The carbon comic farce and Gillard’s pound of flesh

nihonin says:

06:54am | 14/10/11

Erick says ‘Gillard may be a competent negotiator’, being able to say Yes, Yes, Yes is not competent negotiating.

Warren says:

07:00am | 14/10/11

“The tax itself may or may not be bad…”

I thought it was going destroy Australia’s economy, introduce communism and polish off our democracy? I guess we can now expect months of revisionist commentary.

dovif says:

07:18am | 14/10/11

Gillard bend over backwards for the Greens and Independant, so that they can force a Carbon tax and the Pokies law on the rest of us.

It has nothing to do with being a competent negotiator, it has everything to do with lying, selling Australians out to the Greens, mismanagement and incompetance

John says:

07:34am | 14/10/11

Welcome to democratic theater show. The mainstream news media are also playing their part by not writing articles on issue. It reminds me of the Libyan war media blackout. The media in on this also? I think so. The people who control the western media also control western politics.

Vaunted says:

08:01am | 14/10/11

Are you suggesting Gillard’s a ‘competent negotiator’ in light of her performance with the East Timor solution, the PNG solution, or the Malaysia solution? As far as winning government, I’d say the Dependents well-and-truly won that one, skating to their imagined relevance on the back of a smoke and mirrors trick.

andye says:

08:38am | 14/10/11

Fact is, the Greens and the Independents got votes. Our system allows for a government to be formed from a coalition. This will lead to compromises and smaller groups holding the country to ransom.

As for the “lie”? Technically this isnt a tax… not like the actual tax Tony has suggested in the past (see link below) but that ship has sailed. The carbon price is a carbon tax in the minds of most people in no small part to the brilliant work by tony in opposition. If Labor had managed to position this without the word “tax” they would be in a much better position… but as I said: too late.

If it is repealed by Tony then we may just be setting ourselves up for more pain later on. Fact is, if this becomes a more worldwide thing (and despite the cries, there are countries with ETS, Carbon prices and so on now) we have a long way to go because of our high per capita carbon output. The lead time on research and implementation of technologies means there will be a delayed effect

Tony loves carbon taxes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74#

ZSRenn says:

08:54am | 14/10/11

It has nothing to do with competent negotiation. Gillard sold her soul to the Greens by promising to introduce this tax only days after telling Australia she would not. Gillard and the Greens locked the independents away in a room for more than 12 months with the Orwellian style thought police of the Climate Change Commission and fed them the climate change message.

Bereft of any argument against the legislation, not exposed to the facts that this tax will only save 0.015% of Global emissions and will cost far more to the Australian tax payer than predicted, they were brainwashed into believing this was the only course of action.

Basically she took weak minds locked them in a dark room and fed them shit and these mushrooms fell for it. This is not negotiation it is brainwashing and it has been done with the skill of an artist. Now she will set out to brainwash us, the Australian people.

To use the words of Bob Brown, “Australians are smarter than this and we do not like being patronized!”  or so I would like to believe.

Patsy says:

09:37am | 14/10/11

Gillard must think that MANDATE is some vague reference to a male’s anus.

Peter says:

09:48am | 14/10/11

@Erick

You mean the mandate to deliver an ETS after the 2007 election?

All Gillard is doing is cashing on this promise, albeit a few years later.

ZSRenn says:

10:09am | 14/10/11

@ Peter,By your reckoning Australia still supports a white Australia policy after the 1946 election result.

Is that correct?

Vaunted says:

10:12am | 14/10/11

@Peter, as you surely know, 2007 is ancient history, the world moved on since then. Most of the climate myths, exaggerations and lies have been inconveniently exposed and/or exploded, and the sheets have long been changed on Kevin Rudd’s Copenhagen wet dream. The world’s biggest CO2 producers by a long, long chalk do not include Australia, and none of them are embracing a crippling tax regime. This has all been about appeasing a radical minority in order to retain a self-interested grip on political power, at whatever cost to the nation. It’s utterly repulsive and flies against the wishes of the majority of Australians, whichever way you want to spin it.

Mouse says:

10:40am | 14/10/11

@andye, gillard also calls it a tax.
“By last night, Gillard was saying on TV: ‘‘I’m happy to use the word ‘tax’ . . “
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/first-step-on-carbon-tightrope-20110224-1b749.html#ixzz1ai3nqRhS
She also defined the difference between at carbon tax and an ETS
“A carbon tax is where you fix price,’’ Ms Gillard said. “An emissions trading scheme is where you fix quantity and allow the market to sort out price ... that’s what I wanted to do.’’
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/prime-minister-julia-gillard-admits-she-promised-there-would-be-no-carbon-tax/story-e6freooo-1226012679911
btw, a carbon price is an ETS, not a carbon tax. she may have wanted an ETS but BB liked the idea of a tax better, so that’s what we will have. An ETS doesn’t need a compensation package, a carbon tax gets one. She negotiated that one well didn’t she?

As for the link for Tony Abbott, if you understand a carbon tax, it makes a lot more sense to have a user pays tax on things that are high carbon outputters, ie petrol and electricity. The user then gets compensated for the carbon tax they have paid at tax time.That is EVERY user, not just a select group, and you get back what you have paid, no over-compensation like is being promised to that select group now. People can understand that. But to have a carbon tax on everything, except petrol, and to compensate companies that are high carbon emitters doesn’t make a lot of sense at all.  gillard may have got it through the lower house and she will probably get it through the upper house next month because she has the numbers on the floor, but she has lost support from a whole heap of Australians because of it.  Right, wrong or indifferent, she has not shown that she is a good or strong leader and is easily manipulated by others because she wants to hang on to government.  The polls show that a lot more people are seeing this too and Labor will suffer because of it.

Peter says:

10:47am | 14/10/11

Vaunted and ZsRenn.

Regardless, we had a mandate in 2007 to deliver an ETS.

88% voted for some form of it.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

11:07am | 14/10/11

Peter - Gillard hasn’t delivered an ETS - she’s delivered a carbon tax after going into an election stating “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”.

Ben C says:

11:12am | 14/10/11

@ Peter

The game changed after the 2010 election. Get with the bloody times!

Peter says:

11:30am | 14/10/11

@madkat

It is an ETS, with a 3 year fixed price period.

Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo says:

11:55am | 14/10/11

@ Peter

You need fresh mandates every election, champ. Otherwise its like saying my 1985 driver’s licence is still valid without being renewed…

Maree says:

12:03pm | 14/10/11

The high five kisses = A “slapp” in the face, and stick it up your jumper for the majority of AUSTRALIANS who did not vote for this tax. Not much more to say about these political embarrasing dimwited frauds.

Mouse says:

12:04pm | 14/10/11

@Peter, MadKat is correct. It is a carbon tax for the first 3 years minimum, that will increase in price at least once a year,  then moves on to an ETS. A carbon tax is a price set by the government that can be reset whenever they want. An ETS is where the government sets the quantity and the market sets the price.  There is quite a difference in the two and, just to clarify, a carbon price is an ETS.

andye says:

12:14pm | 14/10/11

@Mouse - According to that definition, it is only a tax for the first 3 years.

Also, I cant figure out the “user pays” option. What is the mechanism in that system to affect carbon output? With the Carbon Tax/Price/Whatever it will encourage efficiency and innovation by affecting the cost/benefit of implementing that stuff.

How does passing the cost onto the consumer and reimbursing them act to lower carbon emissions?

Tiger says:

12:29pm | 14/10/11

to paraphrase the Bard…a tax by any other name is still… a tax!
although the carbon price has been set, it is in fact a tax for the first three years of its existence, it cannot be called an emissions trading scheme until there is the capacity for carbon users to trade.
there is however, the issue of inaccurate costings which push the “scheme” as beneficial to the average joe - how will all that work out when it turns out that most people are actually paying rather than receiving as promised?
in any case, the death knell has sounded for gillard & co regardless of scripted smooches… anyone remember judas?

Blind Freddy says:

12:46pm | 14/10/11

“The tax itself may or may not be as bad as Abbott predicts”

Back peddling? Already . . .

MadKat of Melbourne says:

01:09pm | 14/10/11

andye - “Also, I cant figure out the “user pays” option. What is the mechanism in that system to affect carbon output?” - the user pays system is based on market efficiencies. The price for, say, electricity would be increased thereby making it more expensive for someone to use. The theory is that this will cause the user be more efficient with their electricity usage i.e. avoid wastage because they are paying more, and thereby use less. Its rationing by price rather than quantity.

“Carbon Tax/Price/Whatever it will encourage efficiency and innovation by affecting the cost/benefit of implementing that stuff” - not necessarily, the carbon price will only encourage efficiency if the cost/benefit goes the correct way - otherwise companies will either pass the costs onto consumers, go out of business or move off-shore where it is cheaper.

“How does passing the cost onto the consumer and reimbursing them act to lower carbon emissions?” - yeah, you got me there ??

MadKat of Melbourne says:

01:26pm | 14/10/11

Peter - “It is an ETS, with a 3 year fixed price period.”

A fixed price ETS - CAP on emissions and trading of PERMITS.

What we are getting - carbon tax - NO CAP on emissions and NO TRADING of permits so not an emission trading scheme.

Then this is replaced with an ETS.

You should look up the definition of a fixed-price ETS. That’s no what we are getting.

acotrel says:

01:33pm | 14/10/11

’ Sophie Mirabella, managed to get herself suspended for 24 hours the night before the vote.’

Perhaps Sophie really didn’t want to vote ?  Some of us live in country towns, and know the feeling in our stomachs when the fire trucks race out of town towards a fire !

Peter says:

01:43pm | 14/10/11

So we go from a fixed price ETS to full blown ETS in 3 years time.

James Hunter says:

02:17pm | 14/10/11

I just wish Foney Rabbitt did not look and act like the SS Captain from Hello Hello. Goose steeping and heal clicling his way around with a red arm band. . A totally untrustworthy and nasty piece of work with no principles . How can any one take the Liberals (sic) seriously with him there ? Get Turnbull back and then you have a chance.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

02:26pm | 14/10/11

OMG Peter - are you stupid I swear its like talking to a brick wall -

What we are getting now is simply a price on carbon. The government has not capped emissions nor will there be a trading scheme for companies to trade permits between themselves before we swap to an ETS in 3 years time.

no cap and no trade = no fixed price emission TRADING SCHEME.

For the scheme to be an fixed price ETS the government needs to cap emissions which means only a certain amount of permits are issued to companies. The companies would then be able to trade these permits between themselves however the price is fixed by the government and not market forces - this is what a fixed price ETS is.

I don’t know how to explain this any simplier to you.

Borderer says:

02:28pm | 14/10/11

When a government that acts against the will of its people, that’s tyranny. Trying to justify that by saying you’re on the right side of history is just paying lip service and trying to make the ends justify the means. Make up whatever argument you like but this is not a war footing where decisions for the nation need to be made immediately. Our ‘leaders’ have forgotten that their job requires they serve the people and their wishes, not the other way round.

andye says:

03:22pm | 14/10/11

@MadKat of Melbourne - Lets say that the prices rise to exactly match the extra given to consumers. The top 500 companies still have an outgoing expense for carbon price. This presents an opportunity to reduce that bill. It also affects the cost/benefit analysis of research, development and implementation of carbon reducing technologies.

That is: an investment that wouldn’t have been worth it for the company before the carbon tax might be viable after. The reduction is carbon tax is now a benefit. If they can get themselves out of the top 500, even better. Betting against a company maximising its own profit is a poor bet to make.

If the companies arent some form of monopoly and have competition that is price sensitive? Even better. Raising prices does not come without a cost, and if you can undercut the opposition with an equivalent product you will make more sales than them.

PTom says:

03:26pm | 14/10/11

Why is it so hard for you for Liberal supporter to understand about Australia ETS?
- Company are issued with a number of permits (CAP), the majority will be free and a small amount paid for at $23 per ton (tax).
- A company can then on sell these permits(TRADING) or reduce their emission to pay for fewer permits.

So what we are getting right now is a CAP on emission which will allow TRADING on a fix price of $23 per ton.
After three years the market will determine the price based on the CAP.

Sorry I forgot it maths and market based, so it always to hard for Liberal Lackey to understand.

Mouse says:

03:42pm | 14/10/11

@andye,  yes it is only a tax, that will be increased by the government, until it becomes an ETS, then it becomes a cap and trade for the company that will become cheaper as the company reduces their emissions and can sell their carbon credits back. A pretty good definition is in Wikipedia. Here’s the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

MadKat has explained the rest of your questions very succinctly, I can’t do any better.

“How does passing the cost onto the consumer and reimbursing them act to lower carbon emissions? ”  You’ll have to ask gillard and her climate change committee about that, this carbon tax is their baby.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

03:50pm | 14/10/11

PTom -

1. The number of permits being issued are not capped.
2. There is no trading until the ETS comes in in 3 years time

Why would there be a trading market if permits are not capped? Carbon will be priced at $23 per tonne but there is no cap on the amount of permits issued by the government.

“Sorry I forgot it maths and market based, so it always to hard for Liberal Lackey to understand” - PTom, I’m always finding that you are the one that constantly has trouble with numbers and graphs - go and do some research -

Ohh wait - you have no idea - so I’ve done it for you. From your own lovely Labor Party website

http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/putting-a-price-on-pollution/

And I quote from the Labor Party website:

“For the first three years, starting from 1 July 2012, the price of each tonne of carbon pollution will be fixed, like a carbon tax.

Then, from 1 July 2015, the carbon pricing mechanism will move to an emissions trading scheme where the price will be set by the market.”

MadKat of Melbourne says:

04:09pm | 14/10/11

andye “Lets say that the prices rise to exactly match the extra given to consumers. The top 500 companies still have an outgoing expense for carbon price.”

I would say andy that prices will rise above what consumers will get in compensation. The compensation won’t set the prices, the companies will. The top 500 companies will still have an outgoing expense for the carbon price but will make it back from increased revenues from increased prices.

“This presents an opportunity to reduce that bill” - the opportunity is reduce the bill will happen through competition.

“It also affects the cost/benefit analysis of research, development and implementation of carbon reducing technologies” - what also affects the cost/benefit analysis is whether it will be cheaper to move offshore.

“That is: an investment that wouldn’t have been worth it for the company before the carbon tax might be viable after. The reduction is carbon tax is now a benefit” - again you need to consider all options in a cost/benefit analysis i.e. it might be cheaper to move offshore. And you need to consider the trickle down effect on the economy.

“Raising prices does not come without a cost, and if you can undercut the opposition with an equivalent product” - I have found the undercutting the opposition usually involves cost cutting measures such as sacking workers before innovations are considered. You also must also consider that we aren’t a closed economy and must take into account cheap imports that we now won’t be able to compete against.

PTom says:

04:14pm | 14/10/11

“like a carbon tax.” Yes ALP made it to simple for Liberal Lackeys to understand you did see the word “like”.

But it is not a carbon tax it is a Fixed-Price ETS that begin in 2012.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/07/07/3263546.htm?site=ballarat

Dissident says:

06:09pm | 14/10/11

The parrot is just resting, eh PTom?

Mark W says:

07:59pm | 14/10/11

Sorry, as a life long Labor supporter, I will vote against them next election.
And I promise never to vote for them again, althoug promises have been broken before.

acotrel says:

09:07pm | 14/10/11

@John
‘The mainstream news media are also playing their part by not writing articles on issue. It reminds me of the Libyan war media blackout. The media in on this also? I think so. The people who control the western media also control western politics. ‘

So now Rupert Murdoch believes in AGW?  I don’t like Tony Abbott’s chances of surviving as leader of the LNP !  Now what’s the bad news ?

Christian Real says:

06:49am | 15/10/11

From a story in “The Age, June 7, 2011 “Abbott dogged by old carbon comment.”
“If you want to put a price on carbon, why not just do it with a simple tax?”
“Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more,then at the end of the year you can take your invoices to the Tax Office and get a rebate?

Dissident says:

11:10am | 15/10/11

Christian Real, you might want to read the quote again. It starts with “if”.

I’ll let you figure out the rest.

HeatherG says:

10:51am | 16/10/11

If Gillard was as wonderful a negotiator as she, or others, think, then she would have been able to negotiate a minority government with the Greens while NOT breaking the election promise she made.

Saying “yes” to everything everyone else wants is not negotiation. It’s a Jim Carrey movie.

Reg says:

08:27am | 14/10/11

Which is why Tony Abbott will be Australia’s next elected PM… there will be another temporary Labor PM before him though.

Nafe says:

08:33am | 14/10/11

This just shows exactly how poor a negotiator Gillard really is. There was no way the Greens would ever back Abbott so she obviously conceeded way too much to the greens in her so called negotiations. If Gillard was such a good nnegotiator, she would have sidelined the greens and called their bluff in the knowledge Abbott would be worse for the green agenda than Labor.

Old Bloke says:

10:50am | 14/10/11

She may be a good negotiator but it is her judgement that is poor. 
Why did she ever feel she had to concede so much to Bob Brown?  He was never going to support Tony Abbott!

Dissident says:

11:42am | 14/10/11

I hear that, Old Bloke. The PM negotiates with all the eloquence of a dog eating it’s own vomit. The Greens would not have supported a Triple Entendre Government (Lib, Nat, Green) in a blue fit.

Gillard didn’t even need to go back that far to see the same effect occur, albeit on the other side of politics. Over here in WA the Nationals agreed to support the Liberals to form a government despite the ALP putting a better deal on the table. They knew that a coalition with the ALP would destroy their voter base and the Liberals would simply set up a Country Liberal party and wipe the floor with them at the next election. Incidentally, Grylls did want to go to the ALP but was told in no uncertain terms to pull his head in by the wiser heads of the party room. This is what an effective party is about - action by consensus.

Come to think of it, the very best thing the ALP could have done is tell the Greens to fall in line or stuff off. If the Greens did go to the Coalition they would have destroyed any credibility they have and at the next election the ALP would have picked up whole swathes of disaffected Greens voters.

This is also why it will be so satisfying to see the electoral ass kicking that Oakeshott and Windsor are going to get when it comes around. Fancy supporting the party that polls in the teens in your electorate.

The end result in any event is that not only is she a terrible negotiator - she is also a terrible strategist.

Erick says:

07:07am | 14/10/11

@Mahhrat - It’s got nothing to do with the Opposition’s competence. They just don’t have the numbers, and no amount of political skill will make up for that.

Col. of Blackburn says:

07:07am | 14/10/11

@Mahhrat
I would question what this issue (and others) says about our Government? Pushing through deeply unpopular laws that Blind Freddy could see that are not supported by the majority of the population and are deeply divisive. We are told that Climate Change is the greatest moral challenge of our time and to channel Hanrahan, ‘we’ll all be rooned!’ Yet I was down at Docklands in Melbourne recently outside a Commonwealth Government building, situated on the lowest point of the street, just across the road from the water, it will be the first to be flooded when we get ‘catastrophic sea level rise’ as predicted by Gore, Flannery et al. As that wise lady in Brisbane said to Julia recently, ‘we’re not stupid you know!’ I went to one of the MDBC meetings where they had allocated $5B for water buybacks, yet the latest costings for the Bradfield Scheme are only for $3.5B If you were Windsor or Oakeshott you would have to be a supreme optimist to believe you would get re-elected at the next election, likewise the majority of the ALP members, so why did they vote for the Carbon Tax Bills? Are they merely Lemmings, or do they have a terminal death wish?

Wayne Kerr says:

07:14am | 14/10/11

Mahrat, what about the Malaysain solution.  The opposition has effectively blocked that.  So much so that the Government refused to try and pass it because they new it woudl be beaten.  The icing on the cake is that Julia Gillard is now blaming Tony Abbot even though several Independents were going to vote against it. Talk about not taking any responsibility.

I’ve never been this interested in politics and I have never felt such strong feelings against any of our previous leaders.  Julia Gillard however evokes such anger in me it’s not funny.

Nathan says:

07:21am | 14/10/11

@Erick
Negotiating to get them in the first place wasn’t to bad. The guy was offering everything and couldn’t get them. Says allot about the quality of the man and what he would do

We need better government says:

07:27am | 14/10/11

Mahrat

you did know the independent’s’ 5 second of fame is up, when this incompetant and morally bankrupt government is kicked out of the office.

As Windsor said after negotiating with the ALP, he thinks an ALP government is more likely to last 3 years, because it is more unpopular, and much more likely to stuff up. So Windsor actually choose to not sign up with Abbott, because he thinks Abbott will be a better PM and will led a better government then the ALP, but because Abbott will do well, his parliament will not last 3 years.

Windsor and the other independants does not want to do what is good for Australia, they want their 5 seconds of fame and they want to stretch it out as long as possible, they want the ALP to last as long as they can, so they can get to continue to hold Australian hostage and receive a fat cheque

Gillard is so spinless, that she will give in to every whim of these people, it is really just dumb and dember

Joan says:

07:43am | 14/10/11

Bob Brown`s puppet Gillard - pushing through Bob Brown policies- first the carbon tax , now asylum seeker onshore processing . While Bob Brown pulls the strings Gillard squawks ` It`s all Abbotts fault`  Gillard has tossed away her Social Forum little Red book, and now dances to the tunes from Bob Brown little Green book. Meanwhile Hanson-Young pulls Ombudsman Asher`s strings.  We have a puppet government controlled by the Greens

I hate pies says:

08:11am | 14/10/11

Mahrant,

it has nothing to do with the oppositions ability to pursuade government MP’s, and everything to do with the party politics that is now being played. We have a situation where people pick a side a go into bat for it, no matter how absurd their position is; this includes MP’s, the media and the public. MP’s are loathe, and seem to be scared to do anything that is outside the party line; both labor and liberal. This isn’t a good thing for democracy, and it’s certainly bad for our country. It reflects the combative, power at all costs politics that is being played in the current environment. It is undoubtedly have a detrimental effect on the standard of politics in our country, and by extension a detrimental effect on the quality of policy and governance.
So, Mahrant, how about you take your party hat off for a while, and start a conversation about how politics can be improved in our country; by all politicians, no matter which party they represent.

Aitch B says:

08:19am | 14/10/11

@Nathan

You say that Abbott offered them everything. Do you know what he actually offered?

Mahhrat says:

08:40am | 14/10/11

@Erick, my point is they don’t need “numbers” any more or less than Julia does.  Now, there is certainly an argument that Julia sold her soul to Bob Brown etc for power, and that’s a good argument - I’d support it. 

That still doesn’t negate the fact that (apart from the Malaysia solution which I’d overlooked, thank you @Wayne Kerr) Tony’s been unable to influence these things.

I wonder if it’s occurred to Tony that if, as you say Erick, you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em?  I know he “tried”, but that was (rightly, IMHO) seen pretty widely as a cynical stunt. 

My concern is that he’s been as largely ineffective an opposition leader in any meaningful sense as any I can remember.  If you accept the popular proposition that Gillard and the ALP acknowledge they’re gone next election, surely it’s in his interest to try, if he thinks he can’t stop stupid laws being passed, to work WITH the government and at least get a sunset clause, or anything he could work with once he’s the PM?

@I hate pies, I’ll say this to you once mate:  I don’t respond to arguments using personal insults.  My name is Mahhrat; I ask that you and everyone demonstrate the common decency and respect of the indivdual that you say you champion, and at least you my name properly.

@ Col. of Blackburn: it says a number of uncomplimentary things about our government; you’ll get no argument from me there.  Some of the things that have been done are just atrocious.  I am no supporter of the carbon tax, though I do support the idea of an ETS - I’d much rather be encouraged to change than forced with stick.

But that isn’t the point of this particular argument:  I’m only interested in people’s thoughts about Tony’s inability to influence, or given the inability to influence is you accept Erick’s point, at least ameliorate or take part in government.

People say we need a better government, and they are right.  True accountability, spirits of fairness, and all that.  ALL government is currently acting like spoiled brats.  We need to stop voting for anyone until they show at least basic levels of honesty and transparency.

I hate pies says:

09:39am | 14/10/11

@Mahhrat, lighten up mate; it was a pisstake, hardly a personal insult.

MarkS says:

09:46am | 14/10/11

@Erick
His point was that the government does not have the numbers as well. The independents & the Greens may have promised to back the government in motions of no confidence but there is nothing stopping them blocking bills they do not like. The boat people bill is a case in point.

But I disagree that she is a good negotiator, Abbott is the Greens version of the antichrist. If she was a good negotiator she would be able to use this to insure they backed all her bills.

Indeed the fact that the Greens have forced her to put in place a tax that will destroy her while being able to block her boat people bill shows otherwise.

The tail is wagging the dog. If she was half a competent as she seemed to be at first, she would have ensured the boat people bill went to vote first & told Brown, “pass it or wave goodbye to the Carbon Tax bill”.

It might be that the Greens are totally mad dog & quite willing to cut off their nose to spite her face. In fact I believe they are crazy dangerous loonies. But the rule about crazy loonies is never ever under any circumstance deal with them, humour them by all means but do not get into bed with them.

The ALP made a huge mistake making an agreement of any form with their worst foes, the Greens in the first place. They would have been much better advised to let Abbott form a government, then destroy that government though the ALP’s ability to control what bills would pass the senate.

Mouse says:

09:53am | 14/10/11

@Nathan you have no idea what Abbott offered Windsor and Oakeshott.  We know that gillard said yes to anything they asked for. Why did she sell her party out? Especially when she knew that the Greens and Independents would never go with the Liberals, so Abbott could never have won them over anyway. Yep, what a great negotiator she is!

The minority government is a joke. gillard is spineless, she won’t take the Malaysian deal to a vote because she knows she doesn’t have the numbers. Damn those Greens, she’s given them everything else they wanted. There’s just no sense of loyalty any more is there! Bobby must be licking his chops, getting closer to the time that Labor become defunct and he can become the the other half of the 2PP. Time’s a ticking…..

Richard says:

10:34am | 14/10/11

The amount of legislation the government can ram through the house is highly irrelevant. The fact that they can get bills passed is the definition of a government, but it has no bearing on whether they are a good government or not.

Dieter Moeckel says:

10:58am | 14/10/11

While I agree with much you say Mahhrat - there is no Federal LNP. The only Liberal-Natioanl Party in Australia is in Queensland (there is a Liberal-Country party in the NT) - all the other ‘oppositions’ are coalitions of Liberal and National parties. Therefore the Opposition is a Liberal Party - National Party Coalition exactly the same as the Labour Party- Green Party and Independents Coalition. A fact so often misunderstood. For example one of the agreement for the coalition between Liberals and Nationals is that the Nationals leader automatically become the deputy leader of the parliamentary coalition. Thus if Gillard is considered “in bed” with Brown ( at heterosexual relationship is Abbott ‘in bed” with Truss? Is Abbott (Lib) Truss’s (Nat) Bitch?
Sit - get it right people!
It might just be relevant to remember that parliament governs the country not the whims of public opinion, no matter how they are whipped up. Unfortunately Abbott and co have not been active in ‘governing’ but active in nothing but negativity - Parliament governs - parties are simply voting blocks and have crept into the system by accident - poor development of the parliamentary system.

Erick says:

03:38pm | 14/10/11

@Mahhrat - “My concern is that he’s been as largely ineffective an opposition leader in any meaningful sense as any I can remember.”

I beg to differ. Tony Abbott as opposition leader has deposed one Prime Minister, and he has another one on the ropes, pending the next election. I think he’s doing rather well at the job.

This, despite the fact that I disagree with him about some things, and have confronted him in the past. I only hope that he has improved his position on censorship.

Correllio says:

02:43am | 15/10/11

I agree with all who say Gillard is a shit negotiator and could have used the Greens antipathy towards the Coalition to get her way (remember Bandt didn’t even return Abbott’s phone call after the election). Any time they played funny buggers she could have said, these are my terms. No like? Abbott’s office is down the hall.

The Greens weren’t going anywhere but with Labor. And in fact, since they signed on with Labor, the Greens have already voted several times against their own policies to keep Labor in power. Brown has also admitted it. They just don’t advertise it. It may have been harder for them on the Malaysia deal given it plays so directly to their socialist wet dreams and their support base and their PR spin.

However, as much as Brown is a manipulative hypocritical carrion crow, the blame for the carbon tax lies entirely with Labor. Gillard can play the Greens any time she likes, including not introducing a carbon tax, but she doesn’t. Why? Because she’s still a socialist at heart. And she had every intention of doing this all along.

I will say it again: Rudd never really dropped the ETS, and Gillard had every intention of implementing it. Why? Because when Labor dropped the ETS they never dismantled the bureaucracy. Rather it grew.  And Gillard didn’t put out a single signal that it was not going to be dismantled or scaled down while she collected people off the street for her Boganhagen.

Abbott was right to warn during the election campaign that if Gillard is returned we’d get a carbon tax ‘as sure as night follows day’. He could see it too. (I mean her Boganhagen proposal was a crock and suddenly she was also going to set up a Commission to ‘review the science’? After investing years in the ‘science is settled’? Suddenly it wasn’t so settled? And the bit about not revisiting an ETS until at least 2012. But why was the bureacracy still going to be there? Her three point plan was all a bunch of weasel words - all of it was designed to be a con.)

Abbot was smarter. Once the Coalition dumped their ETS in late 2009 they put out an alternative in February 2010 to appeal to both warmies and skeptics and to both adapters and actors and meet already agreed to targets. Once Rudd dropped his ETS and Labor saw Rudd off it was manna from heaven. The Coalition could point out they had an emissions reduction plan, Gillard didn’t. They used all the fear mongering by Labor, Greens and the media about climate change and threw it back at Gillard. Your great big boogy CO2 emissions? We have a plan. Where’s yours?  The planet is going to fry? We have a plan. Where’s yours.

The love media - so enamoured of this manmade global warming bullshit, salivating at the thought of a great big tax to feed their messianic complex and bugger how much it hurts our economy - dutifully complied and hammered her too. How dare Abbott have an emissions reduction plan- which they barely looked at during the campaign - and Gillard have nothing? This is not on!  We have to have to have an ETS they cried! And so they kept asking her like little lap dogs and eventually ellicted her great big lie.

Sure Abbott didn’t get to form government (but what a political comeback in 9 months under his leadership) but media gave him his most effective weapon ready for her great big back flip: her great big lie.

Once Gillard formed government we had a second warning she was about to introduce it. Combet scurried off to Cancun. Check out what he said and promised there and what money he gave away. All on UN websites. Ding ding ding warning bells.

The carbon tax should have not come as a surprise to anyone who was paying attention to what Labor was doing compared to what they were saying.

Gillard owns this carbon tax as much as the Greens do. Gillard owns the betrayal all on her own. And both Labor and Greens will pay come next election.

Labor was always going to screw us (‘as sure as night follows day’) - half of us knew that but I will thank the idiot media for squeezing out Gillard’s great big lie so the rest of us could find out just how much. First useful thing you’ve done in ages given most of the time you don’t do your job and have to be set up to do it. And I say the Coalition set you up beautifully.

B says:

10:31am | 15/10/11

@Mahhrat

I fail to see how it is the oppositions fault for failed or poorly thought out policies.

It is actually the fault of the Labor and Greens voters.  More so the greens voters.  They are the one who allowed this travesty to occur.

Super D says:

09:20am | 14/10/11

When the Carbon legislation passes the senate it will be hailed as a triumph by the Greens.  I doubt the PM will get much more than a passing nod from Bob Brown, perhaps a pat on the head and a there’s my girl as well.

Mr T says:

03:32pm | 14/10/11

I find conservatives attempting to predict the future and re-writing the past quite amusing.
Especially for a party that is 50 years behind the times..

Christian Real says:

08:11am | 16/10/11

Dovif
Is it a trait with Liberals and their supporter to misconstrue the truth to suit themselves for their own purpose.
Let’s face the facts, Howard lied about the GST as well as many other things during his 12 year stint as Prime Minister.
This is extracts from a news story: “Lets have the truth,once and for all”, written by Alan Ramsey, for the Sydney Morney Herald, on August 16, 2004.
This paragraph exposes Howard’s GST lie:
“He issued a four-sentence statement saying, “Suggestions I have left open the possibility of a GST are completely wrong. A GST or anything resembling it is no longer coalition policy.Nor will it be policy at any time in the future.It is completely off the political agenda in Australia”
“Later that day,confrontedby a clamouring press pack,he compounded the lie. Asked if he’d “left the door open for a GST”, Howard said “No,There’s no way a GST will ever be part of our policy.”
Q:Never ever?” Howard: “Never ever. It’s dead. It was killed by voters at the last election.”
“Nothing equivocal about that. But 27 months later, in August 1997,less than 18 months after becoming Prime Minister,Howard told the truth by telling more lies. He announced a “great adventure” in tax reform he wanted to share with the Australian people.”
“Six months later,we learned the heart and soul of this “adventure” was to be the introduction of a GST. And how did Howard rationalise his “never ever pledge? He didn’t. He simply lied again.”
“Howard told Parliament in April 1998: “I went to the 1996 election saying there would not be a GST in our first term. I go to the coming election saying we are going to reform the tax system…The Australian public are entitled to be told before an election what the government will do after the election. They do not deserve to be mislead.They do not deserve to be deceived”
“Nothing could be moe bare-faced. Howard lied about the GST before the 1996 campaign, he lied about these things during the 1998 campaign. He lied about the reasons he took Australia into the Iraq travesty,now such a part of this election. Now we are being told by someone at the centre of events that he lied about the children overboard affair.”
“The central truth is,however grave the charge,that John Howard’s prime ministership has been a lie from the outset.”
http:www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/17/1092508474312.html
It appears that Tony Abbott has learnt well from his former Leader(the master of Deception)
This is from a news story in “The Australian”, “Tony Abbott signs contract on Work Choices but muddles message on workplace laws.”, written by Patricia Karvelas, on July 19, 2010 @ 10.34 AM.
“Tony Abbott has signed a “contract” promising that workchoices is dead and buried but he continues to muddle his message on the controversial laws.”
“Give me a bit of paper, I’ll sign it here,” Mr Abbott said to 3AW host Neil Mitchell as he tried to end questions about John Howard’s divisive workplace laws.”
“But pressed again by Mitchell, Mr Abbott said: “I can’t give an absolute guarantee about every single aspect of workplace relations.”
“Obviously I can’t say that there will never ever ever for 100 or 1000 years time be any change to any aspect of industrial legislation. But the Fair Work Act will not be amended in the next term if we are in power.”
“But let’s. I mean. Work Choices, it’s dead,buried,it’s cremated now and forever. But obviously I can’t give an absolute guarantee about every single aspect of workplace relations legislation. But workchoices is gone now and forever.’
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affair/tony-abbott-signs-contract-on-work-...
Dovif
Not much diffence between John Howard and Tony Abbott
“Never Ever,It’s dead.”, Howard on the GST
It’s dead,it’s buried, it’s cremated.” Abbott on Work Choices

JE says:

07:16am | 14/10/11

@ persephone - ‘governments making risky decisions’ is an interesting concept. perhaps risky decisions which are positive for the economy and it’s people may pay off in the long run but unfortunately decisions which are not going to improve the competitiveness and strength of the economy while also punishing those who dare to earn an average wage for little benefit to the environment is a risky decision which will cost them. I like most other australians cannot wait to vote them out. I see no problem with saying No to ‘income distributing policies’ wrapped up as ‘future-proofing our economy’.

dovif says:

07:32am | 14/10/11

Perrse

You mean Government lied into parliament and had to sell out the Australian people to ensure the Greens continue to support them

You are talking about a government which go from disaster to disaster, as if it is their MO, be it revising the AS seeker policy, insulation, green loans, cattles, indonesian solution, malaysian solution, PNG solutions, east timor solution, mining tax, lies, backstabbing Rudd, stuffing up the budget, overspending on stimilus against the RBA advise, which increased all our mortgage payment substantially.

It take a special kind of incompetancy to be so bad for so long, with no sign of improvement

Dash says:

08:03am | 14/10/11

@Perse - you have got to be kidding me!

How is an ETS which forces Australian wealth overseas to shonky carbon credit salesmen on the promise they’ll plant a tree, of long term benefit to Australia?

Rather than make ‘risky decisions’, what about the House of Representatives actually represent the will of their electorate Perse? Oh that’s right, democracy is dead in Gillards Socialist Republic.

How is discriminating against households on the basis of what they earn (not how they pollute or their carbon footprint) about “making big polluters pay”?

How is compensating the coal and the steel industries about “making big polluters pay”? Let alone the lie that its a “market mechinism”.

Why promise a citizens assembly only to replace it with a 2 party committee of ALP yes men and greens?

Why use ALP members funds to cover up fraud Perse?

Why use $13million on taxpayer funded propaganda?

Why give only 1 week for Australians to read 1000 pages of legislation and make submissions to the commission? Why then ignore those submissions (over 4,500), strike them from the public record and railraod the legislation through the parliament?

Why inflict a trillion dollar cost on our economy now when financial markets are unstable?

Why did the union movement give GetUp $1.3m to fund propaganda capaigns for the carbon tax?

You are the type of ALP supporter, the ever reducing primary, that would vote ALP even if Joseph Stalin was leader. You’d make an excuse for them no matter what they did.

Any sign of the East Timor solution Gillard announced on the eve of last election Perse? Or has that gone the same way as the 260 childcare centres, the root and branch tax reform, the coast guard, cheaper groceries, cheaper fuel, the education revolution etc?

Why have you let your party be destroyed by the socialist faction? Why did you let Paul Howes (the ‘Resistance’ member) put the Socialist Forum queen Gillard into power? Your party has been sold out to lefty idiots who are using the environment as an excuse to bring their brand of Socialism to Australia against the will of the people! And you continue to sing their praises. Shame on you!

I hate pies says:

08:13am | 14/10/11

I they were to do the right thing they would have stuck to their values and rejected the greens and independents demands. That would have been risky and we would have had another election, but that would have shown “conviction” to their values.

Angry God of Townsville says:

08:23am | 14/10/11

Your favourite government said no to the refugee policy because the Libs insisted that a standard that the ALP demanded in 2007 be included in the policy.

They are not only playing politics with this issue, they are playing with peoples lives who will risk the boats to get here.

That is damn stubborn stupidity not good governance nor foresight and definitely not for the long term benefit of either Australia nor those who risk their lives because of a failed border protection policy.

Paul says:

08:24am | 14/10/11

Pers - who says that its the ‘right thing’?? The government shouldnt have the right to decide what the ‘right thing’ for its constituents.

Its job is to REPRESENT THEM !!!!

And it is not doing so…..

AdamC says:

08:56am | 14/10/11

Pers, the ‘right thing; would have been to have been open about implementing a carbon tax in the first place. Also, wouldn’t a government with ‘conviction’ have the courage of those convictions and not engineer policy outcomes through lies and deceit?

Are Labor supporters willing to follow their leader into the gutter?

Peter says:

09:26am | 14/10/11

@DasH

Why use $13million on taxpayer funded propaganda?

Howard spent nearly half a BILLION advertising the GST.

EPIC FAIL.

Dash says:

10:11am | 14/10/11

@Peter - you mean that policy he had the guts to take too an election?

Any views on the rest of my post? Or are you just another one of the 24% who would support the ALP if Joseph Stalin was leader?

Peter says:

10:22am | 14/10/11

@Dash

For the last time, Howard did not have mandate for GST, he lost the popular vault and did a backroom deal with the democrats to enact it.

Stop rewriting history, it makes you look like a fool.

The Socialist Agenda says:

10:35am | 14/10/11

Dash

While there are many members of the murderous left, like Stalin and Lenin (Russia), Kim (North Korea), Ho (Vietnam), Mao (China), Castro (Cuba),

Gillard is more similar to a socialist, like Hitler of the Nationalist Socialist part of Germany

So get you facts right

PTom says:

10:41am | 14/10/11

No Dash, he is talking about after it was passed into law.

BTW the GST now is not the one howard took to the election, just like Labor took to the election a Price on Carbon and now we have a Price on Carbon.

dovif says:

11:01am | 14/10/11

@Peter

You need to learn how democracy works, Howard won the election and formed government, that is the will of the Australian people. He won the election dispite the massive lies of the ALP regarding the GST. The lies of the ALP stretching all the way back to Paul Keating, who won an election by campaigning against a tax, he wanted to introduce into Australia.

Howard went to an election and he got a mandate for the GST. The Democrats also went to an election to seek a mandate, they said they would pass the GST, if the Howard government were re-elected. The Democrats got their mandate and passed the GST. Both Howard and the Democrats went to the people, got their mandate and acted with conviction.

Gillard also went to an election seeking a mandate. She went to an election on the promise that there will be no Carbon tax under a government I led. Since Gillard won the election. Gillard also have a mandate for having no carbon tax.

@Peter, Dash is not the one rewriting history

MadKat of Melbourne says:

11:11am | 14/10/11

PTom - “just like Labor took to the election a Price on Carbon and now we have a Price on Carbon” - how did they take it to an election. I seem to remember something about “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”.

Dash says:

11:18am | 14/10/11

@PTom - how do you explain “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”. How do you explain “It is hysterical to suggest we are moving to a carbon tax”. Come on man!

Gillard and Swan lied. And they did not have the guts to take it to the election. That’s what the public know and no matter how you try to spin it, the ALP deceived the Australian people for political gain. And they will suffer the consequences as a result. The question is, how much damage will they do before we get rid of them.

@Peter - re-write history? What as in “the GG removed Whitlam” when in fact there were democratic elections in December 1975? Howard took the GST to an election, he was open and transparent. Gillard and the ALP did not and were not! Simple fact that the Australia public understands. And btw if the primary mattered, we would not have this discraceful excuse of a government we now have! You can’t have your cake and eat it too Peter!

Ben C says:

11:18am | 14/10/11

@ The Socialist Agenda

Wow, never thought anyone would consider comparing Gillard to Hitler. Australia’s really doomed now.

Peter says:

11:36am | 14/10/11

@Dovif

FACT Howard did not win the popular vote of the election.
FACT He had no mandate to introduce the GST, as the majority of Australians did not vote for it.

No rewriting of history here, I wish I could same the same for your drivel.

AdamC says:

11:50am | 14/10/11

Peter, you can’t really believe that rubbish. The reality is, people had a chance to vote Howard out if they didn’t want a GST. They did not get a chance to do that with Gillard. If you don’t like Australia’s system of electing governments, that is one thing. However, the Coalition won the election in 1998, based on Australia’s democratic system, and it did so while being up-front about its major policy proposals.

You can spin and obfuscate all you want. But those are the facts.

Peter says:

12:05pm | 14/10/11

@Adam C

Without the majority of the vote there was no mandate for implementing the GST, regardless of how our electoral system works.

Peter says:

12:34pm | 14/10/11

@ Dash

2010 Election primaries:
LABOR 7.99
LIBS     0.46

2PP
Labor P.12
LIBS   I.88

Maintain the rage champ.

Luke says:

12:35pm | 14/10/11

Good ol Pers, still running the NO campaign. lol

The Socialist agenda says:

12:38pm | 14/10/11

Ben C

True, Hilter lies less then Gillard, he was elected on a platform and carried out that platform

For the dislike of Jews part, Hitler is much closer then the Greens in the Australian political system

Dash says:

12:39pm | 14/10/11

@Peter - so by your own definition, the ALP does not have a mandate for the Carbon tax! Why then are you supporting it and them?

Otherwise you are a massive hypocrite.

dovif says:

12:47pm | 14/10/11

@Peter

As I said, please learn the constitution. In Australia, we do not elect our Prime Minister, so Howard or Gillard can never win the popular vote.

We elect our local member, and the member elects the prime minister. Our electorate member has a duty of care to its constituency, to do what is best for them. Howard won the majority of elected members, therefore he won the government and had a mandate to implement his policies.

Gillard also won a mandate to implement her policies that the ALP took to the electorate, and that include no carbon tax under a government she led.

Peter says:

12:48pm | 14/10/11

@Dash

Good to see I have shown you the error of your ways,

As for the carbon tax, I dont support it, I support the ETS we will have in 3 years time.

Both are lot better than indirect inaction

Peter says:

12:56pm | 14/10/11

2010 Election primaries:
LABOR 37.99
LIBS   30.46

2PP
Labor 50.12
LIBS   49.88

Dash says:

01:19pm | 14/10/11

@Peter - thanks for the primary numbers. How many seats did the LNP win compared to the ALP?

Also the ETS is crap! It will send our wealth overseas to people selling carboin credits! To inflict a cost on Australia and not retain the revenue base for the good of this country is a terrible policy. Why should we make carbon credit salesmen on the other side of the world rich with this country’s wealth? I’m sorry but even the carbon tax retains the wealth here.

dovif says:

01:35pm | 14/10/11

Peter

You are lying as much as julia, why does the left to consistently lie, from Keating to Beasley to Latham to Rudd to Gillard to Peter

The Liberals, Nationals, NLP and CLP are in a coallition, they do not contest seats against each other, So if you take 1/2 the Liberals, the ALP might have a win.

Facts which you are very light on Primary Coalition 43.7% ALP 38%

Ie almost only 1 in 3 people voted for the ALP,

Peter says:

01:47pm | 14/10/11

@Dash

Labor Seats 72
Liberal Seats 44

Labor won the most seats of any political party.

Peter says:

01:51pm | 14/10/11

@Dovif

The LNP did not win the majority of the public vote for the GST and therefore did not have mandate to implement it.

That above fact is indisputable.

Dash says:

02:55pm | 14/10/11

@Peter - I give up on you man! I asked LNP seats. Unlike the Labor Green coalition, the Liberal national coalition was transparent at election time. It’s clear you are only here to spin and play games.

You’ll find that the LNP won one more seat that the ALP. And the ALP needed two members from conservative seats to win power.

Peter says:

03:05pm | 14/10/11

@Dovif

No need to get so personal and nasty.

The Liberals, Nationals, NLP and CLP are in a coallition, they do not contest seats against each other.

Regardless they are all separate political parties.
There is no guarantee that these parties will not fracture or vote separately.

The labor party is still the largest supported political party according to the 2010 election.

Peter says:

03:16pm | 14/10/11

@Dash

I didn’t consider them as at any time they can split at any time like the WA nationals did.

Seats:
Labor 72
LNP(4 political parties) 72

6 crossbenchers.

Christian Real says:

06:39am | 15/10/11

Dovif,
I guess it is hard being a Liberal party member of supporter, they appear to either, only read , listen and blog to the Tony"Don’t believe everything I say “Abbott’s diatribe, or simply they just can’t read,or digest the truth when it’s staring them in the face.
Fact is, Julia Gillard never lied to the Australian people,because she said in an interview with ““The Australian” on the eve of the last Federal Election, that she would legislate a carbon price during her next term of government.
Julia Gillard has legislated a carbon price or a price on carbon, and no matter how many ways Abbott, his Opposition, the Media and his loyal followers and supporters attempt to twist and misconstrue the truth,it will not change or alter the fact that she has put a price on carbon as she stated that she would do.
This is from the story in “The Australian”, “Julia Gillard’s carbon price promise”, and it is written by Paul Kelly and dennis Shanahan on August 20, 2010, @ 12AM
“Julia Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.”
In other paragraphs of this story it reads:
“I don’t rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism”, she said of the next parliament. “I rule out a carbon tax.”
“This is the strongest message Ms Gillard has sent about action on carbon pricing”

dovif says:

08:20am | 14/10/11

Mattb

It might be wise to do some research of what is happening to Europe’s ETS, it has been in since 2005, and recently the EU flooded the market with permits to drive the price of the permits to 6 Euros (ie AU$9).

You can also see the other ALP lies for what they are
Research how the wind farms of europe are going (green jobs?)
Research how many solar panels the EU buy from China (green jobs?)
Research how many jobs had been lost to places without an ETS and why the EU want to introduce a carbon tariff
Contrast why the EU ETS is at AU$9 while the Australian tax is at AU$27

As for we need to act to ensure the US, China and India act. Well that was what the EU said 6 years ago too.

At least the EU did it without hindsight, it takes a special type of incompetance to know what will happen and then destroy Australian jobs and businesses

RyaN says:

09:30am | 14/10/11

And cue Mattb with same old infantile posts with zero credibility.
I would take the time to mock you but you bore me.

peter says:

10:01am | 14/10/11

The direct action will be removal of Tony Abbott as the leader of the LNP.

Games up.
Next leader?

john says:

10:03am | 14/10/11

ryan
You think the vomit you regurgitate, swallow and regurgitate post after post isn’t boring?
Infantile is something the followers of Abbott are. Their first and only word is no.

patrick says:

10:26am | 14/10/11

This comment made me laugh.  Thanks Mattb.

Richard says:

10:45am | 14/10/11

Good post dovif, it proves how counter to the National Interest this Carbon Tax is. The question now is, why is our government implementing policies so expressly counter to the National Interest? If they are not governing in the National Interest, whose interest are they governing in?

Policies Failure says:

10:49am | 14/10/11

John

Abbott said yes to Naru, Gillard just said no to that

Gillard then stuffed up the negotiation with the Greens and the Liberals, so that is why her AS policy is stuffed up.

That was after Gillard stuffed up the negotiation with the Indonesian government, the east timor government, the malaysian government etc.

That was after stuffing up the AS policies in the first place

Too bad Gillard said no to Howard’s policies, it was working, I bet Gillard really wish she did not change it in the first place

“Another Boat is another policy failure” do you know who said that

Ben C says:

11:09am | 14/10/11

@ Mattb

There are going to be a lot of losers in this scheme - those of us on average wages will be forced to pay more for staples, such as groceries and utilities. The only winners will be those low income earners and welfare recipients, who will be fully compensated in this wealth redistribution scheme.

I take it from your attitude that you’re one of these welfare recipients?

john says:

11:37am | 14/10/11

Policies Failure
When the next boat of asylum seekers arrive in Australian waters.
They belong to Abbott. Of this, there can be no doubt.

Nilbog says:

11:52am | 14/10/11

@ john

Will Abbott be free to sell those arrivals? I have some gardening that needs to be done…

Joan says:

12:01pm | 14/10/11

John:- Gillard and her galahs all out squawking `It`s all Abbott`s fault`  `It all Abbots fault ` squawk ,squawk - Gillard in full sqawking mode let it rip on Jon Faine show this morning squawwwwwwk, squawwwwwk, - `It`s all Abbot`s fault. - over, and over again- squawwk!

RyaN says:

12:12pm | 14/10/11

@john: You actually got me to laugh, not your usual boring ad hom attack, I particularly liked your use of “vomit” oh and hey the next boat that arrives we’ll blame on the persons who dismantled the pacific solution.

Who dismantled the pacific solution john?

Mattb says:

12:17pm | 14/10/11

@dovif

Well, I can see from your post that I don’t have to research anything from the liberal side of the argument, youve just provided that propaganda for all of us to see. Cut and paste all that straight from the liberal party website eh?

@Ben c
‘I take it from your attitude that you’re one of these welfare recipients?’

Nah, sorry mate, you fail. No welfare of any sort for me or the missus. And we both make way too much money to qualify for the carbon compensation. Got any other assumptions you want to make about me Benny boy?

john says:

01:01pm | 14/10/11

ryan
different day, same old regurgitated vomit.

Ben C says:

01:02pm | 14/10/11

@ Mattb

Here’s a few:

You’re one of those that believe the science on AGW is settled, despite the fact that science is NEVER settled - there are new discoveries everyday, or evidence that proves contrary to prior research findings (think Einstein a month or two back).

Your support for Labor is something that has stemmed from your parents and/or grandparents. They were union members in their working days, when Labor was TRULY for the working class, unlike today’s incarnation which is more Robin Hood than anything. You may be a union member yourself.

You’ve never been in business for yourself - you’ve never had to put everything you had on the line to make it work. You’re happy to just work for the man and receive a wage, only needing to make sure you can pay the rent/mortgage and groceries.

Surely I’m going to score a hit on one of those.

Ben C says:

01:04pm | 14/10/11

@ Mattb

Here’s a few:

You’re one of those that believe the science on AGW is settled, despite the fact that science is NEVER settled - there are new discoveries everyday, or evidence that proves contrary to prior research findings (think Einstein a month or two back).

Your support for Labor is something that has stemmed from your parents and/or grandparents. They were union members in their working days, when Labor was TRULY for the working class, unlike today’s incarnation which is more Robin Hood than anything. You may be a union member yourself.

You’ve never been in business for yourself - you’ve never had to put everything you had on the line to make it work. You’re happy to just work for the man and receive a wage, only needing to make sure you can pay the rent/mortgage and groceries.

Surely I’m going to score a hit on one of those.

dovif says:

01:04pm | 14/10/11

Mattb

Some people comment on this site and do no research and I notice you cannot refute any of the facts that I pointed out, some people just cannot handle the truth

That is all

john says:

02:06pm | 14/10/11

dovif
Thanks for providing all those links to back up your “facts”

Sarcasm detector

RyaN says:

02:11pm | 14/10/11

@john / Seano: different day, different nick huh?

Borderer says:

03:10pm | 14/10/11

I love how Gillard say’s the Malaysian policy failure is all Abbott’s fault. She got through her original policy, passed both houses. It failed in the courts…. Was that his fault or bad policy? She had a second crack and did not put it to the vote. How is that Tony’s fault? If Gillard does not put other pieces of legislation to the vote is that Tony’s fault too? Is every idea that is not enacted in parliment his fault as well? Is it too much to ask for them to take responsibility for their failures?

Mattb says:

05:10pm | 14/10/11

Aww look Benny c, wants to play a guessing game, how cute. What are ya, six years old Benny?.
Here, I’ll mark your little school assignment for you…

A big tick for the first paragraph and big red crosses for all the rest of your post. Sorry Benny, you failed again. Thus ends todays lesson, it was free. For tomorrow’s lesson please hand over your credit card details, I’ll have to charge you for it because your wasting my time…

@dovif

So many ‘facts’, so few sources provided to back them up, you’d fail miserably at university my friend…

Against the Man says:

09:46am | 15/10/11

No Mattb, the real fun is watching Gillard high five her mates and get a pay rise for screwing over Australia. Why? Because she is doing us all a favor by destroying the ALP.

It really is fun: And I’m thrilled at the arrival of the tsunami of refugees, job losses, price increases, poorer health care etc The ALP is done And the MAJORITY know it hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

john says:

10:27am | 15/10/11

Great to see how quickly you adapted to Abbott’s new policy of on-shore processing and how thrilled you are at the arrival of more refugees seeking asylum.
We can now start posting the refugees under Abbott’s column.

Joan says:

07:59am | 14/10/11

So much for Gillard negotation skills- she rolls over to Bob Brown demands and pushes through Carbon Tax rather than keep her word to the people of Australia, and she can’t negotiate Bob Brown to come on to her side with her asylum seekers off- shore policy so she rolls over and now to process asylum seekers onshore- all the time squawking `It`s all Abbott`s fault`. How the media fooled into believing she is great negotiator - completely mistfies me-  to roll over and abandon principles and promises is a sign good negotiating skills??? Huh???

Maree says:

11:32am | 14/10/11

Its not hard to understand why ‘the bunch’ of indepenents and bob Brown want to deal only with Juiar. Its because she is seen as a push over so they can get what they want without to much confrontation. See how ‘the bunch’ goes dealing with Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott. Suspect very badly !

Christian Real says:

08:22am | 15/10/11

Dash
It is only Allegations against Thompson,he has not been proven or found guilty of fraud for misuse of credit cards as you and other Liberals falsely claim.
Seeing that you continuely bag the ALP and attempt to make believe that they are are really bad and that only your ‘born to rule’ Liberal party is perfect in every way, I found a few stories that may show the Liberals are not as perfect as you seem to think or believe.
“Libs link to Mafia visa inquiry”, written by Nick McKenzie and Richard Baker, on February 23,2009.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/libs-link-to-mafia-visa-inquiry-20090222-8er5.html
“Police to question MPs over cash-for-visa allegations,written by Nick McKenzie and Richard Baker, on February 24, 2009.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/police-to-question-mps-over-cashforvisa-allegations..
“Crime and banishment, February 23, 2009
http://www.smh.com.au/national/crime-and-banishment-200909222-8erb.html
Another interesting story I found was this one:
“Fellow students recall a champion of the right”, written by Kerry-Anne Walsh and Candice Sutton, July 18, 2004, from “The Sun-Herald.
http://www.smh,com.au/articles/2004/07/17/1089694611874.html

Mental illness is nothing to laugh about says:

09:08am | 14/10/11

Hysteria is never a good look dash
Get a grip and stop being so scared of the Abbott boogeyman.

persephone says:

09:16am | 14/10/11

The Liberals are a pack of cowards!

Too scared to be honest with the Australian people in the lead up to the 2007 election! (when they said that they were going to deliver an ETS, and not wait for the rest of the world).

Too scared to stand up to the demands of the loony Right.

Too scared to take their policy costings to Treasury before the election.

Too scared of losing government that they offered the independents a blank cheque, and tried to bribe Andrew Wilkie.

Too scared that they provided member funds to prop up a Victorian Liberal Minister.

Too scared to stand up to the mining industry.

Too scared to support legislation on offshore processing.

Too scared to stand up to rabid right wing ideologues like Bernadi and Mirabella, instead allowng them to trample on beliefs the Liberals have stood by for decades.

Too scared of open and fearless investigation of the media - because without the media’s support they’d be shown up for the shallow populists they are.

The Liberals are cowards. Too scared to stand up to the extreme right wing to deliver on policies that most of their MPs support. Too scared to slap MPs such as Mirabella. Too scared to follow expert opinion, because that might upset their extreme right wing base.

Abbott won’t implement his socialist environmental scheme, and everyone knows that. But you guys pretend he will. Why?

Oh, and according to your last paragraph, Gillard has been working to introduce carbon pricing all of her political life. That makes her a conviction politician.

(And cowards who have sat back and let something happen don’t react the way the government did when the bills were passed!)

Dash says:

09:31am | 14/10/11

Ha - deceiving the Australian people on election eve for political gain is a good look? Dropping the nations pants for political gain is a good look? Blindly supporting the ALP despite their incompetence and making excuses for them is a good look?

Of course, anyone who disagrees with the ALP are hysterical and deserve to be the subject of an inquiry!

Anyone who doesn’t fall for ALP/Green propaganda deserves to be labelled as having a mental illness!

LOL - thankyou for highlighting what a pathetic bunch of fools there are still supporting this deceitful, moronic and incompetent pack of lefty nobs in the ALP. The people with mental illness are those still prepared to support and defend this disgraceful excuse of a government!

GregE says:

09:50am | 14/10/11

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

It would appear that anyone who threatens to show the ALP up for deceitful fools are quickly shouted down as being Hysterical! Not to mention being branded as having a mental illness.

People who have no argument often resort to insult.

Is that you Wayne?

Peter says:

09:55am | 14/10/11

@Dash

Tony Abbott is too scared to amend the migration act to allow offshore processing.

He is the ultimate of cowards.

john says:

09:58am | 14/10/11

dash owned by Pers - yet again

Dash says:

10:08am | 14/10/11

Yes Perse - share with us what Gillard has been looking to do all her political life. Share with us some of the rants she wrote for the Socialist Forum. The Communist Tax manifesto that she held up and praised in her Forum days as being the tax policy for Australia. The desire for members of the Forum to infultrate the ALP as a way to get their extreme lefty views into mainstream politics.

Where do we go to get a copy of Gillards Socialist Forum writings Perse? Can you help us out with those. What about the background of Paul Howes? Where do we go to get a better understanding of his involvement in “Resistance”? Where do we get a better understanding of Howes involvement in the Democratic Socialist Party that he was a member of?

Where do we go Perse, to get a copy of the deal struck by Gillard and the Greens? Is this public knowledge? Where do we go to get the details of the bribes paid to independants?

What about Lee Riahnnon Perse, that great ALP/Green coalition partner in the Senate. Where do we go to read more about her links to the Communist party of Australia and her support for the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia? Where can we get a copy of the ASIO file on her family?

Let all of Australia read about the conviction of these politicians running our country Perse. Lets hear about the conviction of Union hacks that remove democratically elected PMs Perse! Lets understand why $1.3m in union dues were given to GetUp Perse!

We all know Gillards conviction for socialism. Despite trying to make out she was only involved in her 20s, she was in fact a member of the Socialist Forunm right up until 2002! And she has now rammed through her socialist tax policy under the bullshit of environmentalism! You must be so proud to pay your dues to the ALP each year!

Used any party funds to cover up fraud lately? hows that ALP credit card going?

GregE says:

10:20am | 14/10/11

@Persephone - what’s the point of having a conviction for a crap policy? What’s the point in having such a conviction you are prepared to lie to get it, ignore the will of the people, spit on our democracy, and sell your party out to the Greens?

Dash says:

10:31am | 14/10/11

@Peter - any sign of the East Timor Solution Gillard announced to the world on the eve of last election mate? You know, that policy they announced which never existed! Another election eve deceit!

What about the UN convention? You know, the reason Naru was ruled out by the righteous Gillard! Any reason why sending women and children for a whipping in Malaysia who is not a signatory, is OK though?

Only an blind ALP hack could make an embarrassing failure sound like a triumph!

GregE says:

11:03am | 14/10/11

Gee Persephone - you have your ALP script out today.

Most of what you accuse the LNP of is complete nonsense.

What are the demands of the right? Not to have a carbon tax as Gillard promised?

The LNP did not propose the mining tax? The ALP did. They want to have one tax system for miners and one for everyone else and they want to over-ride the states rights to royalties. The federal government does not own the minerals. It’s not up to the federal government to “stand up” to private enterprise.

The LNP had a workable off-shore processing policy that your mob dismantled. Stop telling fibs.

And the LNP are not the ones proposing a media inquiry the ALP are. Howard didn’t try to gag the media just because they wrote stuff about him. And I bet the ALP don’t look into the ABC or Fairfax who blindly support them despite public opinion. The LNP are not threatening freedom of the media, the ALP are.

As for expert opinion, you’re not serious? The ALP set up a committee stacked with people that held the ALPs view. They set up and gave $10m of taxpayers money to the climate institute to produce reports supporting the ALPs view. And you call them experts?

The LNPs scheme may not be introduced. But if it is, it will at least maintain the revenue in Australia rather than allow our wealth to be sent overseas. The ETS that the ALP are putting in place, transfers our wealth overseas. You complain about mioning and yet support a policy that does this. I dont understand.

And I don’t understand why pusuing a conviction that you lied about and which doesn’t have public support is something to be proud of?

Peter says:

11:07am | 14/10/11

@Dash

So it was ok for Howard to send them to Nauru without Nauru being a signatory?
I was amazed at all those Howard ministers who were outraged over Malaysia not being a signatory to the UNHCR, given what they presided to over their watch.

Hypocrisy much?

B4Bear says:

11:09am | 14/10/11

How do you sleep at night with all those Reds under the bed Dash? Suprised you can use a computer really as you seem mired in the Menzies era. Communism is sooooo 20th century.

Richard says:

11:16am | 14/10/11

I’m a liberal Liberal, Persephone, and Sophie and Corey speak for me. When some one from the far left (like you) describes these 2 as being ‘far right’, that doesn’t necessarily mean its true. Actually, they are fairly representative of main stream liberal ideals, and the fact that YOU think they are extreme says more about you than it does about them.

Dash says:

11:30am | 14/10/11

@Peter - the UN signatory issue was brought up by the ALP not the LNP! The ALP held it up as being fundamental when they refused to use Naru. Yet they then came up with a stupid deal to send people to Malaysia despite them not being a signatory. That is a classic example of hypocricy!

The LNP has basically said, OK if it’s so important to you Naru is now a signatory. That’s all they have said. And you and the ALP are spinning as hard as you can to avoid the embarrasment of the situation. The ALP’s deal with Malaysia has cost the taxpayers of this country at the very least $200m in relocation costs for nil gain! The ALP have been nothing but stupid.

Announcing an East Timor Solution when it never existed is a lie if not hypocritical!

To say you are going to make “big polluters pay” and yet discriminate against households on the basis of income alone, is hypocricy. To say you are going to make big polluters pay and yet compensate Steel and Coal is hypocricy!

“There will be no carbon tax” is not only a betrayal but the greatest hypocricy ever perpetrated on the Australian people Peter! This whole policy is a fraud. It is not revenue neutral, it is not about the environment, it is not a market mechinism. It will not change blobal temperatures. All it will do is send our wealth overseas to shonky carbon credit salesman. It is nothing more than socialist wealth redistribution. And the only reason people support it is because they are on the take!

Get off the ALP gravy train and open your bloody eyes!

persephone says:

12:01pm | 14/10/11

I don’t know, Dash, because I’m not the least bit interested.

Apparently the subject of Gillard’s University days interests you, so I assume you can provide us with the information yourself.

So why are you asking other people to find it for you?

And I remind you again - David Davis, the Victorian Liberal Health Minister, has had his defamation court costs paid for by the Liberal party.

And has Ms Mirabella explained her failure to declare $100k donated to her by Colin Howard? And how’s Senator Mary Jo Fisher going?

And how much mining company money has been donated to the Liberal party? Who is funding the current crop of anti carbon price ads?

As for Lee Rhiannon - I’m not a member of the Greens. I don’t expect the Liberals to be responsible for the behaviour of the Nationals, or I’d be asking some sharp questions about young Barnaby.

GregE

all of which shows it’s a pretty strong conviction. Gee, for a party to behave in the manner you describe, they must really believe that what they’re doing is worthwhile.

Yes, you’re right: the Liberals are ignoring expert advice which supports a mining tax. That’s because they lack the courage to upset their mining magnate mates.

Yes, you’re right. The Libs HAD an offshore processing policy. They don’t have now, because the High Court has ruled it to be illegal, and Tony Abbott failing to support the government’s proposed amendments means that it will stay that way.

Again, a little bit of political courage - or indeed, common sense - would have seen Nauru remain a viable option for the future.

Now it’s dead in the water.

Yes, you’re right. Labor has the guts to hold the media to account. The Liberals lack the courage to upset their mates in the media.

No, I call the experts experts. The vast majority of economic experts support Labor on carbon pricing and the mining tax. The vast majority of scientific experts support Labor on climate change. The Liberals struggle to find any expert support on either.

The LNPs Direct Action plan will only ‘work’ if they buy MORE overseas carbon credits than will happen under an ETS. That’s because they can’t make the emissions savings they aim to otherwise. Failing to use the world market to purchase carbon credits has blown out the cost of their program by 100%.

So they’re going to waste money on an inefficient scheme and fail to meet their targets as well.

Whereas a little bit of courage in standing up to the economic illiterates who support their party would see them embrace a cheaper and more effective solution.

(But let’s face it: we know that Tony Abbott is going to an election lying about taking action on climate change for his own political advantage - because he lacks the courage to either say he thinks ‘climate change is crap’ or to front up to the climate change deniers and tell them he doesn’t support them.

Anyone who tries to walk both sides of a barbed wire fence can only do so if they have no balls to worry about).

Peter says:

12:20pm | 14/10/11

@Dash

Abbott has shown what a moron he is, every new boat that arrives will be his problem.
He doesn’t need to create an opportunity for the government to regain its standing, he should have just got it done.

I can’t wait for them to come in droves.

Ouch says:

12:22pm | 14/10/11

Geez, you conservative fanbois really must enjoy putting on the gimp suit for Pers, as you keep coming back for more lashings.

Dash says:

12:36pm | 14/10/11

@Peter - OMG it was the ALP who dismantled the Howard government’s border protection policies, not Tony Abbott. They are the government remember! The increase in boats has been the ALPs fault. If they had left the policies in place, they wouldn’t have got us into this mess!

Their Malaysian embarresment has cost the Australian taxpayer $200m for nothing but an extra 4000 people! IDIOTS!!!!

The screwy logic you are desperately trying to put on is hillarious!

Peter says:

12:51pm | 14/10/11

@Dash

Rudd pulled it apart, he ain’t the leader anymore.

That mud doesn’t stick, both parties supported offshoring in 2010.

Mark my words, this will bite Abbott on the bum.

Dash says:

12:53pm | 14/10/11

Perse, you lie! The High court ruled on the Malaysian deal! Not on the LNPs policy which the ALP dismantled. The accusation that this means all off shore processing is illegal is a lie, it’s wrong and to make matters worse for you, you know it!

This is a clear example of ALP members reading from the bullshit script they get at their daily briefing. You lie! You lie like your master. Spin spin spin!

Good luck to you Perse. Enjoy it whilst it lasts because your bullshit continues to dig the ALP into a bigger hole and their primary continues to fall. Every dog has it’s day Perse!

persephone says:

01:09pm | 14/10/11

Ouch

they’re probably all ex private school boys - I understand they like a spanking.

GregE says:

01:13pm | 14/10/11

@Persephone - Gillard wasn’t in university in 2002. I know you want to try to say her Socialism was something she did in her mis spent youth (just as she herself tried to say on radio). But reality is she is still a raving socialist, she was a member of the Socialist Forum right up until 2002. She is a member of the Fabian society. She is part of the ALPs socialist faction and she was put into power by Paul Howes who has in the past been a member of radical left wing organisations like Resistance and the Democratic Socialist Party.

And no Perse you are wrong, direct action is not about buying carbon credits from overseas. The LNP policy retains the nations wealth here in Australia. I personally think the ALPs policy of inflicting a cost, the revenue from which flows overseas, to be a travesty for our country. The ALP moan about mining wealth and then they go and implement a policy which transfers our wealth overseas. I don’t care how you spin that, it’s really dumb.

Your comments on the media are just spin. The ALP are OK with the favorable bias at Fairfax and the ABC, but complain about News Ltd. They are not being even handed. It smells like a witch hunt. The government has no right to interfere with the freedom of press in this country.

How many scientists and economists support the compensation of the steel industry and the coal industry and the redistribution of household wealth? It is true that the ALP stacked the committee and formed the climate institute to produce the answers they wanted. If they are experts, they are hand picked experts. And it went against the promise of a citizens assembly.

The LNP may very well get funding from business. But businesses put people in jobs, pay significant taxes and drive the nation’s wealth. The union movement on the other hand, are a drain on our productivity, represent less than 15% of workers and yet control and fund the ALP.

Your problem Perse is that you are not impartial. You are a paid up member of the ALP desperate to dig them out of a hole of their own making.

Melrusk says:

01:33pm | 14/10/11

Just to clarify @dash, redirecting arrivals is not the same as stopping them.
Howard introducing the Pacific solution in 2001 didn’t stop refugees it just put them out of the public eye making them a more manageable device to be employed by at will.

persephone says:

01:39pm | 14/10/11

Dash

High Court rulings always have applications beyond the particular case they’re considering.

In this case, the ‘experts’ (I know, pests, aren’t they?) say that the HC ruling would apply to any form of offshore processing.

GregE

er, what? I never said she was.

I think you’re replying to someone else.

Dash is the one obsessed with Gillard’s socialism, not me.

And I know that Abbott has ruled out buying permits from overseas.

The point is, by doing this he increased the cost of his package by 100%, because trading carbon credits only works effectively in a global market. Rule out trading carbon credits and you’re stuck with much more expensive options.

The planet doesn’t care where the emissions come from, and it doesn’t care where they’re reduced, either.

Still, Abbott’s approach fits in nicely with his protectionist view of life, which I understand comes from his B.A. Santamaria based philosophy.

‘Free trade’ knows no borders - and as a nation of exporters, protectionist attitudes hurt us more than they help.

I haven’t pointed a finger at any section of the media. If the media is behaving impeccably, an inquiry gives them a chance to demonstrate this.

The media themselves are prone to trot out the old mantra ‘if you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide’ .

Again, you assume you know which experts I’m referring to. How about you find an expert - scientist or economists - who opposes those measures?

If you can’t, that might be because they don’t exist.

Yes, I’m a paid up member of the ALP (cue some twit posting a “At last! We have got pers to admit she is an ALP lackey!”).

And very very proud to be. It’s been a great week.

Semi Concerned Citizen says:

02:01pm | 14/10/11

@ Peter,

How is Tony Abbot responsible for off shore processing. Last time I checked Julia Gillard was prime minister leading a green/lab/indie minority goverment.
Where are her fantastic negotiating skills now?

Peter says:

03:01pm | 14/10/11

@ Semi

He is part of reason why we cannot process them overseas, as the government requires opposition support to change the migration act laws.

First boatload of Tony’s asylum seekers should be here soon.

Aitch B says:

03:57pm | 14/10/11

@Peter

If you’re going to insist (like your mentor Gillard) that they are Abbott’s arrivals then get it right, please. They are Abbott’s and BROWN’S arrivals. You seem to forget (no doubt conveniently) that the Greens would have voted against the legislation also.

I love how the ALP supporters conveniently ignore the fact that they are in a coalition. When the Greens don’t support them on an issue it’s all Abbott’s fault. Quite laughable, really.

No blame at all for Bob, mate?

Peter says:

06:51pm | 14/10/11

@Aitch

Please, even you would understand that the greens don’t support offshore processing.

Tony’s asylum seekers will be here soon.

jag says:

07:45am | 14/10/11

As is commonly known Howard lied on the GST (for example http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/17/1092508474312.html) and brought it in; now Gillard has brought in Carbon Tax

As commonly known Howard took it to an election. And won. Simply as that. Howard won.

Gillard said, ‘There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead’. Then went ahead with it without even bothering to take it to an election.

But then again, she has sealed the fate of the ALP for the next decade. So laugh while you can, it’s going to be bleak.

Tator says:

07:46am | 14/10/11

Dobbo,
who cares about the TPP, our electoral system is based on the number of seats won, and in 1998, Howard won 80 seats and had a clear majority of 13 seats.  Gillard couldn’t even win the most seats for a party in parliament and is tied at 72 all with the Coalition(not counting Tony Crook)  If you want to talk about TPP, just remember Hawke won with a TPP of 49% in 1990.

Dobbo says:

08:06am | 14/10/11

Yep. And now the Gillard coalition are in power. And now they’ve prevailed to stitch up the Carbon Tax legislation.

Understand it’s tough to see the other side pull off a stunt like this. But that’s democracy folks. Suck it in.

One all it is.

Dash says:

08:08am | 14/10/11

The ALP were not even prepared to take the policy they denied to the nation, to an election! You support a pack of cowards and make excuses for them. Reflects quite poorly on you actually!

Sherlock says:

08:17am | 14/10/11

Dobbo says: it’s also one-all in the sense that this time it’s the big mining companies who’ll have to cough up out of their billions in profit.

This is another thing that the ALP think we are dumb enough to believe. That it’s just business that pays tax.. Every Australian will pay this tax either in higher prices or lower share dividends. If you think you’re not affected by lower share dividends, call your super fund and ask how many BHP and Rio shares they own.

As for the sky is falling it won’t just be Abbott here. Just as nobody apparently ever lost their job or was made redundant before Workchoices, equally no price ever rose before the carbon and mining taxes.

Anyone who wants to raise their prices now has a “it’s not our fault” excuse at the ready. The carbon tax will become the whipping boy for anyone who wants to do something unpopular and every day the voting public will be reminded they are now paying another tax.

This ALP government is so incompetent that they actually think that introducing new taxes on every Australian in excess of $20 billion every year is going to make them more popular.

Just how deluded is that?

Aitch B says:

08:36am | 14/10/11

@Dobbo

It’s really interesting that you, as an obvious ALP supporter, consider this legislation a “stunt”.

Poor choice or words or is that how you really see it?

AdamC says:

08:51am | 14/10/11

It is interesting to watch how absurd Labor commenters are prepared to become to try to justify Gillard’s deceit and cowardice.

Dobbo, even if Howard ‘lied’ about the GST and this ‘lie’ was somehow equal to Gillard’s epic mendacity on the carbon tax (it wasn’t), what then? Does Howard’s (ersatz) GST lies somehow excuse Gillard’s carbon tax lies? What do you tell your kids (assuming you have kids) about two wrongs not making a right?

Melrusk says:

08:23pm | 14/10/11

It is also interesting to watch how absurd LNP are prepared to become to try to justify Howard’s deceit and cowardice.

Howard along with Downer chose to engage Australia in a war based on deceit.
Against may I add the advice of his own advisers, something about there being insufficient evidence to support the engaging of Australia in war against one of our trading partners?
Clearly Howard was intent on appeasing his new bestie at any cost to get a seat at the table.

WMD’s ringing any bell’s?
Children overboard, Tampa (now that was remarkable manipulation of public fear of a perceived threat, one of Howards more base talents)
debilitating our legal aid system by 75%, (apparently those who are least likely to afford legal representation were less entitled to it) Now that is Odd Logic.
Then there is the delusion that by not maintaining basic services & infrastructure he has somehow managed to save the country money ensuring the maintenance bill gets passed on to the next government, False Economy.
This works of course if you never have to travel on roads, trains or transport a product, person etc. Again Odd Logic

Then there is this spending money on Abrams Tanks. :/
Again as our own military advised against for valid reasons, such as:
A) American rejects
B) not designed for Australian conditions, too heavy, too big
C) $500m :/
D) Australian transport was incapable of transporting these piles of junk once they got here.
Again with the Odd Logic, & lack of forward thinking.
Perhaps it was that Yellow Peril threatening our Boarder Security, plaguing his mind. Yet another of Howards pet paranioas.
http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/m-abrams-tanks-in-the-wars/story-e6frfkp9-1111112254964

Now if you are going to argue against a government for its repeated disregard for Australia’s best interest, deceit & cowardcise Howard surely takes the cake.

It is however sad that after a pretty shabby campaign of fear mongering, sky falling, Jonesite mob hollering, Abbott still can’t achieve his one true goal.
Lets face it he is just a shallower version of Howard anyway.

Perhaps Australia has reached a saturation point with the base level hysteria & Abbott will have to learn to move on or fade away.

I am not convinced that this carbon trading Scheme is the best one for Australia, but what I am sure of is, this is what is available now.
This is the scheme that acknowledges there is an issue to be dealt with & this is the government that Australia has at this point in time to deal with this.
It is also the scheme that economists are advising & the government is listening.
It doesn’t matter what spin you put on it. This is the government Australia voted for.

I also believe it wouldn’t matter which government was in power we would still be having this debate.

Joan says:

09:08am | 14/10/11

After reading posts, mine included, Gillard more conniving and manipulative in reality - she implements policies she really wants while pushing blame on Bob Brown inferring -` he made me do it`  while squawking `It`s all Abbott`s fault`. We all fall for her `put the blame on the other` game as she gets on with it. Putin would be proud of her. You bet Rudd is still washing his mouth after the kiss. He knows what she is about as does Tanner. Perhaps the media mix up negotaiting skills with conniving skills.

Mayday says:

08:40am | 14/10/11

I agree John and Australia will now receive 5 gold stars towards a seat at the UN.

The thirty pieces of gold applies here.

andye says:

08:42am | 14/10/11

@thatmosis - Oh dear. You start by saying democracy died then point out that Labor will be voted out. So which is it?

Recent times have demonstrated to me that the right is just as capable of self-indulgent bombastic whining as the left has been in the past. It wasn’t attractive when they were saying it about Howard/Bush back in the day and it isn’t attractive now.

MattyC says:

10:34am | 14/10/11

LOL - Democracy has died, Democracy has Died !!!!!!!!!! Maintain the rage to the next election and we will vote you out Julia. Democracy has died.

Thanks for the laugh thatmosis, that is a classic

Peter says:

10:11am | 14/10/11

We had a mandate for an ETS in 2007.

Selective memory again in LNP headquarters.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

11:16am | 14/10/11

Peter - Labor didn’t in the last election and that’s the one that counts. Stop rewriting history and conveniently leaving out the last election.

And Peter, you’ve keep quoting this through the blog. But we don’t have an ETS we have a carbon tax which we were promised we wouldn’t get. So get your facts straight.

Selective cherry-picking of history from ALP headquarters.

Ben C says:

11:30am | 14/10/11

@ Peter

Then why didn’t Labor introduce the ETS before the 2010 election? The people wanted it then - they didn’t want it at the 2010 election.

Peter says:

11:59am | 14/10/11

@Ben C

Rudd’s CPRS scheme was defeated how many times in the senate by the Liberal party even though Turbull voted with the government to introduce the legislation.

@Madkat
It is an ETS with 3 year fixed price period.

Aitch B says:

01:20pm | 14/10/11

@Peter

So….. I’ll be able to buy carbon credits at market value as of July 1, 2012, will I? Wow…. they’ve brought the ETS forward 3 years and told nobody!!

It’s a price/tax/whatever for 3 years at a current rate of $23 per tonne. The government has already stated that it will not be a fixed price for the 3 year period - they (or Bob Brown) will set the price.

From July 1, 2012 to whatever date in 2015 it will not, I repeat will NOT be an ETS. Anybody using that term prior to it becoming a reality is disingenuous - as you are being now.

Martin says:

01:53pm | 14/10/11

@Peter, it is not an Emissions Trading Scheme. Where will the “Trading” take place? Inside you’re underpants? It is a tax. At least for the first 3 years. Some of you Labor flunkys really are a sight to behold. The bullshit just flows and flows. Forget the facts, forget the truth, just bulshitt you’re way through.  BTW, we’ve moved on al ittle from 2007 Peter. Gillard had to bullshit her way through the 2010 election telling us there would be no carbon tax to try to save her political hide. So I’m sorry that 2007 argument completely lacks credibility.

Peter says:

02:02pm | 14/10/11

I repeat, it is an ETS with a fixed price period of 3 years.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

02:50pm | 14/10/11

Aitch B and Martin - I’ve tried the explain the concept of a fixed-price ETS to Peter as well in posts above - he just won’t have it. Either he’s having us on or he’s really, really stupid. I hope he’s having us on because surely no-one could be this ignorant.

Peter says:

03:19pm | 14/10/11

@madkat

It is a fixed price ETS for 3 years, then moves to a market based ETS.

No need to be so nasty and creepy.

PTom says:

03:47pm | 14/10/11

You Liberal Lackeys really need to have a better understand of what has actual been implemented and not what you massers tell you.

Here is a site that mught help you understand the Government Fixed-Price ETS.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/07/07/3263546.htm?site=ballarat

Aitch B says:

04:05pm | 14/10/11

@Peter

OK then…. you insist that it’s a fixed priced ETS. I guess if you say it often enough it becomes fact.

Perhaps then you can tell us how and where the trading will take place and how companies who are paying the ‘carbon price’ for emissions can go about buying credits to offset it. Remember, we’re talking 2012 here….. not 2015 when the government says the ETS will commence.

I doubt that you will….......

MadKat of Melbourne says:

04:17pm | 14/10/11

Peter - yes I’m being nasty because you keep banging on about something you’re totally wrong about. You’re being creepy because you have no idea and keep repeating the same wrong thing over and over.

Here, read this - its from the Labor Party website written by Greg Combet,Julia Gillard,Wayne Swan posted Sunday, 10 July 2011. Even they are saying its a carbon tax. A carbon tax is not a fixed-price ETS - there is no cap and there is no market to trade permits. You really, really, really need to do some research on what is involved in the different carbon pricing schemes.

http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/putting-a-price-on-pollution/

And I quote from the Labor Party website:

“For the first three years, starting from 1 July 2012, the price of each tonne of carbon pollution will be fixed, like a carbon tax.

Then, from 1 July 2015, the carbon pricing mechanism will move to an emissions trading scheme where the price will be set by the market.”

MadKat of Melbourne says:

04:29pm | 14/10/11

PTom - yeah I saw this website too but went and verified the facts. This may have been what the Labor Party wanted but not what we eventually got -

Read the Labor Party website for what we actually got - go to the source when you want to verify facts -

peter says:

08:01pm | 14/10/11

Well said PTom, madkats facts are very flakey.

A lot of industries are getting free PERMITS for the 1st three years, they can TRADE them if they like.

palone says:

01:09am | 15/10/11

@Martin & madkaty. What a strange pair you blokes are. You keep referring to this penalty on polluters as a tax. Of course, as you know, its a penalty applied to polluting Companies should they go over the allowed limits. If they allow their effluence to exceed the limits set they get fined. Just as you and I do if we pollute the environment.
Is that bad?
Think Australia fellahs, not Lib, Lab, or the Nats. Just line up for our magic Country. Not for winning. That’s for losers.
,

MadKat of Melbourne says:

01:48pm | 15/10/11

Peter - read the Labor Party website - even they are saying it is a carbon tax and not a fixed price ETS. If you think its an ETS then tell me what the emissions cap will be for 2012? And also tell me the procedures on how companies can buy and sell each others permits.

“A lot of industries are getting free PERMITS for the 1st three years, they can TRADE them if they like” - industries that are carbon intensive are being given free permits for a percentage of the carbon emissions but they can’t trade them with other companies. Reference me something from the government that says that they are allowed.

Your the flakey ones - you don’t even understand the scheme that’s being bought in by the government -

Palone - if you hop onto the Labor Party website they are saying its like a tax - straight from an article penned by Combet, Gillard and Swann. And for your information I’m not a bloke -

“Of course, as you know, its a penalty applied to polluting Companies should they go over the allowed limits. If they allow their effluence to exceed the limits set they get fined.” - what the hell are you going on about. The scheme is that the chosen 500 companies have to buy permits to emit carbon dioxide. These permits cost $23 each for the first year. There are no limits set. Go on the Labor Party website and do some reading.

OMG - I’m surrounded by idiots -

Martin says:

02:22pm | 15/10/11

@Palone. More weirdo thinking from the Labor bogans. Please explain where the “trading” is going to occur during the first 3 years under a carbon tax.. Your strange post has no explanation, just some tangent dialogue which explains precisely nothing. Either show us how it is an Emissions Trading Scheme or stop posting irrelevant rubbish.

PTom says:

10:35am | 14/10/11

Why are farmers selling Carbon Credit oversea for millions if they are cheaper there?

Why have the State government not start selling credit overseas too instead of increasing the GST or other taxes.

Pol Luter says:

03:49pm | 14/10/11

Ptom
they sell because they create creditable choses. They are not taxed. There is market overseas, theat where they sell - at the market price (se 6 euro) the the $23 bob brown marriage licence fee.(newly defined marriage by the ALP state conferences and later reluctantly by Her PM ship).
still asking the question—Oh! I believe bob also said the snowy snows, the MD river & the barrier reef were all saved on kissing Rudd day

persephone says:

09:21am | 14/10/11

I know, but alas, too many journalists are like that now.

dash says:

10:15am | 14/10/11

@Perse - quick lets hold an inquiry, somone disagrees with the ALP! Lets remove the freedom of the media because they reflect the views of the majority!

Lets do that whilst creating a state owned monopoly, using standover tactics to aquire the assets of a private owned company, censor the internet and use taxpayers money for political propaganda. Great idea!

john says:

10:49am | 14/10/11

I know what you mean dash
Without the lies Limited News has been printing, you would have no lists to post and your hollowness would be exposed for all to see.
No Inquiry - keep those lies coming.

Dash says:

12:19pm | 14/10/11

john - “No Inquiry” - Really? Even the ALP call it an inquiry:

http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/government-announces-independent-media-inquiry/

What was that you were saying about lies? Feel free to apologise for being wrong.

Dash says:

08:14am | 14/10/11

Does any of that make what the ALP has done, right?

Why would any nation in their right mind, inflict a cost on it’s economy and allow the revenue base to move off-shore? Why force our wealth overseas to line the pockets of shonky carbon credit salesmen sitting in Asia or Europe under the promise to plant a tree? Unbelievable!

At least stop the bleeding and retain Australia’s wealth for Australian’s! I think most of us are prepared to do that. Hopefully this government falls before the two years is up and we can minimise the damage.

dovif says:

08:26am | 14/10/11

Since the amount of permit is dictated by the government, the EU recently flooded the market with permits, which reduces their ETS to $6, I think Abbott will just issue a billion permits and make all of them worthless

Angry God of Townsville says:

08:30am | 14/10/11

Pay the owners nothing, give them tax credits, redeemable over the life of the proposed scheme. No more than 10% of the $23 per tonne issue price per annum.Problem solved. No inflationary effects and no advantage to international scammers who do not trade within our economy.

Simple restoration with minimal impact.

Shane From Melbourne says:

09:16am | 14/10/11

@Angry God- Hmm, I have a carbon permit that is declared to be worth X amount of dollars by one government and worthless by another government??  Be prepared to fight that one in the courts….

Peter says:

09:58am | 14/10/11

Tony Abbott signed his own death warrant with that statement.

The REAL question is, who will lead the LNP to next election? Barnaby?

Seamus says:

07:58am | 14/10/11

Warwick, do you honestly think this government can stagger and bumble its beheaded way through crisis after crisis without meaningful resolution for another two years?

Mouse says:

11:40am | 14/10/11

@Warick, they won’t do that because his seat will then become vacant and an election will have to be held. I don’t think Labor would want this to happen at the moment, do you?

Richard the Lionheart says:

08:39am | 14/10/11

I am whinging and wailing every day at the incompetence of Labor. I have never been taxed or levied so much since Whitlam. All I did was to plan and arrange my finances so I would never be a burden on another taxpayer. Nevertheless, looks like I will have to join all the other muppets at the counter

NicoleG says:

09:25am | 14/10/11

What broke promise Mandy? There was never a broken promise. There was an out and out lie. The ‘There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead’ lie.

RyaN says:

09:37am | 14/10/11

Clearly you must be! Obviously 80% of the Australian public will not be and you can kiss your beloved Labor party goodbye.

Dash says:

09:41am | 14/10/11

Mandy here’s some broken promises for you:

We’ll deliver cheaper groceries (Grocerychoice)
We’ll deliver cheaper fuel (fuelwatch)
We’ll deliver a coast guard (still waiting)
We’ll deliver 260 childcare centres (still waiting)
We’ll deliver root and branch tax reform (still waiting)
We’ll deliver an education revolution (ha ha ha ha)
We have an East Timor Solution (oh actually perhaps that’s a lie too)
There will be no onshore detention centres (now building three)
We’ll deliver cheaper better childcare (still waiting)
We’ll deliver more affordable housing (still waiting)

Surely the ALP has given you enough broken promises and lies to tell the difference Mandy?

@NicoleG I also love the Wayne Swan line “it is a hysterical allegation that we are moving to a carbon tax”. Isn’t is amazing that there are still fools prepared to blindly make excuses for what must surely be the worst government in Australian history.

Peter says:

10:40am | 14/10/11

The never ever GST that did not win the popular vote but was rammed in via the backdoor with the democrats.
Workchoices…...HAHA making working life sooo much better
IRAQ ..... Not only bad policy, but also sending Australians to their grave.

Thanks for listening to the people for those wonderful decisions.

Liberal party headquarters at work today i see.

ibast says:

10:40am | 14/10/11

I agree Mandy.  It is ridiculously childish.  People calling her a liar are either ignorant of our parliamentary system or are deliberately ignoring the reality of it, to make their feeble argument.  Either way it looks childish and ultimately detracts from their credibility.

ibast says:

11:07am | 14/10/11

Peter, I’m going to have to comment about your interpretation of the GST/Democrats.  The fact is Howard used the Children Overboard lie to sneak the GST through an election.  The Democrats, being a democratic party, debated and modified the legislation and allowed it to pass the senate.  They didn’t ram it through.  They operated under their charter and the GST was much nicer as a result.

At the time I didn’t like the GST but I respected the Democrats for making the parliamentary mechanism work as it should.  And that good process has been lacking since their absence.

Ben C says:

11:40am | 14/10/11

@ ibast

GST was 1998, children overboard was 2001.

Your call.

Dash says:

12:30pm | 14/10/11

@Peter - I don’t know, it wasn’t all bad. I mean he could have changed his mind and still refused to hold an election. You know, made out it would never happen for political gain, change his mind, stick his finger up at the people and railroad it through parliament. Just as the ALP has done!

I mean he did pay off the $96billion left by the ALP. He did return Australia’s AAA credit rating that Keating and the ALP lost, He did produce the lowest unemployment in 30 years, He did leave Rudd and the ALP $26billion and zero debt, he did deliver us 5 years of consecutive PAYG tax cuts. And he did bring down the Financial Services Reform Act which helped to protect us from the GFC.

Swan of course handed $900 to dead people, has not managed to balance a single budget, is racking up $110m a day in debt, stripped $2billion away from Australian families in last years budget , has introduced the profits tax, flood tax, carbon tax, removed the tax incentives for people to save for their retirement, introduced a bill to means test the private health tax rebate despite a written promise not to and lied to the Australian people on the eve of last election about the carbon tax!

Hmm, and you support this rabble?? I wonder why?

ibast - oops that was embarrasing! Still don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story!

ibast says:

12:42pm | 14/10/11

Ben C, DOH!  You are right.  Comments on the Democrats part in the GST still stand.

Peter says:

01:25pm | 14/10/11

@Dash

FACT John Howard highest taxing prime minister in our History.
FACT Unemployment and interest rates have been lower under this government
FACT Howard took us to war with no mandate
FACT Howard gave us workchoices with no mandate
FACT Howard gave us the GST with no mandate
FACT Labors stimulus prevented a recession
FACT Liberal policy vacuum shows no chance of ending soon
FACT Sky hasn’t fallen in yet

Time to find a new leader for the LNP, Tony A wont be around much longer.

Aitch B says:

02:18pm | 14/10/11

@Peter

FACT You are rusted on.

Note the use of capitals….. looks sooooo good, doesn’t it?

Peter says:

02:52pm | 14/10/11

@ Aitch

Is that all you have to offer?

Dash says:

03:04pm | 14/10/11

@Peter -If you had a good job and paid more than twice the average wage in tax every year and kept getting hammered by every ALP policy initiative, you might have a different view.

I hope you and your family don’t have to fork out too much in electricity, food and utility bills and that the ALP have got their cost forcasts right for you and your family.

Some of us will be paying for your compensation. Maybe just remember that when you get your tax cuts that those who are paying for it don’t get. Good luck to you mate.

NicoleG says:

03:24pm | 14/10/11

Rite-o that’s FACTing it! Peter, nearly every FACTing comment you’ve made has the word FACT in capital letters. It’s driving me nuts. Please give it a rest. And stop blaming FACTing Howard for everything. Everything is Abbott’s fault. Donchya know?

Peter says:

06:59pm | 14/10/11

@Dash

Yep I earn well above the average wage, I am happy to fork out a few bucks for the fixed price ETS.

Hard work early, and smart investing mean that I can afford this easily.

John Smythe says:

01:18pm | 14/10/11

Clever photographers showing us that she is quite literally always looking down her nose at the populace she so despises?

Pinnocchio is Gillard says:

01:52pm | 14/10/11

It is called the Pinocchio effect, we get to see her nose grow daily

“No carbon tax under a government I led”
“another boat is another policy failure”
“We will stop the boats”
“The stimilus were per the RBA advise”

NicoleG says:

02:49pm | 14/10/11

LOL. You’re both spot on I do believe.

Al says:

11:37am | 14/10/11

But what will the Carbon Tax/ETS actualy achieve?
Is it providing funds for R&D into new cleaner technologies - No.
Is it being used to offset the governments own carbon footprint - No.
Are the funds going from the companies to the ordinary taxpayer - yes, and this is simply wealth redistribution.
It will have no impact on emmisions untill the cost of implementing the new technologies outweighs the cost of the Carbon Tax/ETS for the companies (and even then it will have little impact).

I fail to ‘see it for the greater good it is’. Perhaps you can explain what it will actualy achieve in what timeframe based on solid evidence?

You can't handle the truth says:

09:58am | 14/10/11

Fact: Gillard promised the Australian public, that there will be no carbon tax under a government I led,

Fact: Gillard is leading an government of the incompetants

Fact: Gillard introduced a Carbon tax

Fact: Gillard is a liar

Peter says:

11:17am | 14/10/11

FACT Neither of the 2 parties won the election outright
FACT Abbott tried to sell his ASS but no one was interested
FACT The LNP had a document 11 BILLION dollar hole in their budget
FACT Gillard actually could convince conservative independents to help
her form government
FACT If labor won outright we would have an ETS
FACT The sky wont fall in

Andrew says:

01:08pm | 14/10/11

The end-game of what is happening in the world today is global government ruling over the blocs of a European Union, a North American Union, a South American Union, an African Union, an Asia-Pacific Union (including Australia) and others.  However, it’s entirely possible for us to resist this global government and prevent it from coming into existence.

The European Union is already in place; a North American Union (comprising the USA, Canada and Mexico) is being established covertly via the current, planned collapse of the United States of America and the opening of its borders to allow mass immigration of Mexicans; a South American Union is officially underway under the name, “Union of South American Nations” and will be facilitated by the current cultural disintegration across South America (eg. systemic government corruption which has filtered down throughout society); an African Union has already been tentatively established and it was Kevin Rudd who explicitly pursued an Asia-Pacific Union (including Australia) while he was Prime Minister.

Some six months after Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister at the end of 2007, he commissioned former ambassador Richard Woolcott to work towards the establishment of an Asia-Pacific Union based on the model of the European Union to include Australia:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/rudd-to-drive-asian-union/story-e6frg6no-1111116542913

Left is right says:

11:40am | 14/10/11

This forum is owned by conservatives.
The left come here to have fun with the conservative white trash.

It’s really very simple.

John says:

01:07pm | 14/10/11

Left and the right are controlled by International elite. They have you on leash! They allow you bark because it’s benefits their agenda. But you too naive to realize that. You work for the people you despise.
You also an actor, theater person, who isn’t aware that it’s all an act.

Gregg says:

03:35pm | 14/10/11

@Goldfinger
” Remember this is the man who told the 7.30 Report in Mat 2010 that he often said things he didn’t believe. And that his case “statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth are those carefully prepared, scripted remarks.”
Completely golden, your very selective memory that is!
Just like the sun don’t shine out of your arse or mine don’t think it shines out the old Red Kerry or the just as red Juliacomminisco either me lad.

What happened on the 7:30 report was that old Red in his usual up to tricks, especially when it comes to trying to trip up any non Labor politician was interviewing Tony and he questioned him re variance between what Tony had stated in an interview out in the field and what he was saying with Kerry in relation to some policy or other.

The famous or as you may want to see it infamous words from Tony were ” What I may say at times is not always going to be exactly what might be written down “

Now aside from the fact that political parties will be continually tuning policies and that no politicians are robots or always reading off a policy statement, just how much of an idiot are you to attempt such a mediocre distortion of facts.
And then go and compare that with ” There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead ” as stated by Gillard just prior to the election and what may come out of your arse would also seem to come from Gillard’s mouth.

Melrusk says:

10:16am | 15/10/11

@Gregg
“Now aside from the fact that political parties will be continually tuning policies and that no politicians are robots or always reading off a policy statement, just how much of an idiot are you to attempt such a mediocre distortion of facts.”
Nice to see you are aware that politicians are “continually tuning policies”.
Does this analysis only work in defence of Coalition or is this a measure to be applied to all politicians?

To be fair ALP have had an ETS on the table since Rudd.
Hell, Howard had plans to have one in place by 2011.
The only argument the current coalition have against this version of the ETS is that they are not the ones taking the credit so to speak.

Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading : final report
(commissioned by Howard in 2006)
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/72614

randomscrub says:

12:49pm | 14/10/11

Ben

Go and read the Clean Energy Bill package and answer your own questions. Also helpful is the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme White Paper December 2008.

While you are there you might want to read the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act and a whole bunch of Commonwealth policy papers which can be variously found on the Department of Resources Energy and Tourism and Department of Climate Change websites.

The Commonwealth Hansard is also a useful reference tool as it provides the political discussion relating to this topic.

It would be great if everyone who posts on here did the same as we would then be having a legitimate discussion focused on playing the ball as you suggest.

I won’t hold my breath as there is several thousand pages of reading there and it actually takes some comittment, which is why I believe the Opposition are without a credible policy alternative. They don’t want to have a rigourous intellectual debate, they just want to win government.

persephone says:

12:54pm | 14/10/11

BenC

1. Because prices will go up despite compensation - even if they have more money in their pockets, people like saving money, and higher bills will encourage them to do this.

And companies aren’t compensated for the full costs (otherwise they wouldn’t have any price rises to pass on). SOME, which are trade exposed, are receiving SOME assistance.

2. By their emissions. The Howard government passed legislation a few years ago which requires all companies to account to the Federal government for their emissions, so that’s the criteria being used.

Some of those targetted aren’t profitable at all (landfills, for example, rarely run at a profit).

3. By providing trade exposed industries with compensation and by providing industries with assistance to upgrade their processes.

4. The ‘unintended’ cost works out to something like 5 cents a ticket. That’s not going to make any difference to anyone weighing up whether to take the car or the train.

Freight costs aren’t going up for a couple of years, giving industry time to adjust.

Again, as with public transport, the extra costs are tiny, and have been factored in to Treasury’s calculations.

5. The same as are in place now.

The carbon price will be reviewed on a regular basis, so companies which do the right thing and cut their emissions will pay less than if they continued business as usual - and yes, that may lead to some companies dropping off the list altogether, to be replaced by others who aren’t complying.

Sorry about the derision,it’s all I’ve got.

Ben C says:

01:36pm | 14/10/11

@ randomscrub

I have read these, have my own understanding based on these readings and my working experience as an accountant and also as an associate in a famly business, and I’m not convinced issues I’ve raised have been properly assessed or addressed by anyone.

@ persephone

Thank you, this is actually the first post I’ve (ever) read of yours that doesn’t throw insults. I’ll add a further question that I left out from my original post:

How often will the list change? Will those companies originally on the list remain there forever, or will they be taken off the list as they improve their practices and reduce their emission levels?

persephone says:

01:43pm | 14/10/11

And I should add….

1. If they don’t, then the government gets more money in the coffers to spend on mitigation and adaption.

But everything we know about market forces says they will.

Against the Man says:

04:45pm | 14/10/11

Sorry pers, hate to burst your bubble but no one is listening to you or Labor. The ALP is finished, even Richo and unions want to distance himself from the Gillard/ALP failure of a government.

Every poll is massively against Gillard.

But keep the dream alive, I truly feel sorry for you guys. If you haven’t realised the ALP/Gillard have sold you out, you ideology will be your undoing.

persephone says:

07:47pm | 14/10/11

Ben

Well, you can’t have read many of them, then. But that’s understandable.

I don’t know, to be quite simple. (Randomscrub has kindly pointed you to places where you can find out).

I know there’s at least one scheduled for the transitional period between the price and the ETS, but my understanding is that reviews will happen fairly regularly (every couple of years).

I THINK (not having delved into the nitty gritty) that the way a carbon market works is that it doesn’t matter much how often a company is reviewed; if it’s not emitting as much as it was last year, it simply doesn’t have to buy as many credits (or it can on sell those it has).

But I’m sure someone will correct me if I’ve got that wrong!!

Against the Man

a bit of a random comment. I suppose you just felt the need to abuse some Labor supporter.

Is your post meant to be proving your indfifference to me? Because it suggests the opposite.

Oh, and the polls appear to be drifting back Labor’s way. Which is the way I want it - a slow movement that you guys won’t notice.

Against the Man says:

04:16am | 15/10/11

pers am I the one abusing Labor supports or is it the Gillard led ALP?

Did I back stab KRudd?
Did I lie about the carbon tax?
Did I screw up health care reform and the asylum seeker policy?

C’mon, if the ALP was doing even a half way decent job you would be able to shut me up. Right now the polls and the protests against the ALP isn’t because of me. Hell, it even isn’t because of Abbott.

It is because of Gillard.

Christian Real says:

07:07am | 15/10/11

Against the man
You mean the Opinion polls where only around 1,000 or so people are polled?
And they appear to be in favour of the Liberal Opposition at the moment?
Gee, our Country must be getting smaller every day if our population has dropped and relies on around 1,000 to 1,200 people’s opinions.

persephone says:

09:07am | 15/10/11

Against the Man

The post I wrote was purely informative. I take it you can’t handle the truth, or you would have challenged the information.

Going off on a rant about Labor probably does you good, but is totally irrelevant to the discussion - as indeed, are your questions.

If you’ve stopped listening to me, do me a favour and stop talking to me as well.

I can’t see the point in responding to questions you’ve already made clear you’re not going to read the answers to.

Against the Man says:

09:40am | 15/10/11

Christian Real isn’t a very good spinning top

St. Michael says:

02:26am | 17/10/11

The EU’s present haemorrhaging state is because several of their countries haven’t been able to resist the temptation of massive deficit spending across the board.  Carbon pricing has nothing to do with it.  The EU dollar’s problem is because the Tinderbox of Europe is once again causing grief and mass (financial) destruction far in excess of its proportions or normal significance.

Christian Real says:

06:56am | 15/10/11

Colroe
And you really believe that if Abbott was Prime Minister he would dismatle this tax,?
I suppose that you also believe there are fairies living in your garden.
Abbott will not be able to dismantle this tax,(he calls it a tax), the government calls it a price on carbon), just in the same way that the ALP was not able to roll back or dismantle the GST that Howard brought in,(after breaking an election promise of never,ever bringing it in)

persephone says:

09:44pm | 14/10/11

Which is, of course, why I said:

‘Freight costs aren’t going up for a couple of years, giving industry time to adjust.

Again, as with public transport, the extra costs are tiny, and have been factored in to Treasury’s calculations.’

See that reference to ‘extra costs’? That’s me talking about rises in the cost of freight.

I repeat; the costs are tiny.

They are especially tiny when spread across the whole load a truck carries.

Not all power will go up; only that produced from coal.

As not all electricity supplied now comes from coal, not all electricity will go up.

Treasury modelled $23 a ton as well.

Not all goods and services will rise in price; in some cases, the price impact of the carbon price is so small that it’s simply impossible to do that (Tim Tams going up by less than one cent, for example).

Oh, and realistically, Tony Abbott can’t repeal the carbon price for a couple of years.

The greens will still hold the balance of power in the Senate after the next election (and don’t think for a minute that Labor won’t support them in blocking any attempt to repeal the carbon price, that’s just silliness).

So he won’t be able to get any repeal through the Senate.

So he’d have to call a Double Dissolution and go to another election.

All of which means it would take a year of uncertainty AFTER the next election before any changes could be made, by which time the carbon price would be up and running.

The number crunchers don’t see a DD election being possible before about 2015 - when the carbon price will have been in operation for three years.

milo of Brizvegas says:

08:20am | 15/10/11

I know we are a parochial lot but what I do not understand is WHY the carbon tax issue is made peculiar to Gillard and Abbott. Whilst even countries like China move towards Emission trading no mention is ever made that Australia will be taxed by these other countries (for even flying through their airspace) without some sort of emission trading scheme.  Also no one mentions(to strengthen the argument) the good or bad effects a carbon emission tax has had on the economies of the European, South American and Canadian countries and provinces that have had an emissions tax for years.  Also WHY do the majority of the strident opponents seem to be sixties plus, I would have thought they would have been the least effected.

Col Sanders says:

09:56am | 15/10/11

Does this outburst means that ‘You are a LNP stooge’ thatmosis.. or endosmosis or exosmosis or simply cannot formulate a rational response

milo of Brizvegas says:

10:48am | 15/10/11

This column usually has some reasonable debate and I am all for a debate and understanding other peoples thought processes. I know some people believe CO2 isn’t a problem because trees breathe it, Scientists are all paid off or some guy with zero qualifications other than looking like a bug eyed goldfish told them so but at least share some reason for your thoughts other than Tony - Good,  Gillard - Bad.

annielaural says:

03:10pm | 15/10/11

Oh Cate and you shouldn’t write silly comments then end with a catty personal attack because you feel aggrieved. Slipper is a Liberal M.P. and he ejected another Liberal MP for what even your own party are calling a dummy spit.He had no choice, I would be questioning Sophie Mirabellas intentions, it is almost as if she engineered the whole incident so she would not have to vote.