Julia Gillard has attempted the political equivalent of cold fusion - making a big new tax popular. Having backflipped on a promise not to introduce a carbon tax, and against trenchant opposition from a barnstorming Tony Abbott, Ms Gillard had little choice but to plough on, to crash or crash through.

Cartoon: Jon Kudelka. See more at www.kudelka.com.au

Her solution after months of tortuous negotiations and endless parried questions on the details, is either genius or lunacy. Time will tell.

It has involved transforming what was expected to be a painful exercise in de-carbonising the economy into a big win for most voters.

Indeed the package she finally unveiled yesterday was so mild in its hip-pocket impact that it now runs an entirely different risk: being seen as too good to be true.

Communication is Julia Gillard’s primary task now: she must find a way of getting through to disengaged and affronted voters on the critical details of this package.

For months now, they have heard only one side: Tony Abbott’s indignation at the back-flip and his dire warnings that Labor’s great big new tax will not clean up the atmosphere but it will clean out your wallet.

But now, finally, the Government has a story to tell. And it’s not just any story either.

Industries that Mr Abbott had warned would hit the wall, would be shielded and export businesses granted generous assistance.

Steel has been offered multiple level protection from the chill winds of a carbon price and while complaints are inevitable, most will regard it as more than adequate.

Even dirty electricity generators get both time and money to make the adjustment.

At voter level, nine out of ten households will get some form of compensation. Six million will get enough to meet higher costs, four million will get over-compensated and nobody will pay any more in tax. As well, more than 3.4 million pensioners will get increases, and a whole million more people on the bottom end of the pay scale will be relieved of paying any income tax at all.

The Government says this is a uniquely Labor interpretation of the challenge - using the climate change imperative to enact productivity enhancing tax reform.

Perhaps; but in the end, the policy is transparently a political solution with most of the pain removed and as the Opposition says, much of the abatement even to be purchased overseas.

In that sense, the policy is pure Gillard in the tradition of her mainstreamist stances on the republic, the flag, gay marriage, and the Bible.

It is another example of her non-ideological nature.

There is no doubt Julia Gillard has proven herself a skilled negotiator first with forming government and then with nutting out this compromise. And unlike Kevin Rudd, she’s got the parliamentary votes locked in.

But this debate has only now gone truly public. And it is in the court of public opinion where her record is much patchier, that she must cut through now.

After her backflip on this very policy area which did so much to erode her standing, that might yet prove harder than cold fusion.

Get more Kudelka genius here.

Most commented

62 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Against the Man says:

      06:34am | 11/07/11

      No one will ever trust Gilltard. All her money throwing ways (our taxpayer money) is not going to cover up her guilty conscience for screwing us over for Master Bob Brown’s pleasure.

      I have a felling the majority of the views here and on all the news comment section will be largely anti-carbon tax.

    • The righteous one says:

      08:39am | 11/07/11

      It will be interesting after the next federal election if labor gets trounced and the libs get in. How will the then new prime minister deal with the greens as we will probably only have a half senate election.

      Will he “screw us over” so that he can get things through the parliament at Bob’s pleasure? Or will he be a man who has the courage of his convictions and refuse to deal with the greens. I hardly think so.

    • GB says:

      09:35am | 11/07/11

      @the righteous one. My guess is one of his first orders of business will be to introduce bills he knows won’t stand a chance in hell of getting through the senate and use that to paint the greens into a corner. He’ll make sure the public are well and truly aware that the Greens are wrecking every piece of vital legislation they are trying to introduce, and use that as the lever to ask the GG to dissolve both houses and send us back to the polls.

    • Nafe says:

      09:39am | 11/07/11

      RTO, Brown will never negotiate with the coalition, Once the Coalition get in government, they must force a double disolution as quickly as possible as people will still have in their memories how the greed screwed us as much as the ALP have.

    • LC says:

      12:59pm | 11/07/11

      @ The righteous one

      If the Greens decide to be stubborn, Tony can just call a double disillusion. If he does so soon enough after toppling the Gillard Government, it’d be simple to translate the anger required to do so into another victory to de-green the Senate.

      Either that, or he can simply reduce the carbon price to $0. It can be changed without having to go through parliament.

    • Bob says:

      10:45pm | 11/07/11

      To The Righteous one - After the next Election there will be no Greens - they will be buried & cremated next to the Democrats.

    • Peter says:

      06:37am | 11/07/11

      Anyone who believes that they will be better off with this tax is truly naive and probably still believes in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
      If a government gives you a dollar with one hand, you can bet your testicles that they will take two dollars with the other hand. That is how governments operate.
      What I am saying to the government is “I’ve already eaten, so I’ll pass on that serving of bullshit”.

    • Symes says:

      01:33pm | 11/07/11

      I’m going to be better off,  there’s nobody who believes in fairytales, or is naive. So chum, you’re discounting the gender vote?, or haven’t you noticed anything during puberty, and still believe that people, like you,  still talk out of their arse.

    • Branson says:

      02:13pm | 11/07/11

      @ Symes, I won’t be better off and neither will 90% of the population despite what your PM tells you. She doesn’t lie after all does she? Once the first couple of years are done and the compo sends, watch everything start going up. Someone has to pay for the new bureaucracies and f*** ups.

      But then you’re probably a Green nob that voted for that douche party in the first place and needs a little living still to understand the difference between good intentions and good consequences. I’ll help you: one may produce bad results whereas one always produces good results. The carbon tax is well intentioned but will produce bad results. Know the difference.

    • Mouse says:

      03:21pm | 11/07/11

      @Symes “So chum, you’re discounting the gender vote?” What, are you saying that all women will vote for gillard because she is a woman? What a stupid comment! Most women I know are intelligent, free thinking individuals and can’t stand gillard or her politics. They are offended by her in interviews and giggling at questions she doesn’t know how to answer. They are against her turning our democracy into socialism and pushing major “reforms” that have no mandate and are against the wishes of the majority of the voting people. She will always be popular with people like you that perceive the world owes them a living and are the first in line with their hands out for something for nothing. Don’t you dare lump the majority of women in your boat!

    • CJ Morgan says:

      07:06am | 11/07/11

      I reluctantly support the introduction of a Carbon Tax, because I recognise that’s as far as this government will go to address Anthropogenic Global Warming.  For any strategy to have the slightest impact in the longer term, it ultimately has to result in reduced per capita emissions, and reducing consumption of goods and services is the simplest way of doing that.

      If the carbon price (and hopefully the ETS it will morph into) is sufficiently high and strategically targeted, it is the best policy option on the table at the moment.  However, the way the government has handled the carbon tax and its antecedent debate has been typically inept, and the exclusions and ‘compensation ’ not only sabotage its efficacy, but give ammunition to detractors who claim that AGW is all a big socialist plot to redistribute wealth.

      In proposing to pay pensioners ‘compensation’ at a level well above actual expenditure, Gillard is exposed as nakedly attempting to bribe a hostile sector of the electorate, which is likely to be fatal for a government whose integrity has (mostly unfairly, to date) been criticised.  The exclusion of fuel is just madness - for the ultimate cap and trade scheme to succeed in reducing emissions, this major area of pollution must be part of it, even if its introduction is gradual.

      The debate around AGW has become so sullied by disinformation that I think the only strategy that has a hope of succeeding now is to motivate consumers to reduce emissions via price.  There has to be some pain, but it doesn’t need to be in vain.

    • Jim says:

      08:36am | 11/07/11

      Sorry CJ - ” because I recognise that’s as far as this government will go to address Anthropogenic Global Warming” - regardless of whether you believe the banks, economists and socialists around the world that say AGW is real, or the real scientists that dispute this fanciful notion…if you believe the government has the interests of the environment at heart with this tax, then you have your head up your arse.

    • Jordan Rastrick says:

      09:34am | 11/07/11

      CJ, as far as fuel goes, its vehicles that should be taxed/subsidised, not fuel. With the way petrol prices move around any carbon price signal is bound to be lost in the noise so to speak. However people will change their minds about how fuel efficient a car to buy when making such a major purchase if there is a tax on gas guzzlers and a subsidy on the rest. Start shifting the fleet toward hybrids, all electric and so forth and transport emissions will come down over the decades to come when we really need them to. More effective in economic terms and politically an easier sell as well.

    • CJ Morgan says:

      10:02am | 11/07/11

      @ Jim:

      Charming. So you’d be an AGW denier then?  In which case, you’re part of the problem.

      @ Jordan

      Good points, but I’m inclined to say why not tax both?

    • PTom says:

      10:31am | 11/07/11

      One of the many reason fuel was exclude was that there are no real alternatives for people who need to travel distances. Like remote located people do not have access to public transport.

      Taxing cars for size and efficents makes more sense almost like what is done now with Rego.

    • Steve says:

      11:26am | 11/07/11

      @CJ, Jim is not part of the problem. The problem is the current government, and I strongly suspect that Jim will be a small part of the solution.

    • Adam Diver says:

      12:01pm | 11/07/11

      Lowering living standards, thats the best idea you have?

      Any idea how that will help AGW as China and India, substantially increase thier living standards through cheap, cheap coal, that we export?

    • Jim says:

      12:47pm | 11/07/11

      CJ - no, I do not deny the mountains of evidence proving that AGW is nothing more than a myth perpetuated by global corporations standing to reap trillions of dollars with no risk and minimal outlay, sold to the gullible eco-warriors as a threat to our very existence! Nor do I deny that social engineers and activists from the 70’s who never grew up see this as a way to destroy manufacturing and redistribute wealth.

      You seem to be denying it though…

    • CJ Morgan says:

      02:13pm | 11/07/11

      @ Steve:

      I agree the Gillard government is pretty woeful, but I don’t think they’re responsible for AGW.

      @ Adam Diver:

      If you only measure living standards in terms of material consumption, then yes, since the reduction of consumption is really the only way to address the root cause of AGW.  Of course, if we could manage to do something about population growth we could reduce consumption that way.

      @ Jim:

      Go away.  The adults are trying to have a serious conversation.

    • gytr_r1 says:

      07:30am | 11/07/11

      Sorry, but I am worse off, according to their calculator. I spend 22 days out of 28 working away from my family. To what ends? I am to pay the flood levy, to have private health insurance and the medicare rebate means tested, and my family combined income is just over the threshold. And i do mean JUST OVER.

      Also, you have failed to mention in this article, as all of the MSM have, to notice the increase in the tax rate for the first 2 brackets: Yes, bracket tax free threshold climbs for those who earn under $80k, but what about those mine/construction workers? Those union members? Those who work away to keep this country moving forward? The tax rate for everyone goes from 15% to 19%, but those over $80k, don’t get the same tax free threshold. They stay on the old $6k level. Then the $37001-$80K bracket rate climbs 2.5% and eventually 3%.

      Now imagine how the union members feel right about now? Don’t forget, mining companies (not just coal) have warned that they will re-evaluate projects. There’s a lot of concerned people in the mining and mining related construction sector…

    • PTom says:

      10:59am | 11/07/11

      What you failed to account is the increase in the tax free threshold increase which offset the new tax rate.
      On a wage of 37,000 you had a taxable income of around 31000, your new taxable income will 18799.
      This means you would have paid tax of $4650 now and new tax 3571.81.
      Even at 80,000 you would still be paying around $1,700 less then you do now.

      So guess what if you earn under 80,000 you just got a tax cut.

    • jf says:

      12:56pm | 11/07/11

      PTom says:10:59am | 11/07/11

      “So guess what if you earn under 80,000 you just got a tax cut. “

      So how does that reduce carbon emissions again?

    • Mouse says:

      03:01pm | 11/07/11

      PTom, it seems pretty obvious that gytr_r1 earns over $80K, so he doesn’t get a tax cut does he? He will also get hit with the flood tax, for 2 years now, and have his health insurance rebate means tested. I am pretty sure he gets no government handouts either.
      (The fact that, to earn this money, he spends 3 weeks at a time away from his family, month in month out, is irrelevant isn’t it? Not that you would of course, but it’s his choice isn’t it?)

      I am sure that you will say that he makes good money and can afford to pay all these new taxes, etc. Why, so people like you don’t have to?  Are you one of those people who thinks that now they are going to be over compensated by this carbon tax thing? lol This is hsyterical.  There are people that are actually believing that the government is going to pay them more money than they are going to spend!  This is what the government wants you to think, this is the appetiser for something that they hope to look at doing in 12 months time, this is the feeler for public response.  This is the bribe that will shut up lots of people and take away the focus on why we are having a carbon tax. It has nothing to do with saving the environment, nothing at all. They are now only going to tax 500 big companies, no fuel tax and all these new handout promnises. Lot less money coming in, more going out! It is all about wealth redistribution to the Labor demograhic, to win back votes they were losing, and getting the promised 2012/13 budget surplus. 
      Some people will get sucked in, gillard is counting on it, she has proven time and time again that she doen’t think the Australian public is very bright!

    • Robert Smissen of country SA says:

      09:40pm | 11/07/11

      PTomListened to Radio National today & that $18,000 is only $2000 when you factor in the low income rebate

    • PTom says:

      09:43pm | 11/07/11

      @Mouse
      “Are you one of those people who thinks that now they are going to be over compensated by this carbon tax thing?” and you would be wrong.

      “no fuel tax”  what we don’t already pay enough taxes on fuel and you want more.

      What happen to you Liberals wanting more taxes not less.. So what is your answer Direct Action?

    • Gregg says:

      08:31am | 11/07/11

      Yep Mark, you do not have too much to say about the tax bracket changes and in round figures, a 15% reduction on $12,000 will be progressively paid for with the additional 4% as wages move up.

      But as for
      ” Industries that Mr Abbott had warned would hit the wall, would be shielded and export businesses granted generous assistance.

      Steel has been offered multiple level protection from the chill winds of a carbon price and while complaints are inevitable, most will regard it as more than adequate. “
      So they may be taxed on one hand and have it paid back with the other, a new bureacracy fitted into the process and we know how much money bureacracies can gobble up, ditto for renewable power it would seem.
      And then
      ” Even dirty electricity generators get both time and money to make the adjustment. “
      It’s seem that Julia and the likes of yourself need to understand that if you burn coal, you get CO2 just like humans and animals exhale, so nothing too dirty about it.
      What needs to be addressed is where new base load power is going to come from and which will be needed not too far into the future with the normal cycle of older power station retirements and a growing population.

    • Cat says:

      01:34pm | 11/07/11

      Juliar don’t forget to eat your vegetables. Let me be clear on this.  I suggest you stop smoking.

    • Adam Diver says:

      08:56am | 11/07/11

      Thats twice the fan club has mentioned Julia is a skilled negotiator today on the punch.

      May I suggest the fact that she is negotiating a carbon tax against her will, and a pokie reform she does not care about,  means that she did poorly when negotiating for government, particularly if you look at the polls.

      Can I also remind people of East Timor, Malaysia, PNG, COAG, etc as other examples of negotiations more aptly described as capitualtions.

      On the carbon tax, its not a spoonful of sugar, its a f**king dumptruck full. If everyone is exempt, or compensated, I fail to see how any reduction is possible, even if such reduction had postive environmental outcomes which it obviously does not.

      I know everyone is fairly conceded but can we pretend that this is not a budget but rather possible legislation, and not focus on the impact on individuals but the gaping holes in the policy.

    • Jordan Rastrick says:

      09:46am | 11/07/11

      “If everyone is exempt, or compensated, I fail to see how any reduction is possible”

      Because the tax incidence is on CO2 use and the compensation is not.

      I.e. two households on the same income get the same amount of compensation, but the one consuming goods and services with twice as much CO2 emissions will pay about twice as much.

      Hence, people have an incentive to reduce the consumption of emissions intensive goods and services.

      This is Economics 101; I don’t understand why all the alleged free marketeer opponents of this scheme don’t seem to get it.

    • Dash says:

      11:22am | 11/07/11

      @Jordan - two households polluting exactly the same will be discriminated against on the gasis of income! That’s got nothing to do with the environment! In fact, under this policy a household in an ALP demograophic will be compensated yet the household in the LNP demographic wont, even if they pollute less! Because of income alone.

      Punish the one paying tax and reward the one paying no tax and already on welfare!

      SOCIALISM!

    • Adam Diver says:

      11:47am | 11/07/11

      @ Jordan, please specific examples of where the top 500 companies can reduce carbon emmissions, for less than $23/tonne.

      The problem is, (and no case has been put forward to suggest otherwise), that there are no alternatives to emitting companies. Power and transport (although compensated) come to mind first.

      So please give us specific examples of behavourial changes that will be made at $23/tonne to make product A, cheaper than product B, and until then, no more of the patronising analogies, please.

      Also the free market usually operates without government intervention, pplacing an arbitrary price on an invisible by-product, natural to our world by that might just be my opinion.

    • Jordan Rastrick says:

      01:34pm | 11/07/11

      “That’s got nothing to do with the environment!”

      Agreed. While there is a case for the way the compensation is structured, it is political in its aims, and the environmental outcomes would be the same if the government had distributed that portion of the revenue raised differently.

      And Adam, I didn’t make any analogies.

    • Dash says:

      03:06pm | 11/07/11

      @Jordan - yeah - zero environmental outcomes.

    • Elphaba says:

      09:00am | 11/07/11

      It just seems massively complicated, and a reshuffling of money that isn’t necessary.

      Also, a tax that claims to be interested in reducing carbon emissions should be taxing petrol.  The fact that this doesn’t suggests that this is about robbing from the rich to give to the poor, not about fixing climate change.

    • DaS Energy says:

      10:17am | 11/07/11

      Fully agree its Juliar bullshit about adapting to new technology.. Some basic figures. Tarong Power Station Qld burns 240 tonne of Coal to generate 350 megawatts. So 240 x $23.00 is $5,520.00 less the 90% refund of $5,188.00, end cost is $332.00.  In Juliar and freinds mind thats more than enough reason for Coal burners to switch to clean electricity production.

    • Elphaba says:

      11:32am | 11/07/11

      @DaS Energy, that’s going to be the major problem - if most people are not paying very much, or not paying anything at all, that’s not going to drive change.

      They aren’t going to win the election anyway, so they might as well have gone both guns blazing, and slugged everyone with a flat carbon tax and told them to suck it up.  This convoluted churn is only going to confuse people and not motivate change.

    • Adam Diver says:

      12:04pm | 11/07/11

      @ Das,

      Its a tax on carbon dioxide not coal, although I am not to sure on how much carbon dioxide is released from a tonne of coal, I am thinking it has to be less than a tonne right?

      @ Elphaba

      I know I shouldn’t be surpirsed but I am fairly sure Julia mentioned it is supposed to hurt, otherwise it won’t drive change.

      Right now its right in the middle, too expensive to be ignored, too cheap to work.

    • Elphaba says:

      12:18pm | 11/07/11

      @Adam, she spent an awful lot of time reassuring people that they would be no worse off.

    • Dash says:

      12:41pm | 11/07/11

      Well I will be worse off! And so will at least 2 million other households based on the ALPs numbers. And I will be worse off no matter how many solar panels I stick on the roof. I get to help subsidise the coal industry and the steel industry and lazy arsed bums already on the take.

      If you’re a single mum with 5 kids all to different dads, you get rewarded. But if you educate yourself, work hard to make a better life for yourself and your family, take nothing from the government and already pay a significant amount of income tax, you get penalised. Well done ALP, way to go!

    • Nath says:

      09:02am | 11/07/11

      Re-election.. This one is a bit too big to let these missmanaging twits make it up as they go..

    • Dash says:

      09:04am | 11/07/11

      The ALP has just reduced the living standards of all households earning 80,000 or more! And that’s if you believe their costings!

      The ALP made over 2million households worse off under their own costing model yesterday!

      It’s now bad for Australia to have cheap power from our coal but it’s good for the Chinese to have cheap power from our coal?

      Petrol emmissions from the family car are OK, but deisel deisel emmissions from a semi-trailor are evil.

      The coal and steel industries are big polluters but they deserve compensation because they have big unions. Your household which is a tiny polluter deserves no compensation because of what you earn.

      The tax free threshhold will be lifted to 18,000 p.a., but the first tax bracket rate will increase from 15% to 19% and the second rate, from 30% to 32.5% and then 33%! the ALP has increased the tax rates. Bring on bracket creep!

      No other nation in the world has an economy wide carbon tax but it’s the right thing for Australia.

      I truelu hope a lot of union members in the coal industry lose their jobs over this nonsense. The money go round is a bloody disgraceful exercise in wealth redistribution for nil net gain to the environment! the amount of Co2 the ALP estimates, will represent less than 0.5% of global emmissions. Anyone who believes this is about the environment is absolutely crazy!

    • Nafe says:

      09:50am | 11/07/11

      Whats worse is that Wayne Swan indicated yesterday that they didn;t even model the effect this tax has on Jobs. Now is that incompetance, or a Lie by Mr Swan.

      Neither wouild suprise me.

    • Jordan Rastrick says:

      09:53am | 11/07/11

      “And that’s if you believe their costings!”

      The costings were done by the Treasury of the Commonwealth of Australia, not the ALP. Its the same institution that costed all of the Howard governments policies and budgets, and those of every previous Federal Government. Its the same group of people who will cost Tony Abbott’s policies and budgets should he be elected to office.

      “It’s now bad for Australia to have cheap power from our coal but it’s good for the Chinese to have cheap power from our coal?”

      China has about 1/4 the per capita emissions of Australia.

      “No other nation in the world has an economy wide carbon tax but it’s the right thing for Australia.”

      Australia doesn’t have an economy wide carbon tax, either. For instance agriculture is exempt, as is petrol.

      The schemes in the EU, NZ and California, like ours, only cover some sectors, although its generally planned in the long run to try and expand them to most of the economy.

    • Todd says:

      10:56am | 11/07/11

      Jordan, are you talking about the Australian Treasury that MASSIVELY underestimated the return to the States of GST revenue??  Or to provide a more contemporary example, the Australian Treasury that underestimated the deficit int he last budget by $50 odd billion??  Please don’t make me laugh that this is supposed to provide anybody with the slightest amount of comfort.  I have been advised that I wil be $200 worse off per year.  My real assumption is that I will be at least $200 worse off per month.

    • Dash says:

      11:19am | 11/07/11

      @Nafe - i hope there are loads of union members out of a job over this!

      @Jordan - lol so you believe that the treasury (who can’t seem to get anything right) can model down to the 10c?

      Per capita?? They have billions of people and are going through an industrial revolution! Why is it OK for us to sell coal to the Chinese in increasing quantities and for them to generate cheap power from our coal but not OK for us to do the same?

      The environment doesn’t care about per capita! Australia is sending coal to China in increasing quantities! Their consumption and their Co2 output is increasing! And we’re selling them the means. That’s the point I make. Per Capita?? WTF?

      This is socilism dressed up as environmentalism. Gillard the Socialist Forum queen is living out her socialist ideology and the population of Australia suffers. Middle to high income Australia is subsidising the coal and steel industry and having their hard earned redirected to those who pay no or little tax. Bloody disgrace!

      0.5% of total global emmissions are projected to be impacted. That’s if we assume it just doesn’t all get passed on to the consumer. What will be the impact on global average temperature Jordan?

      This policy is a Fraud. And 2million Australian households pay on the basis of their income! Not on how they pollute but on what they earn. Gillard and the ALP need to swing over this.

      The three biggest polluters do not have such a scheme. People are being discriminated against on the basis of what they earn, not on how they pollute. “Making big polluters pay” is a lie. If there is a powerful union, the ALP will compensate. But if you’re a household, it doesn’t matter how many solar panels you have, all that matters is your demographic and your income. It’s fraud.

    • Adam Diver says:

      12:09pm | 11/07/11

      @ Jordan, try to keep up, the treasury is being discredited, not because of partisan concerns but because of general incompetence or the fact that these models don’t come with the neccessary disclosure (could be ALP’s fault).

      @ Dash,

      Even if you consider the per capita argument, on simply a moral level, it ignores the unique difficulties we face as a nation such as a massive land mass, huge resource sector that supplies other countries, etc. Its a weak argument to make morally, let alone using it scientifically, as making a difference to AGW

    • Jordan Rastrick says:

      01:49pm | 11/07/11

      @Todd,

      “Jordan, are you talking about the Australian Treasury that MASSIVELY underestimated the return to the States of GST revenue??”

      Yes. Forecasting the economy is incredibly complex and difficult. The Treasury does about a good job of it as anyone, although clearly they get the answer wrong a lot of the time, like most forecasters.

      “Or to provide a more contemporary example, the Australian Treasury that underestimated the deficit int he last budget by $50 odd billion??”

      I’m afraid I’m drawing a blank there. Maybe you could provide more details.

      @Dash,

      “The environment doesn’t care about per capita!”

      No, of course it doesn’t. But people should. If we need to restrict global C02 emissions - which you may want to argue with, but that’s a separate debate - surely its not equitable to demand Chinese people use less than one quarter the Carbon of Australian people?
      Look at it this way. Say there were a revolution in China tomorrow and it split into 50 democracies of 20 million people each. Each of these new countries would have on average about 1/4 of Australia’s total emissions. Are you saying it would then become for these new countries to massively increase their emissions, simply because some lines had been redrawn on a map?

      “People are being discriminated against on the basis of what they earn, not on how they pollute.”

      Its a mixture of the two. Those who pollute more will pay more; those who earn more will get less back. 

      @Adam,

      “try to keep up, the treasury is being discredited, “

      I’m certainly glad that Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey et al don’t seem to agree, and have no plans to sack the employees of the Treasury en masse if elected. For all the partisan noise both sides make, in reality when push comes to shove they’re both in pretty strong agreement about the importance, reliability and impartiality of Treasury advice.

    • Adam Diver says:

      12:11pm | 11/07/11

      Its wierd for you to be on the conservatives, to be honest, its freaking me out a little bit, you know us conservatives don’t like change.

    • Vaunted says:

      04:12pm | 11/07/11

      Crikey nossy, can that really be you?

    • nossy says:

      04:54pm | 11/07/11

      @Adam and Vaunted - yes it is fellas - when you are wrong you own up to it as I did in this post to Rosie about an hour ago.:
      “@No 1 Rosie - yes indeed Rosie. Rudds ETS backdown was bad enough so when Gillard gutted her Carbon Tax you know its all rubbish. As Abbott correctly pointed out and so did I “what happened to the other 500 big polluters she was raving on about only 1 week ago”? Good grief I doubt she will sell this Carbon Tax Rosie and can now say Tony Abbott has got my vote. I can only aplogise for all the blogs I did bagging him!Tony Abbott for PM Rosie - and the sooner the better!”

    • The Badger says:

      05:47pm | 11/07/11

      nossy just has a case of the hots for Rosie.
      The kind of hots that makes you crazy for a while.

      MarK my words nossy - this will not get you into the pearly gates.
      Hahahahahahahahaha.

    • nossy says:

      06:38pm | 11/07/11

      @The Badger - u r a sick puppy Badge - but I llike you fella.  hahahahahah

    • DaS Energy says:

      09:26am | 11/07/11

      What a con, Juliar and freinds finaly get round to taking on the Henry tax revue, but claim it be because of the wonderful new tax they want.  Also note no mention of dropping the fuel subsidy scheme.  Garnets recommendation no Carbon tax on fuel but the sudsidy goes and has the same effect. Too cunning by half.

    • Karen from Qld says:

      11:46am | 11/07/11

      The 4 billion blow out in the budget will be paid by ALL Australians and there is no guarantee that that won’t increase. Global economies are in a perilious state and if commodity prices fall the expected revenue from the mining industry will also fall leaving an even bigger hole in the budget.

    • Bruce fof Modbury says:

      11:53am | 11/07/11

      Mark Kenny said in the Advertiser today that the package was designed to be the equivalent of removing 45 million cars of the road in the next decade.  So why haven’t they introduced a fuel tax if it is important for the climate to remove 45 million cars.  Perhaps we might see this introduced after the next election when labor is re-elected?

    • RyaN says:

      02:43pm | 11/07/11

      But Mark, “medicine” implies that this might actually fix something and we all know and readily admit that this carbon tax is not going to reduce the worlds temperature by 1 degree.
      Hell in this case, this “medicine” is more likely to be snake oil fixing an illness of the “head” due to the absolute FACT that there is not one piece of peer reviewed science that shows a definitive human marker in global warming.

      I am sure sugar helps us swallow this “snake oil medicine” because in this case we didn’t have the option, we are just relieved of our cash and have it forced down our throat.

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      02:47pm | 11/07/11

      The very fact that Gillard & Abbott together turned the very important issue of Climate Change, Global Warming etc. into a massive political football has been enough to put the vast majority, as opposed to the 45,000 who turned up to the paid “Pro-Carbon Tax Rallies” of voters off-side.
      Though most of us may believe that Climate Change is a reality & that we have to do something about it is a given.
      However both Gillard & Abbott, with all the help in the world from Brown & Milne, have so muddied the waters that no-one knows what to believe.
      The ill-named Federal Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change (MPCCC) we anything but Multi Party. It’s entire membership consisted of ALP, Green & Independent MPs. The Indepependents are not a Political Party. They are individuals mostly with single issues. So the MPCCC was really a two party talkfest of like minded people.
      Gillard would not allow anyone who thought, however slightly, different from her immoveable, set in concrete stance was forbidden to join that stupid committee.
      How incredibly stupid was that? She has oft-stated that she wanted an open debate on the issue of Climate Change etc.
      The one place where people could have sat down, debated,discussed,addressed & possibly even solved the massive issues surrounding the subject & done so in a spirit of co-operation, with the outcome being presented in a truly multi-partisan manner to the Parliament was squandered solely because of Julia Gillards intransigence & her refusal to believe that anyone other than herself might be right.
      Abbott has contributed zilch,nix,zero,nothing to the debate. All he has done has been to carp on & on & on & on about Great Big New Taxes till we are tearing our hair out. We heard not a single word about the Liberal’s Climate Change Policy other than the oft-repeated yapping about “Affirmative Action” or some such bloody nonsense - see I can’t even remember what it really is called!. No details, nothing, nothing,nothing & yet this is a political party which says it does believe & accept that Climate Change is real.
      Well Mr Abbott if your party, if not you, does believe it is real then stop your bloody nonsense, sit down with Gillard & nut out a real & acheiveable policy between the two of you. You have, & I agree, repeatedly said that the Greens are the de facto Federal Government of Australia. You & Gillard (how she must loathe having to do exactly as they tell her!) can short-circuit the Greens any time you wish. Just because over Climate Change the pair of you come to some workable agreement does not mean that either of you have to forsake other opposing policies.
      Get this right between you & we will all be better off for, if nothing else, the Greens with their stand-over tactics & sheer bloodymindedness, will be put back in their rightful place. That is not, nor ever will be, as either the de facto or even real Federal Government of Australia. They will, if allowed to, destroy Australia’s economy. They will create unemployment the like of which Australia has never, ever experienced before.
      Come on you two! Pull your fingers out & start behaving like leaders.

    • The Badger says:

      06:05pm | 11/07/11

      Labor has been serious about addressing climate change for many years, as you well know. There was bipartisan support for an emissions trading scheme when Howard was PM.
      The political football was created when after the 2007 election the coalition had this to say about reducing emissions:
      Yes, NO not real, yes through a carbon tax, NO, yes through direct action.
      The Greens have consistently called for action on climate change, as has Labor.
      The NOposition party has been drifting aimlessly on AGW, their course driven willy nilly by the compass of political ambition at any cost.

    • Cat says:

      03:04pm | 11/07/11

      “Chaos is the order of nature and order is the nature of man.” - writer unknown.
      We use nature how we see fit: we strive to bring order to it, we seek to explain it in a language that doesn’t belong to it, we try to make it prettier, we try to make it better, we try to make it more profitable. Some efforts succeed, some don’t.
      Author -Norm Magnusson
      Carbon Tax will do nothing but send Australia into spiralling inflation and more and more debt. This tax does not have any viable body or vision.

    • Wilma J Craig says:

      03:38pm | 11/07/11

      This must be the worst handled issue ever to have been raised in Australia’s history.
      Julia Gillard has clearly demonstrated that she is, in addition being a proven bare-faced liar, the most incompetent, unreliable Prime Minister this country has ever been cursed with. Her arrogance & condescension out-does even that of Britain’s Margaret Thatcher. The fact that she is Australia’s first female PM has gone to her head. If she had got to that position by leading a political party which won office people might, to start with at any rate, have had some respect for her.
      Plitical pundits & commentators often tell us that, first & foremost, a Prime Minister must have “Charisma”. They could not be more wrong.
      Certainly charisma is an added bonus but the most important item for any PM must be Respect.
      Like him or loathe him, though I never met the man I did not like Howard one little bit for I regarded him, rightly or wrongly, as being a xenophobic & racist, BUT I did have grudging respect for him. I doubt even he would claim to have had any ‘charisma’ whatsoever - at least away from his family where he is probably a very, very different person, but that’s what politics does to people isn’t it?
      I & all my old friends, mostly, like myself, female & old, will not have a bar of Gillard though none of us doubt that away from politics she is probably a very pleasant, generous decent woman.
      Gillard has destroyed herself. We can only wait for the final “coup de grace” to be administered by her political peers for that is what will eventually happen. The only factor that is keeping her where she is at present is that they have no-one of any quality, and by God they now need someone of quality & urgently, to replace her with.
      She has two, albeit unpleasant, choices:
      1) Call an immediate Federal Election & be democratically tossed out by us
      OR
      2) Suffer the greatest indignity of all & be ignomineously dumped by her own party

    • Robert Smissen of country SA says:

      09:42pm | 11/07/11

      If someone gives you more than you are entittled to & says “don’t younworry about that” then NOW is the time to worry

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter