lied” is truly mind boggling. Fair Dinkum, you are on drugs.

    • Anubis says:

      03:47pm | 03/08/11

      @ Glen M - How about “I was only a member of the Fabian Society during my university years”. Turns out she was a fully paid-up and active member until 2002 (when it became politically inconvenient). Untrustworthy Yes, a liar yes.

    • Richard says:

      07:30pm | 03/08/11

      Shane, you yourself know that a Carbon Tax i.e. a Big Fat Tax on Productive Industry (BFTPI), will be economically destructive if foreign imports are not taxed at the same rate per Carbon input. So the argument that no one else is doing is actually a very strong argument.

      In the (likely) scenario that Australia is the only major nation of its ilk to put a price on carbon, the only sensible option is a Carbon Consumption Tax (CCT) that applies equally to both domestically produced products AND foreign imported products.

      Of course the socialist left government would never countenance this option~ doesn’t provide them nearly the scope of action for wealth distribution than the Class Warfare Assault on Industries the Greens Don’t Like Tax (CWAIGDLT) we have now.

      Besides, consumption taxes are “regressive”, haven’t you heard? That’s why the G.S.T. was such a disaster…(/sarc)

    • Glen M says:

      02:29pm | 04/08/11

      @ Martin,
      I have been accused of some pretty disgusting things in my life but never ever have I been subjected to the kind of abuse you have thrown my way. To be labeled a “rusted on Labor nong” takes the prize.
      Yes maybe I have taken too many drugs when I was younger but those days are over.  You simply missed my point for someone to lie you need to prove that they intentionaly and with forethought made a statement they know to be untrue. I dont know what Gillard had in her head that day, possibly she did lie but you cant prove it and neither can I.
      You can prove she has broken her promise, she has said so herself. This is the point , no one can trust someone who will not stand by thier word. Gillard is that type of person.
      @ Anubis, you may have proof of a lie in that case. But really wether she intentionally decieved or is plain untrustworty,  neither is a suitable quality for a prime minister.
      Yes I did vote labor once ( about 24 yrs ago) , but felt very dirty after, must have been the drugs .

    • Martin says:

      11:07am | 05/08/11

      @Glen M, think you may have over reacted, however, I will say this. I have read some of your other posts on here and now understand why you would be upset at being called a Labor nong. Clearly you are not. I cannot subscribe to your point of view re Gillard and lying, however happy to retract my comment about you and the Labor party. I guess my comments stem from being sick of trying to talk sense to some the Labor bullshitters ala Disraeli and Persephone etc. whom make it something of a full time job posting half truths, word spin and Labor speak nonsense on here 24/7. Anyway, Glen M, all the best.

    • David S says:

      10:11am | 03/08/11

      Can I also deal with the issue of ‘shame’.  This is a dog whistle if ever there was one.
      And it’s quite a disgraceful slur on well meaning people who are interested in solving problems be they in aboriginal communities, refugees and climate change.
      Andrew Laming is right to say we have nothing to be ashamed of in relation to the ‘apology’, rationally discussing climate change solutions, or differing opinions on refugees.
      But what he’s cynically implying is if you agree with the governments’ position, then you must feel shame for somehow causing or being responsible for the problem. 
      This is quite a neat trick right out of John Howards’ “Black Armband” playbook.
      There’s no shame here Andrew - just your pretentious presumption that we feel it.

    • Anna C says:

      10:33am | 03/08/11

      “But what he’s cynically implying is if you agree with the governments’ position, then you must feel shame for somehow causing or being responsible for the problem.”

      David S, I think you are reading way too much into Andrew’s article. Either that or your anti paranoia medication is wearing off.

    • David S says:

      10:46am | 03/08/11

      @ Anna C
      Nice try, but can I gently suggest that you visit the optician so they can check the prescription on your lenses - the myopia seems to be getting worse.
      Andrew Laming:
      “Most Aussies are tired of being told by the elite we should be ashamed of our per capita emissions.”

    • Tchom says:

      10:18am | 03/08/11

      One of the best articles against the carbon tax that has been written on Punch (up until the ‘promise breaking’ bit at the end).

      The only problem I still have is the Libs really haven’t offered a better solution, other than wait for the rest of the world. Skeptical as some people may be as to where the money might, the estimated $10 a week tax doesn’t seem an unreasonable cost to take action against climate change (and thats from someone who earns just above the low income threshold). But again, that money could probably be found elsewhere, or replace an exisisting tax.

      As for the cost to the mining industry, coal mining will have to be stopped eventually. Its a finite resource and Australia will have to make the transition to an economy based on tertiary industries eventually anyway. And while the loss of jobs is a heavy blow against those Australians now and will no doubt skew a lot of opinions because they put a human face on the cost of action, that has to be weighed against the potential long term damage their industry is doing.

      My wish is that the opposition would start offering solutions to these things beyond just simply denouncing Gillard’s plans and waiting for some kind of international break-through. If they did that, I think Abbott would find his lead much more convincing

    • Richard says:

      12:30pm | 03/08/11

      Tchom the Libs Direct Action solution is superior to this Carbon Tax as it stands, because as a straight out government program, instead of a tricky, convoluted trading scheme, its far simpler and easier to evaluate the results that it produces.

      Problem with the Carbon Tax is that our power stations, producing exactly the same carbon emissions as Indian power stations, will nevertheless be forced to send shiploads of money off to these said Indian power stations, because our power stations, while being identical to the Indian ones, require carbon permits while the Indian ones generate permits. The mind boggles.

      Mining does not have to stop Tchom, not even coal mining. You must read Paul Zane Pilzner’s economic treatises to realise that whenever a problem of scarcity or externality occurs, its just a matter of time before the market itself is corrects it with technological breakthroughs.

      Tchom the free market IS the solution, not the problem. The quicker the Government and Opposition learn to stop meddling in the market and allow it to do its job, the better or we’ll all be.

    • Andrew says:

      12:51pm | 03/08/11

      Do we have anyone out there in the economic for scientific community that supports the direct action plan?
      Hell even Turnbull doesn’t and he is a shadow minister.

    • Richard says:

      07:46pm | 03/08/11

      @ Andrew, yes: Vaclav Klaus said at his National Press Club speech last week that Direct Action is superior to the Carbon Tax. He is a very well respected and experienced economist, who was persecuted by the Communists in Czechoslovakia for his free market views.

    • Andrew says:

      12:17pm | 04/08/11

      @Richard so we have one. Lets hope that number grows, somehow I don’t think it will. Maybe time to join the 15,000 strong green army.

    • poa says:

      10:29am | 03/08/11

      Australia has a higher per capita CO2 emmission (not the highest as thats just an AGW propaganda lie) because we don’t have nuclear power.
      The UK had 26% of its power coming from nuclear in 2007 and now has 8 new Nuclear power stations planned for the next few years.
      Juliar and the Greens forgot to tell you that bit.

    • Anna C says:

      10:50am | 03/08/11

      I agree poa. Climate change scientists, Labor and the Greens are being disengenuous when comparing our relatively high per capita carbon emissions with countries who use nuclear energy. They are not comparing apples with apples and so our high per capita carbon emissions are showing Australia in a bad light.

    • Dash says:

      11:52am | 03/08/11

      France has 60 nuclear power plants! And as a nation rich in uranium with wide open spaces and desert, we wont even debate it! We could cut our emmissions by 2 thirds, reduce our energy costs and have no need for the tax!

      But then of course, the ALP wouldn’t have an excuse for socialist wealth redistribution.

      Anyone who believes the crap about this watered down, nothing policy being about the environment is so mad it’s not funny. This is socialist tax policy by stealth!

    • Andrew says:

      12:16pm | 03/08/11

      We have bad apples

    • Anubis says:

      03:51pm | 03/08/11

      @ Andrew - Maybe a few but we will have many more once New Zealand’s Fire Blight apples start flooding in.

    • Knemon says:

      10:35am | 03/08/11

      “With 16 new or increased taxes from this Government” - More lies.

      Say what? Can someone list them?

      “So name the cross bencher who gave Gillard an ultimatum of ‘deliver on a carbon tax or I join Tony Abbott?’ The answer is no one”

      The answer is no one – Thank you Andrew Lamming, that should put an end to the crap about Gillard selling her soul just to stay in power and hopefully it puts an end to the dribble about Bob Brown being our PM and Gillard being nothing but a puppet. Gillard did what she did because she believes it’s in the best interest of our country and she has a mandate for such. Does anyone seriously believe that Gillard did what she did because Bob Brown told her to? It’s time for people to get a grip on reality.

      Grow up and get over it people, the fact is - this policy comes into effect on the 1st July 2012 and no amount of childish bickering is going to change that fact, whether you agree with it or not.

    • TimB says:

      11:04am | 03/08/11

      “that should put an end to the crap about Gillard selling her soul just to stay in power “

      So that means she lied to stay in power then Knemon.

      Every time someone says the PM lied, you get ALP/Green voters saying she had to “deal with the hung parliament’ (i.e. the demands of the Greens and Independents).  So did she have to deal with them or not?

      She’s either a puppet or a liar. Your choice. Neither one reflects well on her.

      And, no, if you have to lie through your teeth in order to keep office, you don’t have a mandate for the policy you explicitly ruled out.

    • stevem says:

      11:38am | 03/08/11

      The Greens were never going to support the Liberals - their loathing is palpable. Windsor and Wilkie, on the other hand, were never going to support the Nationals - they hate the Nationals with a passion.

      Handing the power to The Greens was never necessary. Now as far as policy changes go, the government has either been very weak and yielded where there was no need or changed its own policy.

      One is entitled to ask how such a major policy could be changed so rapidly after an election. The suspicion is that there was no policy change, that Labor was merely doing whatever it took to be elected.

    • nossy says:

      11:56am | 03/08/11

      @TimB - the only problem with the blog of yours Timmy is that Abbott has openly confessed on TV HE tells lies!  Both leaders have led with lies - shockers both Tim!

    • TimB says:

      12:05pm | 03/08/11

      That’s not what he said Nossy. Not at all.

      And get back to me when an Abbott lie steals an election like Gillard did.

    • Knemon says:

      12:06pm | 03/08/11

      @ TimB – Gillard did not lie to stay in power; she negotiated with Bandt, Oakeshott, Wilkie and Windsor to form a working parliament…Oakeshott and Windsor were swayed by the NBN, Wilkie was swayed by pokies reform and a new hospital for Hobart while Bandt was never going to side with Abbott, therefore Bandt’s demands were irrelevant, as pointed out by Andrew Lamming in this article. To argue that Gillard was swayed by the demands of these four MP’s on a carbon tax alone is simply misleading, there were a swag of issues Gillard had to deal with, something Abbott was unable to do.

    • nossy says:

      12:12pm | 03/08/11

      @TimB - time for you to open BOTH eyes Timmy - I saw the telecast and he openly admitted to on occasion telling lies - fella its about time you and a few others had the decency to include your Liberal Party Membership number every time you blog - and the same goes for Labor Party Members!

    • TimB says:

      02:00pm | 03/08/11

      Sodding hell. I responded to completely the wrong comment . I was searching for Nossy’s post after coming back from lunch and fell short.

      Brilliant move there. *eyeroll*

      Reposted here for you guys:

      Nossy perhaps that senitlity is kicking in again, because you clearly don’t remember what you watched. Exact transcript:

      “TONY ABBOTT: Well, again Kerry, I know politicians are gonna be judged on everything they say, but sometimes, in the heat of discussion, you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark, which is one of the reasons why the statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth is those carefully prepared scripted remarks.”

      All that says to me is that things said ‘off the cuff’’ (as it were) aren’t as accurate (note that this does not mean ‘lie’)  as statements that have been carefully prepared and thought about. 
      For a ultra-simplistic example, if Tony was to say he got a ‘red car’ for his transport needs when he really got a Maroon van, that’s not some evil lie.  If however he was getting around in a blue speedboat (for some bizarre reason ), then yes, that’d be a lie. See the difference?

      Julia deliberately said there’d be no Carbon tax. This was backed up by Wayne Swan who wrote the issue off as a Coalition Scare campaign.

      It was a promise and a lie made to deliberately placate the Australian people, an electorate who are justifiably concerned about the rising cost of living. Had Labor instead come out and said there would be a Carbon tax dring the election they would not be in government today.

      Nothing Tony has EVER said or done in anyway compares with this deliberate slap in the face of democracy.

      And Knemon, you’re still attempting to have it both ways. Answer the question:

      Did Julia include the Carbon tax with her deal with the crossbenchers of her own free will? If so then she deliberately broke her election promise, by choice.

      Or did the crossbenchers demand that she include it in order to secure their support? If that is the case, then she clearly has no spine, and would rather let herself be dictated to by a handful of MP’s than take a principled stand on her election promise.

      It’s one or the other. There is no middle groud. Which is it Knemon? Liar or spineless puppet?

    • Knemon says:

      03:03pm | 03/08/11

      @ TimB – You know I can’t say for sure what Gillard said to the cross benchers, but I do believe that the carbon tax wasn’t the be all and end all, in the same way you can’t say for sure what was said. Keep in mind, this carbon debate has been part of the ALP agenda for quite a few years.

      The whole premise of my point was based around the statement by Andrew Lamming, namely:-

      “So name the cross bencher who gave Gillard an ultimatum of ‘deliver on a carbon tax or I join Tony Abbott?’ The answer is no one”

      Do you fail to understand this?

      Whether Gillard lied (she certainly made no promises) prior to the election is another whole debate and has nothing what so ever to do with my original post.

      BTW – To date, no-one has been able to list the 16 new or increased taxes.

    • TimB says:

      03:52pm | 03/08/11

      “Whether Gillard lied (she certainly made no promises)”...


      Yes she did make a promise. Haven’t you seen the clip? It’s been played often enough. Same goes for Swannie’s. I’ll repeate:

      Julia- “There will be no Carbon tax under the government I lead”

      As for Swannies bit:

      “HARTCHER: Mr Swan, Julia Gillard has committed the Labor Party to applying a price to carbon, so it is not a question of if, but when.  Can you tell us exactly when Labor will apply a price to carbon?

      TREASURER: Well, certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax from the Liberals in their advertising.  We reject that.  What we have said that we will go back and seek to reconstruct a community consensus about how we deal with climate change.  We have said that we will review where we are with that in 2012.  We have said that we will have a comprehensive re-evaluation of all of our other approaches.  As you know, the Liberals were responsible for defeating the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. They voted it down not once, not twice, but three times.  We’ll look at where we are going in 2012. “

      The current ALP policy does not reflect what Swan said. At all. There is no community consensus, and they aren’t going to ‘look at it again in 2012’. They’re doing it now when they explicitly promised they wouldn’t.

      And Knemon, it doesn’t matter if the carbon tax was just one of the issues. Julia could have simply gone to the crossbenchers with her approach on all those other issues and say ‘Look this is what I’m offering. Don’t ask me to put a Carbon tax on the table, because we already promised there wouldn’t be one’. Why didn’t she do that Knemon?

      So, regardless of the other issues involved, the question I’ve asked, and the one you *still* haven’t answered remains absolutely valid:

      Why was the Carbon tax included in Julia’s deal to retain government? 

      Did the crossbenchers* make* Julia include it or did she *choose* to include it?

      Election stealing liar, or spineless puppet. Your call. Answer the question.

      Regarding the taxes, I freely admit that I was unable to name all 16 off the top of my head. Which is fair enough seeing it was Andrew’s argument, he really should have provided more detail.
      I figured there’d be obvious stuff like the Flood Levy and the mining tax (which hasn’t actually come in yet, true). I also figured many of these would be excises and things on specific products that we generally don’t take much notice of like ciggies or something).

      But with a number that specific, I thought it couldn’t have been generated out of thin air. So I did a google to see what I could find, and came up with this list of 19 taxes:

      Disclaimer: It’s apparently taken from the Liberal Party newsletter, so feel free to double check the list, but I know I have seen stuff to back up most of these, so I’m fairly certain it’s accurate:

      1. Alcopops tax.
      2. New tax on Australians working overseas.
      3. Cutting what Australians can put into superannuation tax-free.
      4. Restrictions on business losses.
      5. Changes to Employee Share Scheme.
      6. Cigarette tax hike of 25%.
      7. The Mining tax.
      8. Ethanol taxation increases.
      9. LPG excise increase.
      10. Tightening restrictions on medical expenses before you can claim them on tax.
      11. Increase in luxury car tax.
      12. Flood tax.
      13. Tax increase on company cars.
      14. Abolition of Entrepreneurs’ Tax Offset.
      15. Phasing out of Dependent Spouse Tax Offset.
      16. Disallowance of deductions against government assistance payments.
      17. Removing minors’ eligibility for the low income tax offset on unearned income.
      18. Deferral of Tax Breaks for Green Buildings.
      19. Great big new carbon tax.

      Looks like I was on the right track. And to be fair, most of the entries on that list are technically a reduction in tax deduction allowances rather than an actual increase in taxes. But the net effect is the same- More tax taken in.

      How many more taxes does Labor need?

    • Anubis says:

      03:58pm | 03/08/11

      @ Knemon

      Consider this: since the Labor government was elected in 2007, it has introduced or increased 19 new taxes:

      1. Alcopops tax.

      2. New tax on Australians working overseas.

      3. Cutting what Australians can put into superannuation tax-free.

      4. Restrictions on business losses.

      5. Changes to Employee Share Scheme.

      6. Cigarette tax hike of 25%.

      7. The Mining tax.

      8. Ethanol taxation increases.

      9. LPG excise increase.

      10. Tightening restrictions on medical expenses before you can claim them on tax.

      11. Increase in luxury car tax.

      12. Flood tax.

      13. Tax increase on company cars.

      14. Abolition of Entrepreneurs’ Tax Offset.

      15. Phasing out of Dependent Spouse Tax Offset.

      16. Disallowance of deductions against government assistance payments.

      17. Removing minors’ eligibility for the low income tax offset on unearned income.

      18. Deferral of Tax Breaks for Green Buildings.

      19. Great big new carbon tax.

      Not all in yet but working on it. How’s that for you Knemon ? Sorry it is 19 not 16.

    • Knemon says:

      06:27pm | 03/08/11

      @ Anubis & TimB - Thanks for going to the trouble of listing those taxes, problem is they’re not all of the ‘current’ governments doing and some don’t even exist, some are old taxes that are simply indexed to CPI Etc.

      TimB - “Don’t ask me to put a Carbon tax on the table, because we already promised there wouldn’t be one’. Why didn’t she do that Knemon?”

      TimB, that’s my point….she wasn’t forced to do anything, she simply changed her mind, which admittedly, a hung parliament may have influenced her change of mind, that’s not to say anyone leaned on her.

      You could say that the ALP have brought forward policy quicker than they initially intended. Surely you’re old enough to not believe what politicians say before an election? and more so, what they do after an election. My whole bitch with this is people suggesting that the Greens are running the country, they’re not, democracy is running the country!

      You also know who I voted for at the last election, so if anyone should be happy with saying the Greens are running the country, it’s me.

    • TimB says:

      08:25pm | 03/08/11

      Ok Knemon, so she “changed her mind”.

      She lied then. She broke her promise. She didn’t need to and she did it anyway the second she was back in power. Has she been clear about her intentions to have a carbon tax from the start she would have lost the election. Fact.

      Democracy is NOT about doing whatever it takes to get into office and then doing whatever the fuck you want for the next three years, in direct conradiction to your election platform. If you make a promise you should endevour to stick with it where possible.

      If policies can be so easilly discarded, why should we bother with election policies at all? Let’s just have a talent show and vote for whoever we think looks the prettiest or something equally vapid.

      Yes sometimes circumstances beyond ones control can change a situation. But that *hasn’t happened* in Julia’s case. There is NOTHING stopping her from sticking with the original ALP policy. Nothing at all. She *cannot* use the hung parliament as an excuse *unless* she admiits the crossbenchers are calling the shots. There is no halfway point.

      Julia should respect the fact that the only reason she’s in office is because she convinced enough voters that she wasn’t going to have a carbon tax.

      She should respect the democratic will of the electorate.

      And most importantly she should give the Australian people a say on the biggest economic policy in the nation’s history. To do otherwise is a slap in the face of democracy.

    • Knemon says:

      10:13pm | 03/08/11

      @ TimB - If this was a game of chess…I would say you have just called check….my king has just wilted, the dagger is too deep….my blood is flowing freely…......he just fell down. Cheers.

    • Ray says:

      11:14am | 03/08/11

      If Australia introduces a carbon tax, would any other country be silly enough to follow suit?

      The answer is an emphatic NO.

      This is because overseas countries have woken up to the fact that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1998, despite there being increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

      Until such time that someone tables a paper producing compelling scientific evidence that proves the hypothesis that anthropogenic carbon dixide emissions cause dangerous global warming, man-made global warming remains a con.

      There is no good reason for the Govt to continue with the carbon (dioxide) tax. It must wake up, stop listening to the anti-civilisation Greens, and drop the tax, so as to spare Australians from the impost that would badly damage the economy, but yield absolutely no benefit.

    • Won Dring says:

      11:22am | 03/08/11

      Tim Flannery has bought a house on the water with a jetty. Presumably on a mortgage based on his earnings including $198,000 for advising about change in climate and its catastrophy scenario.  Afrew years ago he would have bought a place next to the desal plant.
      nuf said
      Life’s a bandwagon and a gravy train & it’s buggins turn.
      how much are councils going to have to pay for the methane emissions from waste dumps (methane =25 times carbon’s effect). Nothing as the ratepayers will. OOps ther goes my extra cash.

    • Anna C says:

      12:30pm | 03/08/11

      I’ve noticed recently that Tim Flannery has seemed very pleased with himself; just like the cat that ate the canary. I suppose it makes sense given his cushy jobs with the Government and Panasonic and his vested interest in a hot rocks energy company that will probably get a windfall from the Greens’ Renewable Energy Slush fund.

      No wonder this guy is looking so happy ... he is just rolling in cash at the moment. So much for scientists doing their jobs for altruistic reasons.

    • Obob says:

      11:28am | 03/08/11

      CO2 As “Pollution” Is Yet One More Of Numerous Leftist/Warmist Lies
      Whoever says “pollution” is trying to trick you
      July 20 2011

      Ziggy Switkowski, chancellor of RMIT University, is growing more frustrated by the deceptive language of the warmists:

      I am offended by the manipulation of the argument by deliberately coding CO2 as a pollutant, which it is not, and implying some environmental agenda where there is none.

      When fossil fuels such as coal, gas and petrol are burned, there are a number of by-products….

      Water vapour, as seen billowing from the hyperboloid cooling towers much favoured by photo editors, is not pollution unless we include clouds and rain in that definition, which few do.

      Carbon dioxide, which is produced in great quantities also, but is colourless and normally benign, is not a pollutant. It is a greenhouse gas which, as its concentration increases in the atmosphere, contributes to the warming of the planet. It is a greenhouse gas, not a pollutant, in the context of climate change.

      CO2 is necessary to plant life and in regulating our temperature and climate.. Many cold regions in the northern hemisphere welcome global warming. Think of Scotland, parts of Scandinavia, Russia, Canada. To them, increasing CO2 is not a problem. Is it possible for CO2 to be a pollutant in the southern hemisphere but beneficial in large parts of the north? What previously unknown principle of chemistry is at work here, which changes the character of a molecule depending on location?


      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/respect-the-science-and-dont-call-co2-a-pollutant/story-e6frgd0x-1226097849156

      ALSO:
      Dr Tim Ball agrees:

      Australian Prime Minister Gillard: Writing Crap and Talking Crap
      Gillard doesn’t know she’s talking crap climate science.


      http://drtimball.com/2011/australian-prime-minister-gillard-writing-crap-and-talking-crap/

    • PTom says:

      03:51pm | 03/08/11

      The older I am in a University so I must know things out side my expertise, It good see the Australian has done more of this crap, I guess it will be unlikely that we will see some expert actual covered in the same manner.

      BTW Ziggy agree with Climate change
      “Many cold regions in the northern hemisphere welcome global warming. Think of Scotland, parts of Scandinavia, Russia, Canada”
      See he agree with Global warming and that it will beneficial to the colder north hemisphere.
      However what benefit would it play to Australia when we get warmer too? Does he talk about how farm land here will become unsable.

    • Disreali says:

      08:05am | 10/08/11

      “CO2 as a pollutant, which it is not”

      After all Obob’s skimming of the literature, he’s missed the major point, which has been made over and over again.

      CO2 is well-known to be “green house gas”.

      In talking about Global Warming, and man-made global warming in particular,  the terms CO2 and Carbon price are simply short-hand for the whole set of *man made* (AGW) gases: CO2 (carbon dioxide) CH4 (Methane), N20 (nitrous oxide) and the various halo-carbon gasses.

      Weight for weight, these have very different power to trap heat, N20 being far more powerful than CO2, eg. For practical use in discussion of the science, or in ETS schemes, these known differences are accounted for in reaching a common measure: AGW gasses measured as CO2-equivalent in tonnnes. CO2 or carbon for short - in the AGW and ETS context.

    • Disraeli says:

      09:42am | 10/08/11

      Ooops, typo.Shoulda been

      [CO2 is well-known to be *one* “green house gas”.]

    • Anjuli says:

      11:34am | 03/08/11

      The leaflet drop by our senator on the CT it is stated that it WILL start on July 1st 20012 and what seniors will be receiving in rebates have I missed some thing as I can’t remember it fever being passed.

    • RyaN says:

      11:39am | 03/08/11

      How is this even up for debate anymore.

      The science is now settled and the real measured and factual science is now coming in and the results can be seen right here:
      http://yhoo.it/p1cwEW

    • The Badger says:

      12:52pm | 03/08/11

      We all know (although some choose to ignore) that the science is settled.
      No need to check out your link, but thanks for going to the trouble.
      Cheers

    • luke says:

      01:12pm | 03/08/11

      The science is settled, climate change is real but not one climate scientists believes that an Australian carbon tax will have any environmental benefit.

    • Richard says:

      01:27pm | 03/08/11

      Yes RyaN, as I have been saying here on the punch for months now, the latest, best, most accurate and up-to-date data is showing us that Global Warming due to CO2 emissions is far less severe and dangerous than the hypothetical alarmists models predict.

      In real science Badger (as opposed to politically tainted pseudo-science that the left relies on), real world empirical data trumps hypothetical projections any day of the week. Its simply not true that there is a dire environmental problem that requires Billions and Trillions to fix, although it would be politically convenient for Big Government advocates if it were true.

    • RyaN says:

      02:08pm | 03/08/11

      @The Badger: correct some do choose to ignore, like not bothering to check the link for the newest most up to datest FACTS based on real measured science instead of just theory.
      But you can continue to ignore the facts just because they don’t suit you.

    • RyaN says:

      02:10pm | 03/08/11

      @The Badger: hey Badge if you don’t want to read the article then how about the actual research paper.. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

      Factual evidence is something you just can’t ignore.

    • Anubis says:

      04:06pm | 03/08/11

      Oh dear - that must be most inconvenient for the warmists. Maybe they should revisit their computer modelling and add this in, as well as the less than expected sea level changes, the lack of warming between 1998 and 2008 and all the other real life observations currently poking holes in the models.

      Just a thought

    • The Badger says:

      05:05pm | 03/08/11

      The science is settled
      Your link to the “Official Climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show” is laughable.
      You may be able to understand a bit about the modelling of temperatures by satellites by watching this video.
      Around minute 6, you will see your “hero” telling you that global temperatures are rising.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM

      PS wattsupwiththat has been debunked so many times, it’s not even worth looking at it.

      The science is settled, get used to it, the rest of us have.

    • RyaN says:

      09:44am | 04/08/11

      @The Badger: So because the factual science doesn’t suit you, you refuse to accept the real observed climate and would prefer to replace it with your completely wrong and now debunked computer models.

      None so blind as those that don’t want to see, these are scientific facts and the science is settled on it.

      Sadly for those who apparently stand behind “the science” should really state that they stand behind “the fictional computer models”.

      I promise I won’t make fun of you Badge if you start to accept facts over your fictional beliefs. I mean a lot of people were suckered into the alarmism so you are not alone.

    • Richard says:

      11:51am | 03/08/11

      Andrew, you’ve pretty much reproduced all of my regular punch comments verbatim in this here article, which makes me wonder why you didn’t just give me that adviser position on your staff I applied for back in January so you could have gotten your material straight from the source instead of having to trawl through the comments section of the punch everyday to find my gems and cut & paste them.

      Nevertheless you are 100% correct about everything you say, and its telling that no one really in the comments section has even attempted to comprehensively dispute your argument. You’re doing better than me though Andrew, as I usually suffer complete totschweigtaktik: I literally have to BEG the resident leftists here on the punch to respond to my comments, but they rarely do.

      Anyway, I just a quick question Andrew:~ as you referred to the Norwegian precedent of replacing payroll tax with a carbon tax, would countenance a Carbon Consumption Tax to be levied perhaps as a part of the GST, with the corresponding revenue raised being used to broaden and flatten the tax rates?

      To be honest I do think that the Government’s proposal to lift the tax free threshold to $18k has merit, only for them to go and ruin it by raising effective marginal rates on us so that “the rich don’t benefit”. That move basically ensures that all the “compensation” they promised us will disappear due to inflation and bracket-creep (sooner rather than later the way things are looking), but what else can you expect out of a bunch of far-left socialist loons, eh?

    • Lesley Laurel says:

      11:57am | 03/08/11

      no guilt , no shame,in accepting this tax, Australia!
      no guilt,no shame ,in rejecting this Liberal National Coalition, Australia !

    • Ben81 says:

      01:10pm | 03/08/11

      Now i’m confused, who do we reject?!?

    • Martin says:

      04:37pm | 03/08/11

      I’ll give you a tip Ben81, don’t ask Lesley.

    • nossy says:

      12:19pm | 03/08/11

      When Tony Abbott told us on National TV that he on occasion told lies he pretty much confirmed that he was the weak person we all thought he was. When Julia Gillard said on National TV that no government she led would bring in a Carbon Tax and then did she pretty much confirmed what a weak person we all thought she was. Is there someone who has integrity and decency - yes there is - Mr Malcolm Turnbull!

    • nossy says:

      12:25pm | 03/08/11

      @nossy - correction there - Gillard said she would NOT bring in a Carbon Tax!

    • poa says:

      12:28pm | 03/08/11

      The only people that want Turnbull are ALP/Green members.
      They don’t get a vote.
      Turnbull is hated in the Libs.
      If he’s that good why don’t the ALP offer him a seat….he would be smarter tahn anything that lot has!

    • nossy says:

      12:47pm | 03/08/11

      @poa - hang on to your betting ticket poa - the field hasnt crossed the line yet fella!  hahahahhahahha

    • TimB says:

      01:44pm | 03/08/11

      Nossy perhaps that senitlity is kicking in again, because you clearly don’t remember what you watched. Exact transcript:

      “TONY ABBOTT: Well, again Kerry, I know politicians are gonna be judged on everything they say, but sometimes, in the heat of discussion, you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark, which is one of the reasons why the statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth is those carefully prepared scripted remarks.”

      All that says to me is that things said ‘off the cuff’’ (as it were) aren’t as accurate (note that this does not mean ‘lie’)  as statements that have been carefully prepared and thought about. 
      For a ultra-simplistic example, if Tony was to say he got a ‘red car’ for his transport needs when he really got a Maroon van, that’s not some evil lie.  If however he was getting around in a blue speedboat (for some bizarre reason raspberry), then yes, that’d be a lie. See the difference?

      Julia deliberately said there’d be no Carbon tax. This was backed up by Wayne Swan who wrote the issue off as a Coalition Scare campaign.

      It was a promise and a lie made to deliberately placate the Australian people, an electorate who are justifiably concerned about the rising cost of living. Had Labor instead come out and said there would be a Carbon tax dring the election they would not be in government today.

      Nothing Tony has EVER said or done in anyway compares with this deliberate slap in the face of democracy.

      And Knemon, you’re still attempting to have it both ways. Answer the question:

      Did Julia include the Carbon tax with her deal with the crossbenchers of her own free will? If so then she deliberately broke her election promise, by choice.

      Or did the crossbenchers demand that she include it in order to secure their support? If that is the case, then she clearly has no spine, and would rather let herself be dictated to by a handful of MP’s than take a principled stand on her election promise.

      It’s one or the other. There is no middle groud. Which is it Knemon? Liar or spineless puppet?

    • Joan says:

      02:07pm | 03/08/11

      I’m no Turnbull groupie, the Godwin Grech debacle and his rush to go with Rudd on ETS made me lose any confidence in his political leadership skills.  Turnbull was great today at Press Club as he comprehensively demolished Gillard/Conroy NBN monopoly model. The twittering press club couldn’t cope with the information detail. as always they spun off onto other tangents- off the planet questions unrelated to topic in discussion.

    • Glenn says:

      02:30pm | 03/08/11

      @nossy - I was always told that it was a sign of strength to tell the truth.

      Why is it that you condemn Tony Abbott for speaking the truth yet make excuses for Julia Gillard who blatantly lied about a Carbon Tax?

      What Tony Abbott said he may do - and was attacked by Ms Gillard and the Labor Party -was exactly what Ms Gillard did “by saying no carbon tax” - she knew that if she did not deny it Labor may have lost support. So in the heat of the moment she said what she said.

      Also I ask you - Mr Turnbull was a lawyer before he entered parliment - and counsel to Kerry Packer / News Corp - don’t you think that sometimes he may have “not told it exactly the way it was” - you know what I mean.

      My point - we are all human and guilty of “bending the truth”.

      Move on old news - boring!

    • nossy says:

      03:07pm | 03/08/11

      Sadly Abbott and Gillard are both liars and we need to have someone as PM with integrity and decency - say someone like Malcolm Turnbull for instance - surely we wont go to the next election in 2013 with the choice being between Abbott the confessed liar and Gillard the caught out liar - Australia deserves better!

    • Glenn says:

      07:29pm | 03/08/11

      @nossy

      2013 next Election you think? That will depend on President Bob and the Indis.
      Gillard will be lucky to last out 2011.
      Abbott - I think he has more votes in the party room than Turnbull.
      Depends on the new PM what happens to the Abbott support I would think. At this stage I wouldn’t say Turnbull is second choice.

    • Paul says:

      12:32pm | 03/08/11

      Andrew, the phrase “Most Aussies are tired of being told by the elite ....” was used by Howard. It’s code for anyone who doesn’t agree with me.

      From there, its all down-hill.

      Plus, what’s a learned fellow like you doing as part of the Coalition - we’ve learnt in the last few weeks that experts (scientists, economists, etc) are ignored by your party.

    • Jane says:

      02:47pm | 03/08/11

      I am not elite, I am 100% working class, I know how to read though and we have two choices Carbon Tax or Direct Action policy as both parties have bipartisan reduction targets. Poll shows knee jerk reaction against Carbon tax but maybe due to negativity of Abbot rather than based on good information. However does not mean they support Direct Action either which is why it should not be an election issue. The election issue was should we act on climate change and people said yes and the government and opposition should then have acted on that mandate and ensured we got best policy. Direct Action is so bad most do not think it will become official policy come elcetion time. Nothing to do with being elite lol. Just get together, pick the best policy to reach the target, the most efficient, the least costly. I can change my mind so not stuck on Carbon tax at all but it needs to be better than Carbon Tax or improved version of. Liberals are not offering that so if that makes me elite lol, Funny as.

    • TheRealDave says:

      12:39pm | 03/08/11

      Oh look, another Liberal Party politician getting a free plug on the Punch to a national audience…..and surprisingly he doesn’t support a carbon tax and wants you not to as well….

      *yawn*

      Slow news day?

    • Dash says:

      01:47pm | 03/08/11

      Someone holds the majority view that just happens to be different from the government’s! Quick lets have an inquiry! They clearly have some serious questions to answer. Lets take their licence to print way - lol

      TheRealDave, I think you’ll find like minded ALP lapdogs over at the ABC or Fairfax.

    • SimonTigey says:

      03:05pm | 03/08/11

      TheRealDave, I don’t think you will find anybody in the Labor party who support this tax either. They are merely supporting it to cling onto power. There is no point implementing this tax, it will be unwound within 15 months!!!

    • Mankind says:

      03:24pm | 03/08/11

      “I don’t think you will find anybody in the Labor party who support this tax either”

      And yet Abbott can’t turn even one of them to vote against it? Don’t be silly.

      Like the GST this tax will be implemented, there’ll be a lot of noise about rollbacks and like just the GST no one will notice and nothing will be rolled back.

    • Jane says:

      02:03pm | 03/08/11

      Direct Action Policy has been slammed by all experts except spin doctors who suggest it gets more votes as people understand regulation more than economic reform and market pricing. It will cost more, it will reduce productivity, the soil plan is not proven science. It is so bad one wonders why the Liberal Party even dare put their name to it until you understand they choose policy easiest to sell and to spin rather than what policy serves the national interest.

      Also on mining job losses, well we lose them to overseas anyways with miners constantly begging for migrants to fill these positions and Gina Rhinehart wanting slave labour imported from Asia. Not to mention the fact our mines are primarily foreign owned anyway. Liberal prefers to partially finance Direct Action with public sector job cuts that will not be mining rich areas so will cause economic hardship in many towns reliant on this workforce.

      On international investment. Peacock, Barrack mining etc have few issues with Carbon pricing and say manageable. Rightly so, mining should deliver a windfall across the nation and the RSPT would have delivered that. Really required bipartisan support but could not even get party support.  So we now struggle with lack of productivity, capital investment and growth in the non mining sector.

      All these measures in Australian interests cannot be constantly binned because of a very vocal group of self interested miners obscenely wealthy from digging up OUR resources. If they cannot show responsibility and ethical behaviour toward this nation then we should only have publicly owned mines. 

      Now that is socialism!

    • stevem says:

      04:55pm | 03/08/11

      Jane, Those minerals are NOT owned by us as Australians. They are owned by us as New South Welshmen, Victorians. Queenslanders etc. It is the States, not the Commonwealth that own the minerals. It is the states that determine what price to levy those minerals at. The Commonwealth has no rights to charge for them at all.

      The federal government has decided that the states, obviously flush with cash, are letting the minerals go for a song and so decided to up the ante. Unfortunately they can’t. They looked at the constitution and decided that if the couldn’t charge for the minerals they’d create a new form of taxation and selectively apply it to miners alone. It has already reduced foreign investment with Vale, the second biggest mining company on earth, declaring that Mozambique provides a better sovereign risk than Australia.

      As for Direct Action, it is expensive, it does have benefits (terra preta) but, most of all, can be stopped with the stroke of a pen. Gillard and Brown have both vowed to make their carbon tax virtually impossible to back out. If the rest of the world refuses to implement a tax ours will be so mired in red tape it will continue to increase year after year, destroying our international competitiveness.

    • Jane says:

      05:20pm | 03/08/11

      Steve, I am sick of hearing it is better to mine in 3rd world nations, Of course it is for miners, but not for the people. Why don’t the miners say we would prefer to mine in Norway or Canada, you know where pure capitalitistic greed is contained by good government and as a result living standards are very high. Mining would still be profitable and there is always market for companies to run a profitable business. Here in thsis article we have “we must be like Africa or Chili.” No thanks. Might be nice for miners but I would prefer we render some mine sites not economically viable for the time being, than end up like our Indigenous population who have had the land stripped from beneath in similiar fashion.

      You could also say sovereign risk is being challenged by this continual change/delay in implementation of emissions reduction policy as well but with the Australian dollar at all time highs your argument is dishonest. Cleary there is no risk seen in this country.

      Also as for Direct Action easier to unwind ....well not really…. but the other side of that equation is it is massively expensive in 2020 if the global community do not change their minds and your sovereign risk will be sorely tested smile. Seeing the anti- climate science brigade is led by miner funded Monckton and Bolt and Jones I doubt there will be serious turnaround anytime soon.

    • Glen says:

      02:33pm | 03/08/11

      I really object to people who blindly or conveniently accept the false idea that we have such a low population density.  If they tho0ught about what they say that would understand that the middle of Australia is filled by a huge desert, a place where people do not live.  It would be sensible to use the figure of 6% of Australia’s land mass as the area that we populate.  You should also remember that this 6% includes the area that the cities occupy, the farms occupy, the dams and forrests occupy.  Once you understand the consequences of this figure you will understand that Australia is actually overpopulated, which is unsustainable.  The loony greens should be onto this but it does not their socalist agenda.

    • SimonTigey says:

      03:01pm | 03/08/11

      I want absolutely nothing to do with this ridiculous carbon tax. This is the greatest lie ever foisted on Australian people. Anybody who supports this tax is an insane fool. How can we stop this from being implemented??

    • Jane says:

      03:20pm | 03/08/11

      Simon, By accepting the even worse policy that Liberals have in store, Treasury say abatement will be $62 a tonne under Liberal Direct Action policy , so way worse. Then plus taxpayer has to fund the polluters an incentive. Way, way worse. Nobody approves,

    • SimonTigey says:

      03:49pm | 03/08/11

      Jane, I think you will find 70% of Australians agree with me. The direct action policy is not designed to destroy the economy, that is the main difference. Believe me as the carbon price goes up each year, more people each year will move into poverty and more businesses will close, and for what, we will just end up outsourcing our emissions to another country. If you actually read the carbon tax policy you will see that our emissions actually rise under the carbon tax, any abatement is through the purchase of carbon credits from overseas. You need to research this topic before commenting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • John Smythe says:

      04:08pm | 03/08/11

      Jane, how does rejecting this automatically mean accepting the policy from the Liberals.

      If Labor gets chucked out, I would excpect the Liberals to go through the same thing we are demanding of Labor. That is, come up with a sensible plan, and put it to vote!

      FFS why do the sith only deal in absolutes?

    • Jane says:

      04:25pm | 03/08/11

      @John. There are only like 3 different ways and LIberals have voted against two of them already. They have had 4 years and in that time cannot come up with good policy? If they cannot in so much time then they are not capable and fail in their duty toward the electorate. Business uncertainty demands we find a solution now.

    • John Smythe says:

      04:40pm | 03/08/11

      Now it’s business uncertainty demanding a solution now.
      Pers said it was rising sea levels and stuff…..
      Makes me even more cautious about this being rammed down our throats….

    • Ben81 says:

      06:22pm | 03/08/11

      Jane, I can see potential problems with some of the Direct Action policy meeting its targets for emissions cuts with the money budgeted for a few parts of it, but to say it’s going to cost so much more seems wrong to me whenever I look into why people are saying that.
      The Coalition isn’t saying it will lock ourselves in for a emissions cut in certain ways that we will shovel an unlimited amount of money at to achieve, they’ve set budgets for things that they will implement that may or may not be as effective as they claim.

      If some of these things turn out to be more expensive to implement it seems to me that they may fail to meet their targets, not magically suck money from the economy.

    • Jane says:

      07:32pm | 03/08/11

      @Ben, Hi, There are two reasons Direct Action was chosen that I can come up with, because it is economically bankrupt so not there because it is good policy lol.

      One is as you suggest, they are only paying lip service to climate change science and as soon as a major EU or Asian power decides to backtrack we will renege on our target pledge. However that ignores the mandate to act on climate change and that did not come with an expiry date. The pledge may have but not the mandate.

      The people’s mandate was not 5% by 2020, that was just a pledge made on our behalf. Our mandate was for permanent change.

      Next the reason is that good economic policy is never an easy sell to the public so the LIberals have chosen populist policy even if it is at the expense of far better economic outcomes, votes count more than quality policy.

      All parties do this so not being anti-liberal as more inclined to vote for them next election though would need to be sans Abbot. However I just want the best policy we can come up with and Greens hgave delivered the best for US the people that is on offer at the moment.

      oIf LIberal do not believe climate science then they shoud say they will repeal the mandate /pledge next election so will ahve no need for any policy..Has to be a mandate to drop policy, not just an easy kill switch because they hold previous people’s mandate in such contempt.

    • Ben81 says:

      08:27pm | 03/08/11

      Jane I can agree that it may come down to paying lip service (that term is so dodgy) but i’m sure you’ll be displeased to hear that that’s why I like it.
      We have an alternative, that will probably do lots of environmental good by the way, that may appease enough of the ‘do something’ crowd to win over some of them to help in the fight against Labor’s tax.

      So, if Abbott sticks to his spending commitments and his pledge to not collect more revenue to fund them I’ll be happy knowing we’ve been saved from an alternative that has the exact same real world outcome as the ‘direct action’ policy (being no impact at all on climate change) but with a lot more economic pain eroding the justification of it.

    • Ben81 says:

      08:42pm | 03/08/11

      Oh and I should add that ‘belief in climate science’, and the scientific consensus that I generally agree with by the way, should be weighed up with what’s actually happening with emissions in the real world and the fact that any cut we can make will not be noticed and will be overtaken many times over by others before we know it.

      I really don’t understand why this empirical fact, that our cut will not do anything at all about climate change, seems to be something that doesn’t matter to so many people .

    • Richard says:

      08:50pm | 03/08/11

      Provided one is capable of complex enough thought processes to see through the trite sloganeering about “paying the polluters” (*hint, they’re producers and employers, not “polluters”, and its a tender-based market mechanism, not a blank cheque “payment”), its clear that the Coalition’s Direct Action policy is superior to the Government’s plan, Jane.

      Because well for a start, the Government’s plan includes all that expensive $62 per tonne Direct Action abatement anyway, so its not like we can avoid Direct Action if the Government goes ahead with its plan. The Greens overtly ensured that their support for a “low” carbon price south of $40 was conditional on the vast expansion of the sort of Direct Action policies that you criticise.

      But also, the Coaltion’s scheme is a huge government program, and thus will be surely wasteful (even though there are more than just abatement benefits to it), but at least that’s all it is. At least its not going to meddle with the fundamental underpinnings of our National prosperity, and conflict so harshly with our National Interest. At least its not grossly unfair, severely handicapping Australian Industry and giving cheap and dirty foreign competitors a free kick.

      And look, the mandate slate gets wiped clean every 3 years, there’s no such thing as a permanent mandate: it must be renewed in the crucible of the electoral ring of fire. With the latest science and must up-to-date data coming out recently, it seems that Global Warming may not actually as serious as what you thought anyway, so its entirely conceivable that the electorate will decide that its not worth wasting so many billions (with either plan) in order to abate only 5% of emissions of a gas that isn’t all that bad after all.

      http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/podcast/global-emission-of-carbon-dioxide-the-contribution-from-natural-sources/

    • Jane says:

      09:11pm | 03/08/11

      Ben, That is fine, I am not here to debate one over the other in essence, rather that the debate is not one verus the other as it should be. Rudd went to the election fighting “the greatest moral challenge of our time” yet when he saw he may lose a vote or two he became jellomatic. Now hot potato again and Julia is actually doing his unfinished work because he was a coward and he is up in the polls and she is down, so makes no sense to me at all. Liberals now pushing for votes rather than honest debate themselves.  Hello, anyone actually work for us, the people.?

    • nossy says:

      03:11pm | 03/08/11

      I watched Malcolm Turnbull speaking at the National Press Club today and before he even spoke he was being praised for his consistency - and that is the measure of the man - reliable, consistent, has integrity etc. Compare him with Abbott the confessed liar who has had more positions on matters than the Karma Sutra and Gillard who was caught out telling blatant lies over the Carbon Tax. it seems to me Australia does have an excellent man to be our PM and its Malcolm Turnbull!

    • SimonTigey says:

      03:23pm | 03/08/11

      Nossy, Turnbull along with the Greens are the only people who think this tax is a good idea. Maybe Malcolm Turnbull should be leading the Greens party!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Shooter says:

      05:43pm | 03/08/11

      So right Rossy he has proved himself in the real world of business and not some career politician. At least he was born in Australia not like Tony and Julia.

    • GB says:

      08:04pm | 03/08/11

      Give it a rest Nossy. You aren’t fooling anybody.  You, and plenty of other ALP hacks on this forum have tried in vain to defend the liar for months now and have finally conceded that isn’t working. So, time for a new plan. Step 1) Give the impression you’ve had some sort of epiphany and have now changed sides. Throw in a few soft attacks on Gillard to keep up the ruse. Step 2) Introduce Abbott into the debate with the old “he lies too” and “none of them are trustworthy” chestnut to try and somehow deflect the attention away from the fact that both she and Swan blatantly lied to the electorate, in some lame attempt to remove that issue from the debate. Others may buy it but anybody who has been here for any length of time knows you all too well. Time to scrap this strategy and move on to the next plan chump.

    • Jay says:

      03:13pm | 03/08/11

      Europe gave us two world wars and now they are trying to lead the world to economic ruin. This Carbon Tax is just another grab for cash by an incompetent Govt which has mismanaged everything it has touched since it came to power.Julia could not even get the name of Nixon’s book right today at the launch.There are similies between the Labor Party and the Melbourne football club. Both disfunctional.

    • Bill says:

      03:14pm | 03/08/11

      The carbon tax will go down in history as Labor’s defining moment of oblivion. Simply, they are finished, it’s just a shame we have to go through this slow dance to the next election, which is Labor’s slow and painful death.

    • Shooter says:

      05:35pm | 03/08/11

      Like work choices was for the white ant brigade

    • Eva says:

      03:19pm | 03/08/11

      Andrew,

      thank you for standing up and mentioning the furphy that we are leading carbon emitters. I have family in th Uk and I can see that they use far more of the worlds resources than I do here. Buying cheap crap regularly from TK max and Primark. Although I gnash my teeth at the high prices we have to pay for stuff in Oz it does mean that we buy less of it than other peoples living in first world countries.

    • Jane says:

      03:33pm | 03/08/11

      Then ask why we have to pay more under his scheme. They are running dishonest campaign because they fail to inform that their policy is more costly.

    • Soames says:

      03:52pm | 03/08/11

      The entire political life of Mr Abbot and his colleagues, is an old example. He has admitted himself, that his survival is based on his opposition to Labour policies. His political agendas are based on fear, practiced so many times in history. Adolph Hitler, who sensed the anger of the public, at having onerous war reparations inflicted on the German population, that the Jews were responsible for their poverty, and he was the messiah who could lead them back to prosperity, won him the chancellorship against an 85 year old Hindenberg.  In the western world, the GOP Presidents; Ronald Reagan, Johnson, Nixon, Bush jnr, have all based their success on fear, fear that something will be taken away from them, that their situation will be dire, that their children will suffer. Historically, fear works. That’s why Tony Abbot is so ubiquitous, peddling, mostly pedalling,  right wing fear politics.

    • Anubis says:

      04:15pm | 03/08/11

      @Soames - And the ALP/Greens warmist “doom and destruction messages are what??

      Catastrophic climate change, never rain again, permanent drought, dams will never be full, Perth will be a dustbowl, Adelaide will be out of water by 2007, Pacific Islands will be under water by 2010, we will never see snow again, crops will die, rivers will dry up Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh, the sky is falling. Who is waging the fear campaign again?

    • Joel B1 says:

      04:29pm | 03/08/11

      Who are the doom-sayers?

      Who scares my primary-school kids with their rubbish, hyperbowlic nonsense?

      Who says “you are killing the planet”?

      Not Abbott, matey.

      So think before you type next time.

    • Joel B1 says:

      04:58pm | 03/08/11

      Try this on for a scare campaign…

      A few weeks ago a mother of a kid at my kids primary-school volunteered to show the kids “the science behind ocean acidification”.

      And yes, she is a CSIRO person.

      Eggshells in strong vinegar.

      That’s it.

      My kids were horrified, “all the fish are going to die now!” they sobbed.

      Mrs JB1 PhD and me BSc(Hon) had to reassure them that it wasn’t a very good demonstration of ocean acidification.

      That’s the science behind the AGW scare campaign!

    • Shooter says:

      04:52pm | 03/08/11

      Joel B1 now one knows what Abbott is thinking let alone Abbott. He is pro this one day and pro that the other. His liberal government is more socialist than labor government and that’s the facts. He and Howard giving out middle income welfare is what labor does but not anymore it is now the liberals too who do it. They are the same party with just different leaders who are both incompetent as each other. As for the next election I would rather go hunting then vote for both these idiots.

    • I love weather vanes says:

      07:09pm | 03/08/11

      Abbott is nothing but a weather vane…...you can buy them cheap at any hardware store.

      .....which way is the wind blowing today? Go and look at Abbott…

    • Joel B1 says:

      05:57pm | 03/08/11

      Which nossy is that? The real one?

      And if you reckon this is a self-confession of lying:

      “Well, again Kerry, I know politicians are gonna be judged on everything they say, but sometimes, in the heat of discussion, you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark, which is one of the reasons why the statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth is those carefully prepared scripted remarks.”

      then I shudder to think what you simply must think of Gillard.

      “There will be no Carbon Tax under a government I lead”

      That’s a lie! But without the guts to ever admit it.

      What a PM we have thanks to some lousy independents and a green.

      Australia is shamed by her.

    • Dash says:

      05:57pm | 03/08/11

      Hey there Nossy. I think this is the issue for Gillard and the ALP. She has marginalised the party to the left and following socialist green policy. The move away from the centre is costing the ALP primary in huge numbers. And people are judging them now by what they do rather than what they say.

      I agree with Malcolm Turnbull. I think he runs rings around Guillard and the entire ALP front bench. the issue he has is he is successful and a businessman. The ALP and their traditional demographic have a tall poppy syndrome which cuts the likes of him down.

    • Shooter says:

      06:14pm | 03/08/11

      Joel B1 there will be no GST, Baby Overboards and so on. It was proven that howard lied but did he ever admit it. Julia is a disgrace but dont think for one second you whit ants are any diffrent

    • nossy says:

      06:29pm | 03/08/11

      @Joel B1 - Joely old girl Gillard is a disgrace too - thats the gist of my message - lets restore some normality and decency back into leadership - bring on Malcolm Turnbull!

    • Turnbull 4 PM says:

      07:55pm | 03/08/11

      Hear Hear nossy.

    • Cate P says:

      08:19pm | 03/08/11

      Hey nossy, looks like Malcolm Turnbull reads your comments 7.55pm 3/8/11.

    • Shooter says:

      06:37pm | 03/08/11

      Dash so do the LNP. Australians hate high achievers. I think you guys call it tall poppy syndrome thats why Malcolm is not leader.

    • Richard says:

      07:43pm | 03/08/11

      No, Turnbull is still greatly respected and admired by the vast majority of Libs, and celebrated for his achievements. The only, THE only, the one single reason why Malcolm is not leader is because the Australian people are implacably against the Carbon Tax, and any politician who explicitly supports it does not have any chance at all of winning the next election.

      I mean, this democracy schtick is pretty simple~ you listen to the will of the people, the people are sovereign. I don’t know why you lefty dropkicks find this so hard to grasp -_^

    • The Dead Wood Liberals Society says:

      07:52pm | 03/08/11

      the 70 Liberal Party Trolls are way beyond the times!
      the Carbon Tax was ages ang ages ago in prehtoric times.
      Talk about the Carbon Tax has been put to bed ages and ages ago.
      the Carbon tax issue is as dead as Julius Caesar> Even The English British Government has congratulated The Gillard government on the carbon tax. The carbon tax is extremely old dead news!
      The New Health Reform Of Julia Gillard is the new blockbuster issue now.
      Its the greatest health reform since Medi\care! The federal and state governments pay 50% of the cost of hospitals equally

    • Against the Man says:

      09:58pm | 03/08/11

      Why not 100% as promised…..................is it because if something goes wrong they can’t blame the States…...............all Labor lies supported by all round Labor Losers smile

      Enjoy life in the minority for the next 2 decades at least!

    • Maya says:

      10:09pm | 03/08/11

      Roy Spencers analysis of the ERBE data has all but put to bed the sensationalist alarmist nonsense that carbon dioxide drives the climate. It has always been water that has controlled our climate. Only gravy train scientists keep disingenuously pretending otherwise. I’d love someone to take this to court and have the science actually nutted out - here’s 3 simple facts that should make anyone pause:
      FACT 1: No Sceptics become alarmists but alarmists are constantly becoming sceptics.
      FACT 2: Sceptics are smarter than warmists - proven fact
      FACT 3: No Alarmist or warmist team has ever won a properly organised debate following the English Debating Rules. (Analogies and Appeals to Authority are not proper debating Techniques - yes I’m looking at you Dennis Russell)

    • asproella says:

      08:15am | 04/08/11

      The truth is out there! we need the truth,we need to know how much money will go to overseas companies like overseas electricity companies in our own country getting compensation over our own who get nothing,people are not being told the nitty gritty facts and Gillard expects us to conform,just because we are being thrown a few $$$$ as compensation,which will not cover a train trip to brisbane !

    • graham. says:

      10:36am | 04/08/11

      Mr Laming, when something comes across the desk with which you disagree vehemently, do you vote against it or do you toe the Abbott line? And you dare to speak of the coming death of Democracy. What voice of the people? You know that Democracy died on the first day of the first “Party Parliament”. Leave the scaremongering to those who threaten hell and damnation to all who dare step out of the proscribed line. And you sir, will continue to do not what is best for your electorate, but what is best, in Abbott’s mind, for Abbott. And then of course for yourself. You dare accuse others of lying? Hypocrite! Beware of the false accuser, he has much to hide.

    • Obob says:

      11:03am | 04/08/11

      New Research: Warmth Drives CO2 Concentrations Not Vice Versa
      Professor Salby’s argument is that the usual evidence given for the rise in CO2 being man-made is mistaken.

      “Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.”

      August 3 2011


      Professor Murry Salby, chair of climate at Macquarie University, has unleashed on global warming alarmism in a lecture this week to the Sydney Institute.

      Salby has worked at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado, and is the author of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate, due out in 2011.

      Salby’s argument is that the usual evidence given for the rise in CO2 being man-made is mistaken.

      It’s usually taken to be the fact that as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the 1 per cent of CO2 that’s the heavier carbon isotope ratio c13 declines in proportion. Plants, which produced our coal and oil, prefer the lighter c12 isotope. Hence, it must be our gasses that caused this relative decline.

      But that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused.

      Salby says there are - the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa - which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.

      I’ve summarised this from just a rushed hearing of his lecture, not having access to his notes or the charts he produced on the evening. His findings, he says, have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication, so more will follow.

      Some other highlights of his talk:

      He said he had an “involuntary gag reflex” whenever someone said the “science was settled”.

      “Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.”

      The climate models used by global warmists suggest we should have twice the warming we’ve actually seen recently.

      Listen here.

      http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/podcast/global-emission-of-carbon-dioxide-the-contribution-from-natural-sources/

      http://www.envsci.mq.edu.au/staff/ms/research.html


      Dr Roy Spencer has suspected something similar.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/

    • Obill says:

      12:16pm | 04/08/11

      Seriously
      The science is settled.
      No amount of deceit will change a thing.
      Let’s just get on with it and leave these deniers to moan off in the distance.

    • Thommo says:

      07:34pm | 04/08/11

      Ok, if the science is settled, what’s the exact number for climate sensitivity?

    • adam says:

      12:33pm | 04/08/11

      That we have the world’s second-lowest population density is a ridiculously misleading statistic. If you take out the areas that are completely unpopulated and that no one ever goes to, like our deserts for example, our population density is on par with or greater than many, many other countries. You do your argument a disservice when it relies on nonsense like that.

    • Thommo says:

      07:48pm | 04/08/11

      Here’s an interesting fact - Whether you beleive in carbon dioxides awesome radiative power or you have a slightly more nuanced view of these things, we could still reduce emissions by 13% within 3 years by simply replacing all hard and brown coal generators with clean coal generators. Far less cost and way better than the 5% target. Solar panels don’t last 10 years and wind is no good for baseload.

    • Trojan says:

      08:59am | 05/08/11

      @ Thommo
      The warming effect is science mate, not a mater of belief.

      Now, can you please quantify how much it would cost to replace the coal fired power stations and when you say cheaper can you explain what you are comparing things to?

    • Thommo says:

      11:08am | 05/08/11

      Why do deserts get so cold at night? Shouldn’t the masive radiative warming power of the 390 parts per million of carbon dioxide keep them warm? that’s what the theory says, yet the sahara actually loses more heat at night than at gains in the day - because of teh simple fact that water accounts for 99.99% of all atmospheric warming.
      You say the warming effect is science, yet science says it’s not so - look at the latest peer reviewed literature regarding the ERBE. Or do you only choose the science that fits your pet theories?

      As for the clean coal reductions - you can see it all laid out here:
      http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/lower-co2-emissions-by-wait-for-it-building-new-coal-plants/

    • Trojan says:

      10:04pm | 06/08/11

      @Thommo.
      Remote areas get cold at night because of the low amount of water vapour in the air but this has nothing to do with global climate change. I will trade your peer reviewed science journals for NASA and the CSIRO’s independent judgment.

      Your lack of understanding of the impacts of the globe’s warming on micro-climates tells me you have very limited understanding. Some maximum temperatures could actually be reduced in certain parts of the globe associated with the moderating effect of increase humidity. Its the overall effect we are talking about - do you get it now?

    • Thommo says:

      12:36pm | 09/08/11

      Trojan, i’ll use smaller words so you have a better chance of grasping the situation. Carbon Dioxide, whoops I’ve done it already, used too big a word for you to understand, um, ok I’ll use plant food, that’s better…ok , so PLant Food has been shown to have less than .01% effect on climate - it’s really taht simple. If you can’t get taht point there’s not much use me going on with adiabiatic lapse rates or henry’s law or any other slightly adavanced physics. Funnily enough most skeptical science comes from NASA, but the ostrich littles wouldn’t know this because to avoid teh sky falling they stuck their heads in the sands.

    • Tanya Bush says:

      11:24am | 05/08/11

      What always amazes me about the Warmists that don’t really know anything about the science, apart from what they were told by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth, is that they are unwilling to move with the times and read teh latest research. Climate Science is coming along in leaps and bounds almost every day - and almost every day some quaint old notion that was the bedrock of the alarmist science is overturned. IPCC 4 is ridiculous to use for policy given the advances in recent years. Nothing should be done now until IPCC 5 and if they are honest and include all the new science they’ll come to the only sane conclusion there is - it is pointless, matybe even harmful, to try and reduce co2 emissions.

    • Disraeli says:

      03:51pm | 05/08/11

      “unwilling to move with the times and read [the] latest research”
      That’s not right. In fact, its utterly wrong.

      Latest data is readlily available and very freely discussed, not only here on The Punch, but also at Larvatus Prodeo and other like blogs.

      Latest data analyses, from the US GISS, the BoM & CSIRO here in Oz, and UK CCC. All make sobering reading.

      More than a little surprising that TB seems not to be already across ‘em, as they’re so often linked here in discussions.

      So I won’t bother adding links - & besides, they’re that easy to look up, anyone with just a pinch of curiosity or the slightest hint of genuine interest can find ‘em without help.

      IPCC5 will indeed be an interesting read. The various Assessment Report 5 Working Group reports and final Summary are due between Sep 2013 and Sep 2014.

      “Unwilling to read the latest research”? Baseless, demonstrably false claim.

      As for “the only sane conclusion there is” for IPCC AR5 to reach: baseless, loaded prejudgement of the entire international climate science effort.

    • Tanya Bush says:

      12:28pm | 06/08/11

      Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.

    • Bill says:

      06:02am | 06/08/11

      They shouldn’t be called ‘asylum seekers’. They are undocumented aliens.

    • Larisa says:

      10:29pm | 06/08/11

      Can someone tell me why liberals have to have climate change policy. People who understand it doesn’t matter how much taxes you pay the climate will or will not change regardless. Why the hell liberals have to waste millions of dollars on useless Climate change departments,  reviews, reports and policies when we have much bigger problems on our hands, like pay back our debt to China, build so much needed infrastructure, hospitals you name it.

    • Obob says:

      12:19pm | 08/08/11

      Pointless Meets Stupid
      ROTFLMAO

      Carbon indulgences … er … offsets neared all-time lows Friday, confirming their status as THE WORLD’S WORST PERFORMING COMMODITY, as slumping demand meets rising supply of the UN instrument traded under the Kyoto Protocol.

      Excuse me … rising supply?
      What kind of crazy outfit would increase supply in these circumstances?

      Carbon offsets have fared uniquely badly because a UN climate panel continues to print new offsets, regardless of a widening glut in emissions permits in the main demand market, the European Union’s carbon market.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/05/us-carbon-low-idUSTRE77442920110805

    • Dark Horse says:

      07:36pm | 08/08/11

      What are the cost benefits of the Gillard/Brown carbon tax? We produce so little carbon that there won’t be a cost benefit there ... it will be nil, or miniscule at least. However, we will be able to distribute a large amount of money to Labor voters and a few others who are said to be poor Australians. Maybe some of the poor Australians need to look towards Somalia or other parts of Africa where people are much worse off. Is there really any such thing as a truly poor Australian with the welfare system we have? Labor is driving the country into the ground at an astonishing rate; if there was a conspiracy to screw the country and the people, it couldn’t have done any better.

    • Obob says:

      02:21pm | 09/08/11

      “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”
      George Orwell captured global warming hysteria nicely.

    • George says:

      02:55pm | 09/08/11

      Lights, Action, Lies
      The government climate infomercial they didn’t use.

      Parliament House in background, fade theme music, closeup of a couple talking:

      Julia (a redhead): But Wayne I made a solemn promise and you sort of did too. You said that it was hysterical to talk about a carbon tax.

      Wayne (a hunk): Big-time economist Ross Garnaut thinks it’s a cunning tax.

      Julia: Hold on Wayne, wasn’t it another economist mate of yours who gave you a cunning tax? The great big mining tax, so that dreadful Mister Negative called it. Bashed us over the head with it good and proper using the most unfair and outrageous hyper-bowl. Poor Kevin lost his way and suffered terribly. (The PM reaches for a tissue.)

      Wayne: This is different; and it is so clever that once you see all of its implications it will blow your socks off. Anyway we don’t really have a choice Bob Brown and his green gang, who remember don’t share our delight in the everyday values of Australians, threaten to knock our blocks off if we don’t do it.

      Julia: (The PM shivers.) Ok Wayne that’s a fairly persuasive point. Let’s hear about it; why is it so good?

      Wayne: I can hardly speak I am so excited. It is really an invisible tax. It taxes a colourless gas; we’ll call it pollution, which nobody can see. That’s the real beauty of it. Because it can’t be seen we’ll need lots of agencies, authorities, programs, initiatives, schemes and funds to deal with it. Look we’ll need a Climate Change Authority, a Clean Energy Regulator, a Clean Energy Finance Corporation, an Australian Renewable Energy Agency, a roped in Productivity Commission, an Energy Security Council, a Remote Indigenous Energy Program, a Jobs and Competitiveness Program, a Low Carbon Communities program, a Low Income Energy Efficiency Program, a Household Energy and Financial Sustainability Scheme, a Carbon Farming Initiative, a Carbon Farming Futures program, an Energy Security Fund and a Biodiversity Fund, the list goes on and on. It’s so long I am sure I have missed some.

      (Wayne takes a deep breath.)

      Literally tens of thousands of new Labor-voting public servants will be needed to administer the new qangos and boondoggles and calculate how much of the invisible gas different businesses produce or alternatively don’t produce and how much different businesses will get for not producing it or producing less of it or for reducing it or to make up for being taxed for producing it and how much particular categories of people should get for paying higher prices because some businesses of our choosing are producing it being taxed and increasing their prices. I don’t know how much legislation and regulation will be needed. It will run into many thousands of pages.

      Julia: That is truly amazing Wayne! It is a Labor government’s dream come true - billions of dollars coming in billions of dollar being doled out as we choose. If only communist Eastern Europe had of thought of it, the commissars might still be in charge. (The PM sighs.)

      Are there any downsides? I mean how about breaking my solemn promise?

      Wayne: Don’t worry, say something vague about the composition of the new parliament and pretend that everyone knew you were going to price carbon. Never ever mention the Citizens’ Assembly.

      Julia: (The PM looks genuinely baffled.) What do you mean Citizens’ Assembly?

      Wayne: That’s it PM, you’ve got it. Above all keep smiling vacuously, keep talking about pollution, keep talking off the point and skirting around the truth in that inimitably deceptive way you have, and talking down to people and asking and answering your own questions. “Do I think it will be tough? Yes I do”, sort of thing.

      Julia: Wayne, I worry about the next election. It seems just too good to be true; voters might see through it all?

      Wayne: Don’t worry, our hand-picked focus groups, from trendy inner-city suburbs and universities and government schools and theatrical and arty types and journalists and the ABC and university-educated union bosses, and including some very intelligent liberals like John Hewson and Malcolm Fraser or was it Turnbull – I get mixed up between the Malcolms – all said that you’re their gal, no matter how incompetent you are or what bizarre schemes you try to foist on Australia.

      Julia: That’s a relief Wayne; I was worried there for a minute.

      Cut, theme music with background shot of Parliament House as the couple embrace chastely in foreground under flapping Aboriginal flag as a kangaroo skips past.
      End.

    • rob says:

      12:52pm | 02/09/11

      Whatever happened to Global Cooling of the early 80’s? What happened to the Y2K bug (supported by lots of “experts”), what happened to the ozone hole which should have engulfed us by now? Why have all these “experts” failed us? Why should we trust other “experts” fortelling the decline of the planet? Why are the number of skeptical experts growing in number?Im a skeptic with good reason - I read Chicken Little as a child and the lesson has remained with me.
      To those who play the man and not the game: you no clue how to answer questions - you need to use bluster and insult to make up for your inadequate research.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

This concern for Thomson won’t change the script

This concern for Thomson won’t change the script

Under pressure himself over his crusade against Craig Thomson, Tony Abbott has moved to present a softer…

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]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

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

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter