JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Australian Govt doesn’t give a toss what you think

The Australian government asks for submissions, gets around 4500, mostly against the tax, then ignores almost all of them. It’s just another form of suppression and censorship, a sign that the elites don’t give a fig what we think.

Menzies House is calling it an utter disgrace.

“In a shocking and historically unprecedented suppression of political expression, a staggering four thousand five hundred Australians have had their voices silenced by Australia’s political elite in the Labor-dominated Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation.”

It shows what we all knew all along: the submission process was a merely legal formality, a scent of democracy.

This is a new low, and based on current performance, is just what we’d expect. They can’t justify this tax, they can’t debate the science, but they can ram it through. The only way “forward” is with whitewash, erasers, and the all-purpose delete key.

So figure what was going on in the minds of the chief censors:

a/ Abject desperation: We’re doomed! (Never let the plebs know that we got thousands of well written, detailed submissions that were against the tax, so find any half-baked pathetic excuse to not publish or count most of the letters!)

b/ Callous disregard: The people who wrote this stuff would never vote for Labor anyhow and who, seriously, is going to bust us? (That is, we’re not interested in their views. And anyhow, Fairfax and the ABC won’t even mention that the submissions were canned, so it never happened. Who cares?)

The following submission was one they found useful and worthy of being published:

11 August 2011

To Whom It May Concern

Even with all the confusion surrounding the Carbon Tax, I would like to support the move the Government is making. In order to reduce our Carbon Polution (sic) you have to place a monetary value on the air we breathe. I hope this is a step in the right direction and, I hope the Government sets a model and digs their heels in to become a world leader in this arena.

My support is with the Government at present.
Yours Faithfully
Kerrie Chandler

 

Reader Wandzia on Bolt’s site noticed that 22 letters were virtually identical, another 22 were roughly the same letter, and 9 were non-specific or very short. So what the government wants from the people, is repetitive, inane, astroturfer “support” (see Bolt for the details).

Send me links to your submissions, I’ll publish the links…

 

UPDATE: There are at least 3 lists of submissions

There are at least three different government committee sites with “submissions”. To make things confusing the Dept of Climate Change accepted submissions on the draft legislation until August 22, and the Joint Committee took submissions on the final until Sept 22. But the Joint committee submission pages link to the DCC submissions page (with 267 subs published) as well as to it’s own submissions page where only 70 of 4500 are listed as published (through the word “submissions”.)

There is also an Inquiry into Carbon Tax Pricing Mechanisms by the Senate Committee. David’s submission was accept there, where 102 are listed out of who knows how many?
There is an analysis of the 70 accepted here.
Thanks to Peter Lang and Anton Lang for help sorting out the various submissions.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.9/10 (9 votes cast)
Australian Govt doesn't give a toss what you think, 7.9 out of 10 based on 9 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3pz84hc

211 comments to Australian Govt doesn’t give a toss what you think

  • #
    Peter Lang

    [Comment #1 #2 #3 were moved to this thread--JN].

    I think it is important and many people will be outraged.

    Parliamentary Inquiry into CO2 Tax rejects 98% of submissions
    The “Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation “ received over 4500 submissions and rejected all but 70.

    Could that many Australians get it wrong? They made submissions in good faith expecting they would be considered.

    With that high a proportion getting it wrong, does it indicate a problem with the process? (The invitation to submit states” “Please note that there are no terms of reference for this inquiry”. At least six of the 70 accepted submissions were received after the closing date. Many did not mention the legislation)

    What was the selection process? Was it transparent? Who decided which to select and which to reject? Was it the committee or the secretariat?

    Unusually, the Committee Chair and Deputy Chair were Labor and Green Party. Normally, the Deputy Chair would be from the Opposition.

    Can we have any confidence in the output of this committee?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    “Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation” rejected 98% of submissions.

    The Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation called for submissions on 15 September 2011 with closing date for submissions on 22 September 2011 [1] http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jscacefl/index.htm

    Inquiry into Australia’s clean energy future

    The Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation was established under a resolution of appointment passed by the House of Representatives on the 14 September 2011 and the Senate on the 15 September 2011 to inquire into and report on the provisions of the attached bills.

    The Committee invites interested persons and organisations to make submissions by Thursday 22 September 2011 . Please refer to our brochure called preparing a submission for more information. Please note that there are no terms of reference for this inquiry. [emphasis added]

    In order to facilitate electronic publishing of submissions, the Committee would prefer them to be emailed to jscacefl@aph.gov.au or sent on disk or CD-ROM to the Committee Secretariat in Microsoft Word® or Portable Document Format (PDF).

    Over 4500 submissions were received. However, the Committee has the power to decide which are “submissions” and which are “correspondence”. They decided only 70 were “submissions” and the rest were “correspondence”. Only those the committee deems to be “submissions” are published (and in reality only those will be considered).

    Could that many Australians get it wrong? Clearly they were intending to make submissions to the enquiry – they were making submissions that they understood would be properly considered by the committee.

    With that high a proportion getting it wrong, is it more likely that the committee’s selection criteria and selection process was not made clear beforehand.

    Below is the general instruction which describes “What should be in a submission” http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/documnts/howsub.htm#what

    What should be in a submission?

    There is no prescribed form for a submission to a parliamentary committee. Submissions may be in the form of a letter, a short document or a substantial paper. They may include appendices and other supporting documents.

    Submissions should be prepared solely for the inquiry and should be relevant to the terms of reference. They may address all or a selection of the points outlined in the terms of reference. Submissions may contain facts, opinions, arguments and recommendations for action.

    It is helpful if submissions are prefaced by a brief summary of the main points.

    Supplementary submissions may be lodged during the course of an inquiry to provide additional information or comments on other evidence.

    What was the selection process? Was it transparent?

    Were all the submissions reviewed and compared against selection criteria?

    Who actually made the decision about which to select and which to reject? Was it the committee or the secretariat?

    Is the process that was followed in this case what open and honest government means?

    Some of the 70 that were accepted as “submissions” do not appear to meet the requirements for a submission any better than mine does. For example, some were dated after the closing date for submissions. Many did not even mention any of the Bills.

    It should also be noted that the Committee Chair Person is Labor and the Deputy Chair is a Green (Senator Milne). Normally, the Deputy Chair would be from the Opposition.

    Can we have any confidence in the output of this committee?

    The report has just been released and the Introduction now defines the “Terms of Reference”. These are an after thought. These were not provided before over 4500 Australians wrote their submissions.

    The Introduction, paragraph 1.28, says:

    A large amount of correspondence was received by the committee. These items were not received as submissions to the inquiry because they did not address the actual legislation being considered.

    This is not true. At least 10 of the 70 accepted submissions did not mention the legislation.

    Furthermore, at least six were submitted after the closing date, including the first two listed on the website.
    http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jscacefl/subs.htm

    My submission is here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/07/06/carbon-tax-australia-2011/#comment-136435 and the addendum is here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/07/06/carbon-tax-australia-2011/#comment-136436


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Peter Lang

      JoNova,

      I prepared a summary table of the 70 accepted “submissions”. Would you be able to post the summary, or if not the whole summary, then just the table on your web site?

      For each submission the table lists:

      • Submitted by
      • Date submitted: (at least 7 were dated after the closing date)
      • Supports an economically efficient scheme: Y=43; N=7; ?=20
      • Supports the proposed legislation: Y=21; N=37; ?=12
      • Contains a Summary: Y=20; N=11; ?=39
      • Contains specific references to legislation: Y=18; N=16; ?=36
      • Comments/key point of the submission.
      • Number of Pages: (range from 1 to 41)

      The “?” means “don’t know” or I didn’t bother to record it; I was rushing

      I’ll send you the short report and also my submission in an email.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Peter Lang

        My quick, short summary report of the 70 accepted submissions is available here:

        http://tome22.info/Submissions/JSCACEF-Summary.html

        And my submission to the Inquiry (and the addendum) are here:

        http://tome22.info/Submissions/JSCACEF-Peter-Lang.html


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Peter,
          I note that on this list of 70 submissions, Macquarie Generation does not get a look in, and yet on the list of public submissions at the following link, it does. You’d think at least they would publish something from what is the largest CO2 emitter in the Country.

          http://climatechange.gov.au/en/government/submissions/clean-energy-legislative-package/public-submissions.aspx

          Note also how it says at that site that they only received 326 submissions, (not the actual figure of more than 4500) and they only published 267 of them.

          Of that 267 submissions, 70 of them were from private citizens. Quite a few were the same submission, with the only difference being the person who signed it. Some were barely four to five lines in length.

          Also, of that 70 private citizen submissions, only 10 of them spoke out against the legislation.

          If this legislation proceeds to approval, then in many long Decades from now, after all this has been hopefully forgotten, people will have that copy of this submissions process. they will see that there WERE only 326 submissions, of which 267 were published.

          They will see that by a vast majority, people were in fact wholly supportive of this legislation, by a factor of 6 to 1.

          Can you see now how they will have manipulated History by setting up this in the present.

          I’m beginning to feel a little like Howard Beale in wanting to yell out loud from the nearest window.

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Peter Lang

            Tony,

            There are many comments on this thread by various people pointing out that you are looking at the wrong list of submissions. You are looking at the submissions to the Department of Climate Change. the discussion is about the “Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation“. The 4500 submissions with just 70 accepted as “Submissions” and 98.5% rejected was to this “Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation“.

            Follow the links in the comment #2 above and it will all become clear.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Paul

      National Farmers’ Federation Submission to the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation – Inquiry into Australia’s clean energy future 27 September 2011

      This one is published on their web site although received well after the cut-off date.

      Paul


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Madjak

    Wow,

    re the amazing disappearance of the peoples voices at 4 and 5

    People are going to be furious to hear of the rejection of over 4400 submissions.

    All politicians with any ounce of decency must stand up now and force all submissions to be considered. To do otherwise is to sanction this action.

    Our representatives either believe in the voice of the people and our democracy or they don’t. It is as simple as that.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Madjak,

      Regretfully, your government is my government is Big Brother, worldwide. And BB doesn’t care what you or I or anyone else thinks.

      If JN allows me to do so, I will post links to references [1-8] on the outline of events in the US with reliable background information for everyone.

      a.) Thomas Jefferson recognized the inherently fragile nature of self-government in 1820 [1] and Dwight Eisenhower noted new dangers from government financing of science [2] in 1961.

      b.) A 1998 CSPAN tape recording [3] shows NASA hid isotope data from the Galileo probe of Jupiter – data that falsify the Bilderberg model of a hydrogen-filled Sun [4].

      c.) In 2003-5, MIchael Crichton exposed the fraudulent science of environmentalism and CO2-induced global warming [5].

      d.) After tracing the global climate scandal back to the 1967 Bilderberg model of the Sun [6] and 1971 agreements between Kissinger, Mao, Brezhnov and Nixon to avoid the threat of nuclear annihilation by uniting nations against human-induced climate change [7], I became aware of other intriguing reports [8] about the roles of the Bilderberg group and Henry Kissinger in shaping major world events.

      Regretfully, that’s where we are today.
      Oliver K. Manuel
      Former NASA Principal
      Investigator for Apollo


      Report this

      00

  • #
    James

    I made a quite detailed submission which Jo Nova published here: http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/the-carbon-tax-is-so-bad-people-are-asking-if-this-is-treason/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoNova+%28JoNova%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

    My submission could hardly be described as simply correspondence as it addressed specific areas of the proposed legislation. Yet I too received the standard letter advising that my submission would not be included. This makes a mockery of due process. This makes a mockery of the Prime Minister’s commitment to explain the need for a ‘carbon tax’ and to wear out her shoe leather travelling Australia to answer Australian’s questions.

    Why am I not surprised?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Submissions can be rejected for being obscene, slanderous, or frivolous. They cannot be rejected for being “wrong”, nor can they be rejected as “correspondence” rather than “a submission”, if it clearly mentions the word “submission”, or is sent to the address notified for submissions.

    It all depends on the wording in the Select Committee rule book (they vary by Parliament, and I don’t know about Australia).

    This might just be the grounds you need for your partition to the Queen, folks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Trigge

    I have just sent:

    Committee,

    I have not received an acknowledgement of you receiving my submission, you have not informed me of its rejection as being merely correspondence and my name and submission do not appear as one of the only 70 or so submissions on your web site.

    Please advise the status of my submission,

    Sincerely,


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    As citizens, taxpayers & voters of Australia, we are “consumers” of &, willing or otherwise, conformers to government policy.

    As the omnipresent taxation act puts it – ignorance of the legislation (defining your tax liabilities) is NOT a mitigation

    Willful ignorance does not equate to innocence.

    Those who actively craft a “miasma of fear” in society while willfully perpetuating ignorance of fact, reality & evidence based knowledge are guilty of deceit & fraud

    Further, this “crafted fear” is contained by building a corral of enforced ignorance.

    To spin this to advance support for a policy contrary & detrimental to the sovereign rights, privileges & ideals of the nation can not be far from tyranny.

    Finally, if the real beneficiaries of deception are not the citizens & voters of the nation but muli-national financial institutions & a “wanna-be Global Government by the UN”, how is it not treason?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “You have to place a monetary value on the air we breathe”?

    Isn’t that what skeptics have been saying sarcastically all along?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    Don’t be surprised when the government, probably announce, that their was very little opposition to what the government is doing.
    They have subverted and suppressed a great deal to look like a massive support for the carbon taxes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Just one point – Reader Wandzia on Bolt’s site to which Jo refers above is referring to these submissions (to the Department)
    http://climatechange.gov.au/en/government/submissions/clean-energy-legislative-package/public-submissions.aspx
    The submission to which Peter Lang refers is the
    Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation
    at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jscacefl/index.htm
    which published 73 submissions
    http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jscacefl/subs.htm
    Friday 7 October 2011 its report was tabled which includes the dissenting report which mentions the 4,500 unpublished submissions
    see page 3 http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jscacefl/report/Coalition.pdf

    In this report of Coalition Members and Senators we have included the comments of hundreds of Australians – not just those few who appeared before the committee in its select few days of hearings in south-eastern Australia, or those professional organisations who made detailed submissions, but also many comments from the more than 4,500 people who made submissions to this inquiry, which the Labor-Greens-Independent majority refused to have published.

    hope that clears any confusion – Peter’s submission was excellent in my view and thanks Peter for making it available


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Five “correspondences” submitted by the Canberra Thursday Curry Group are here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    klingon

    Britain thinks twice about what Gillard recommends on this TREASONOUS CARBON DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax….

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/britain_thinks_twice_about_what_gillard_recommends/

    ELECTION NOW !!!!!!!!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Looks very much as though democracy is finally dead in Australia. Am I surprised? No.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    I notice Dr Evans submission didn’t make publication but don’t miss reading it
    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/dr-david-evans-four-fatal-pieces-of-evidence/#more-17260


    Report this

    00

    • #
      cementafriend

      Val, my submission concerned the wrong CO2 equivalence for methane see http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/07/natural-gas-more-polluting-than-coal-only-according-to-the-ipcc-a-note-from-cementafriend/ which I attached as a file and linked. I stated this could make the Acts open to legal challenge from particualrly coal miners and primary producer organisations.
      I also recommended that there should be enquiry such as a Royal Commission where evidence is given under oath and that witnesses are warned that false evidence is perjury leading to jail. I offered to give evidence about the complexity of climate as a registered engineer and expert witness (which I have done before)
      As others my submission was treated as correspondence.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        val majkus

        cemantafriend, I read yours, it’s a bit (well a lot) above my head but then I don’t have your expertise
        and what I find is so horrific about this whole episode – with all that expertise and experience that you and other submitters have – some beauracrat can just decide not to publish
        as I think Trotsky said ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    And I thought it was just my submission they didn’t like! Seems I’m in good company.
    Ken


    Report this

    00

    • #
      val majkus

      Ken perhaps those whose submissions were not published should be the proudest
      Can you link to a copy of your submission – love to read it


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Ken Stewart

        Here it is Val, with some identifying details removed. I only found out about the deadline about 30 minutes beforehand so it was a bit rushed. I kept right away from anything remotely skeptical science and kept to published facts.

        “Ladies and Gentlemen:

        I submit the following reasons for voting NO to the introduction of these pieces of legislation:

        The amount of global warming prevented by this proposed legislation will be minuscule. Australia by itself contributes a tiny percentage of the global increase in greenhouse gases. Without action by the major industrialised and industrialising nations (USA, India,China) our efforts are symbolic at best.
        The 500 worst “polluters” will naturally pass on increased costs via carbon pricing to customers or reduce costs including by reducing their workforce or suffer reduced revenue. Either way ordinary Australians will pay in the end through damage to the economy. At this time of global economic uncertainty it is madness to introduce such a negative impost on our economy.
        My wife and I, and her aged father, are some of those who will NOT be compensated for rising costs. We will shortly be self funded retirees, not eligible for any pension, and not paying tax- therefore won’t be compensated, while being hit by rising costs. We are not at all rich, just ordinary working people ( ********************************) who planned well (we thought) for retirement through superannuation and property. THERE ARE MANY LIKE US AND WE ARE ANGRY!!!
        Yours sincerely

        Ken Stewart”


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Ian Hill

      Ken, Here’s what I received about my submission last Thursday, exactly, not even bothering to address me personally:

      Thank you for your contribution to the inquiry by the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation.

      The committee has received your email as correspondence. While the committee considers the views in correspondence, it does not publish correspondence on its webpage. This does not lessen the importance of your contribution, however only those documents that went to specific detail about the Bills were published as submissions.

      In the report, the committee discussed some of the key themes raised in correspondence. The report of the committee will be presented on Friday, 7 October 2011. The report can be accessed from the committee’s website at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jscacefl/index.htm

      Thank you for your interest in the inquiry.

      Secretary

      Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation

      At least I got a patronising pat on the back!

      What a joke. Can’t see any specific detail in Kerrie Chandler’s letter, just some “hoping”. The government is now absolutely corrupt!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    grumpy

    High farce = “Submissions should be prepared solely for the inquiry and should be relevant to the terms of reference.” and “Please note that there are no terms of reference for this inquiry”

    These two statements mean that anything could be construed as a submission.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    There is definitely an action you can take. It will only be effective if used on Labour and Independant MPs.

    http://rightonourside.org/campaigns.php#actnow

    Basically, you have to express your WILL against the tax to your elected official. They are bound by law to obey a clearly expressed WILL of the electorate.

    Act now!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Perhaps someone should set up an independent web site and publish all the submissions. Then people can see the “correspondence” that went down the memory hole.

    When I consider some of the rather interesting letters from the public to various Ministers to which I have drafted replies in the past I find it unbelievable that these CO2 tax submissions, which were vastly superior in content and coherance, were simply discarded with a summary reply.

    The disdain with which this Federal Government is treating the public is astounding.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      brc

      Yes, astounding but not surprising. All dissent must be silenced or ignored when moving towards a planned goal that isn’t popular. Otherwise the government appears to be ignoring the will of the people.

      The depressing thing is that if they get away with this, expect it to become routine in future, regardless of which party is in charge. The moment the politicians think they can ignore due process and get away with it, expect it to become routine. Sadly no ‘side’ in politics is above this type of behaviour.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Binny

      The Queensland Labor Party pioneered this method back in the late 90s.

      Put forward a ‘draft’ legislation.
      Consult with the community in the form of asking for submissions.
      Cherry pick a handful of submissions (the majority of which will agree with your legislation)
      Make superficial changes to the legislation.
      Then push it through as soon as everyone is distracted by something else(usually an even more Draconian ‘red herring’ draft legislation that is later discarded.)

      Insist that the legislation was only enacted after extensive and broad-based community consultation. With the discarded ‘red herring’ legislation cited as evidence that the government listens to the will of the community.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Ross

      Good idea Bulldust. But the average Joe has to know the website exists and WHY it was set up.Perhaps as a WA resident you could ring up Gina Rheinhart and ask if she would fund a full page advertisement in all the major state dailies telling everyone what is going on ( she might get some help from other thinking ,wealthy individuals)


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Bulldust, I would store submissions on my website, and set up a page of links, but I hesitate because I don’t have time to read all the submissions. If a team of people could help to go through them just to filter out any offensive, rude, plagaristic or defamatory ones, I’m happy to host it.
      Jo


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Old woman of the north

    My submission was precise and explicit but it must have been deemed correspondence as I have received no acknowledgement at all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    1DandyTroll

    Oh, you mean, like NZ, EU, US, Canuck country, Russia, China, Mexico, Brazil, … and not to mention little Ireland who gave f-all about the vote, they just voted until everybody voted just right. :(


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    here’s another unpublished but excellent submission (picked up from Menzies House)
    http://andysrant.typepad.com/files/submission-clean-energy-australia-210911.pdf
    a bit of cut and paste

    Which sane human being, at any period throughout the 10,000 or so years our kind has spent on this
    planet since we emerged from the horrors of the last Ice Age, has wished for the climate to grow
    colder rather than warmer?
    None until now.
    We are the first one in all history to conquer reason and logic on such a massive scale that, as far as
    most of our policy-makers are concerned, black is now white and white is now black, warmth is
    something to be feared, cold something to be welcomed. Now were told abundance is something to
    be rejected and economic stagnation is something actively to be sought, reason and evidence is
    something to be shunned while frenzied emotionalism and cheap sentiment is something to be
    stoked and encouraged. Has mass hysteria broken out?
    I also never thought I’d see a government that wipes out its economy, shackles and fleeces its
    citizens and destroys its countryside in order to deal with a problem that doesn’t actually exist (aka H
    L Mencken’s imaginary hobgoblin).

    the author has a B.App.Sc (Geology).


    Report this

    00

  • #

    You have to wonder about the collective stupidity involved with all of this.
    Consider this.

    The Government would not have had any of this problem had they just published all 4500 of the submissions.

    It would be such a hugely long list of sometimes long pdf documents that (the average) person would see, and then not even bother to look at, because no one will meticulously read all 4500 submissions. They’ll probably look for their own if they made one, and then look at another couple of submissions.

    The average person would trawl through the 4 or 5 pages of one long submission, and then do the sums on how much time it might take to read through them all, and just give up cold.

    Instead, they publish a couple of hundred or so, and most of them, probably in favour, and then call all the rest of them just as correspondence, effectively, now buried.

    With such a short list, people will indeed look through most of them, see that some are indeed very short, and even indicating cluelessness, and that of itself has generated the negative feedback.

    That, of itself now causes the problem of perceived outrage.

    Some, like me, see the detailed long form submissions and think, well, I suppose after all mine was only just a short thing, and not really in that long form format, so I can understand in a way why it may not have ‘made the cut’.

    However, then you see that some of those now accepted submissions were in fact just very short ‘missives’, mainly in support, hence the outrage.

    I suspect that the fact that there were indeed 4500 submissions in all forms, and that barely a fraction of them were indeed accepted as ‘Submissions’ will not be reported by most of the media.

    The Government probably is under the impression that the ‘feigned outrage’ at the culling of the remainder is something that will ‘pass’ and all that effectively ‘goes on record’ is those few hundred that were accepted, hence, ‘being on the side of History’ people down the track will see that accepted list and think that the majority were in fact supportive of what the Government wanted to achieve.

    The story has now become, not those 4500 submissions, but the fact that a great percentage of them were left out.

    None of this would have happened had they just ‘accepted’ the lot, and then published them all.

    After all, no one is going to read them ALL.

    No matter who you vote for, a Politician always gets elected.

    Everything the current Government does just seems to confirm that they really are idiots, and not even ‘useful idiots’ at that.

    Can none of them think?

    The worst part about all this is that the vote is this Wednesday.

    Hanrahan indeed ‘got it right’.

    We will all be rooned.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Patrick

      Correction Tony.
      Perhaps no single INDIVIDUAL will read them all.
      However, as a project divided among, say, 50 or so people they could be evaluated and categorized. The example par excellence is how the numerous citations used by the IPCC were examined to see how many of them were NOT peer-reviewed. http://accessipcc.com/


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Hi Tony,

      I agree with you, all they have succeeded in doing is:

      1) insulting 4500 people, of which a significant proportion are now VERY aware that the government actively does not want to listen by their action;
      2) its very likely that a significant proportion of those people will not vote Labor come the next election – on average thats 30 voters per seat, not a lot but not to be ignored either;
      3) a proportion of those 4500 will now spend time informing others of the insult they have suffered…

      So, I applaud the government and their officials who, by one knee jerk act, have converted up to 4500 people (plus friends and family) against their cause – they truly are their own worst enemy and we must truly thank than for this.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Paul

      I don’t think that they used any discrimination at all in what they accepted/rejected. They just don’t care about any, really.

      I picked one to read and it was not all positive for the Government, especially near the end!

      Transcript and additional notes from Professor Ross Garnaut

      Mr TONY SMITH: Professor Garnaut, in your opening remarks, and I think Senator Pratt
      referred to this, you spoke a lot about democracy with respect to these bills. You are
      someone, I think you would say, who from your perspective looks at things as you see them.
      If you are talking about democracy, would you concede that these bills were not taken to the
      people at the last election and in fact that there is no mandate? I do not say that in a
      disrespectful way but, given the debate over the last few years, whilst you have made the
      statements you have made, in all consistency you would have to say that the government
      did not seek a democratic mandate.
      Prof. Garnaut: It is a matter of record. The government did not commit itself to these bills
      before the last election. Within our democratic arrangements it is not unusual for
      governments to respond to new circumstances by adopting new policies and they take
      responsibility for that at the following election. Under our Constitution under our democratic
      traditions, there is no exclusion of new policies for a government. The important thing is that
      these matters will be the subject of democratic judgment at an election.
      Mr TONY SMITH: Professor, you would concede that there have been reforms that have
      been effected with a mandate, big changes.
      Prof. Garnaut: Big changes with a mandate and big changes without a mandate.
      Mr TONY SMITH: And wouldn’t you concede, if you are being consistent, that when a Prime
      Minister says six days before an election that she will—
      CHAIR: No way!
      Mr TONY SMITH: No way?
      CHAIR: Off you go. No way! Thank you; my indulgence has been stretched beyond the limit.
      Mr TONY SMITH: So that’s all right. I mentioned the Prime Minister. That is a different story.
      CHAIR: Thank you. There is absolutely no relevance to the bills before us.
      Mr TONY SMITH: The Prime Minister has no relevance—so that is interesting.
      CHAIR: No. Professor Garnaut is appearing in a private capacity, and I did not say the
      Prime Minister had no relevance. The question you were asking had no—
      Mr TONY SMITH: That is a triumph of democracy, I would say.
      CHAIR: relevance. And maybe some people should go and look up what mandated politics
      actually means.
      Mr TONY SMITH: Yes, perhaps yourself, Madam Chair.

      Interesting, to say the least!

      Paul


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Paul

        Maybe the ‘Chair’ does need to look at her definition of Mandated Politics : –

        Mandate (politics)

        The concept of a government having a legitimate mandate to govern via the fair winning of a democratic election is a central idea of democracy. New governments who attempt to introduce policies that they did not make public during an election campaign are said to not have a legitimate mandate to implement such policies.
        Elections, especially ones with a large margin of victory, are often said to give the newly elected government or elected official a mandate to implement certain policies. Also, the period during which a government serves between elections is often referred to as a mandate and when the government seeks re-election it is said to be seeking a “new mandate”.
        In some languages, a ‘mandate’ can mean a parliamentary seat won in an election.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    MadJak

    REGIME CHANGE NOW!

    I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a government that listens to the people and is therefore listened to by the people.

    This illegitimate regime doesn’t deserve to be listened to by the people. They now have no moral authority whatsoever, IMO.

    They can whine all they like about not being able to communicate to us all they like. If they thought they were being ignored before this, well wait for it.

    I pledge to actively filter out anything said by any member of this current regime, or any other person who sympathises with them.

    I for one will go out of my way to not defend any of this governments actions even if I privately agree with them.

    I encourage all other people who care about having a participatory democracy to do the same.

    My BS Filter is on FULL and will remain so until this Regime is liquidated through the submissions they cannot simply pass off – votes at the next election.

    That is, unless they decide the next election is a conversation, that is!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Just more grist for the High Court challenge mill.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Let’s play what if.

    What if, come Wednesday, after all the speeches for and against, KRudd stands up and proposes a simple amendment to the carbon tax legislation to the effect that, if passed, it is not implemented until there is an international agreement for emissions control in place?

    The Libs would HAVE to support it, and it would be adopted, and KRudd would be hailed by a sizable chunk of the electorate as our “saviour” from this tax (at this time). (Big) business would flock to sing his accolades, as would the ABCFairfax crowd who always preferred him to Gillard.

    Such a move would be seen by all as an unofficial but nonetheless effective vote of no confidence in Gillard. The carbon legislation would be passed, complete with the amendment.

    Keeping in mind that KRudd is still more popular with the electorate than Gillard, Abott OR Turnbull, such a move would:

    A) – see KRudd back as PM
    B) – leave Abbott and the Liberals floundering in no-man’s land
    C) – rescue the Labor Party from the certain oblivion it currently faces.

    PM KRudd could fly off to Malaysia to “fix” the boat people problem, then swing over to Indonesia to “clean up” the live meat trade fiasco, then pop in at Bali and secure the release of the kid on drug charges (sweetened by some kind of deal with the Indonesians while he is Jakarta). He could even bring the boy home with him on the Prime Ministerial jet.

    I can just see the photo-op now of KRudd emerging from the aircraft at the top of the stairs, his arm paternally and protectively around the boy’s shoulder. KRudd and the Labor Party soar in the polls, while Abbott and the Libs plummet.

    In desperation the Libs toss Abbott and re-install Turnbull.

    A couple of days later Queen Liz arrives, and KRudd gets ten days of the best publicity money can’t buy. Both the Women’s Weekly and Woman’s Day bring out special “Royal Visit” editions with 1, 276 photos each of Queen Liz opening and closing things, all with a smiling KRudd close by her side.

    KRudd waves goodbye to Queen Liz on October 29, and immediately calls a snap election for the second weekend in December.

    Now here’s the kicker: It doesn’t matter who wins, we end up with a government that can claim a “mandate” to introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme, led by a PM committed to implementing an ETS, and with the legislation already passed and ready to go to the Greens-controlled Senate.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Damn you memoryvault! Your scary (because it could turn out to be so true) scenario is going to give me nightmares now …


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Tom

      Damn it, Vault, that is close to the hypothetical of the year!!! It’s just that we can’t afford it – another three years of this and the country would be broke.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        “– another three years of this and the country would be broke.”

        Applying the principle that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one, then yes, that is quite possibly the intended outcome.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I tip my hat to you – that is a very nice piece of analysis.

          The only criticism I can find (and believe me, I looked) is that you assume Gillard is just going to sit there, having female vapours, while all of this happens. We both know that the chances of that happening are zero.

          She will split the party rather than have this happen, and if she gets the numbers in caucus, Rudd will be road kill. Mind you, it is a big “if”.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    GrazingGoat66

    Add my name to the list of those who submitted what has now been categorised as “correspondence”. Compared to some of the pro-CO2 gibberish that was accepted as a submission, my 5 paragraph tome read like bloody “War and Peace”.

    Still I’m hardly surprised with this administration’s track record of incompetence and complete and utter disregard for the population’s wishes. This next federal election could well make the NSW election result look like a close run thing with the way that the alliance is heading….and wouldn’t that be a shame….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    ‘I reject the premise that generated these bills’ is never going to be considered as a policy submission.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Patrick

      Tristan @28
      ‘I reject the premise that generated these bills’ is never going to be considered as a policy submission.

      But
      ‘I’m in favour of the Government’s policy’ will ALWAYS be accepted as a submission notwithstanding the fact that Treasury’s modelling of the carbon tax is based on the erroneous ASSUMPTION that all major economies will coordinate and synchronise introduction of similar schemes.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    Rick Bradford

    The Government would not have had any of this problem had they just published all 4500 of the submissions.

    True, but Lefties squirm at being seen to be mistrusted and simply opposed. Their overwhelming instinct is to try to bury this rebuff and pretend it never happened.

    They remind me of a 2-year-old child which clamps its hands to its eyes in the belief that if it can’t see you, then you can’t see it.

    Similar levels of emotional maturity are at work with the submissions scheme.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Might I suggest Jo email Anna Burke (the Chair of the committee) and ask for an “official” explanation of the criteria used to reclassify so many “submissions” as mere “correspondence”?

    anna.burke.mp@aph.gov.au

    Then print the reply here.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I was nearly going to waste my time with a submission, then I read the one from Dr Evans. Now that is what I call a submission.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I hope not too many of you will mind if I allow my Doctor Smith’ wallpaper gene to come to the fore for a few minutes.

    I was actually looking forward to the publishing of submissions, because one of them that I knew would be there, and would be critical of the Government’s legislation was the exact one I really wanted to see, so when that (albeit shortened) list was published, the first one I went to was the one I was indeed looking for, that of Macquarie Generation, owners of both Bayswater and Liddell Power Stations in NSW, in fact producing 40% of NSW total power consumption. I knew that submission would be there, because had the Government left it out, the outrage would have actually been, no feigned, but actual, and from every quarter.

    What I wanted to read was the submission, not for what was said, because I knew it would be critical, but, having an understanding of electrical power generation, I wanted to see if there was any ‘read between the lines’ code.

    So, while this Comment may be long, I would like to point out a few things from that submission, and keep in mind, they have to at least appear diplomatic, full in the knowledge that not many people will be able to decipher what is in fact ‘between the lines’.

    So, let’s look at just some of the most pertinent things from their 5 page submission.

    The new carbon price scheme will have serious financial consequences for our
    business. Macquarie Generation will incur the largest financial loss of any company
    in Australia. Unlike most other businesses in all industries covered by the scheme, we
    are not eligible for any form of compensation or assistance. The impact on us will be
    immediate and damaging.

    Note how the Government ran with their compensation package meme, all of that going to ‘some’ of the community, and some to what they told us were certain Companies perceived to be most at risk from the impact. Note in the above, Macquarie Generation (40% of all consumed power in NSW) is not eligible for any compensation, even though they supply what is an absolute essential of life, and that is not overstating it in any way. Think of how you grumbled the last time you lost power, and then tell me electrical power is not an essential of life.

    Our business currently spends more than $300 million a year on coal. The carbon
    ” price of $23 per tonne of emissions will mean we have an annual carbon bill starting
    at approximately $600 million, and rising each and every year. No company can
    afford a near tripling of costs wìthout taking a hit to its bottom line.

    Both plants consume around 15 million tons of coal a year, hence, they pay around $20 per ton for steaming coal. Doesn’t mean much really, (to the average reader anyway) but now the cost of that steaming coal will rise, and because there will be a perception that they could sell that coal overseas and get a much better price. Luckily Macquarie Generation has their own coal right at the site of both plants. Note also the impact of the cost on those CO2 emissions coming in at $600 Million and rising yearly.

    We expect that customers will pay a significant share of our $600 million carbon bill.
    Our modelling shows a pass-through rate to electricity prices of between 60%to 80%
    of the $23 carbon price. As noted above, the remainder is a direct reduction in our
    profitability. As the carbon price increases each year, our profits will fall even faster.
    What is not paid for by the New South Wales taxpayers through a lower dividend will
    be paid for by the community via increased electricity bills.

    So, while most of the impost will be fed through top consumers, the Company will still take a ‘hit’ of around $200 Million, uncompensated from anywhere. There is some between the lines code here in the one sentence … ‘as the price increases, profits will fall’ … It could conceivably get to the point where bean counters’ will tell them it’s cheaper to close than keep sinking like this. (Now reconsider that 40% OF NSW consumed power.) That same NSW State Government is the only shareholder, so a $200 million hit (uncompensated from anywhere) to the Company is a direct hit to the NSW Government, hence the people of NSW.

    What I have said above is confirmed in the submission by this.

    Overall, our asset value could fall by $1.5 billion to $2 billion. The economic lives of our
    stations will be under threat.

    This is code for no Maquarie Generation Bayswater and Liddell, then a 40% cut to NSW consumed power, which tops out at then of next year anyway, as I have indicated with the image at this link.

    NSW Electricity Consumption Demand Master

    The Government is safe in posting this submission at its site because (a) there would be outrage if they didn’t, (b) the ‘average reader’ will see it as (to be expected) speaking against the proposed Legislation, and (c) (most importantly) the Government is confident that the average reader will have no real idea just what is ‘actually’ being said in this submission, hence it can just be passed off as ‘understandably’ a dissenting point of view only.

    There actually is code hidden here between the lines.

    That code is a warning that if this legislation does come into effect, then Maquarie Generation (40% of NSW consumed electrical power) is actually considering cutting back on its power delivery in an effort to minimise their losses.

    Now, from that Maquarie Generation is caught between Scylla and Charybdis. If they cut back on their power production, the Government can run the line along two fronts.

    1. Harumph! Look at this petulant Company, trying to get its own way by being petulant like this, your typical money grubbing big business corporate cowboy using what they have as a weapon to get their own way.

    2. See how these ‘derdy polluders’ will say anything in desperation to keep polluting our pristine environment.

    I know this has been long, and some of will have skipped it because of the ubiquitous wallpaper, but compare this 5 page submission to the small and basically clueless submission Joanne highlights in the main body of her Post.

    A submission like this one from Maquarie generation is worth reading, not for what it says, but for what it doesn’t say.

    Sorry it’s been so long, and for the block quotes, but something like this is in fact important.

    Link to the full Maquarie Generation Submission

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Trigge

      No apology necessary.

      It’s the details such as these that the pro-tax people don’t see either. It won’t seem to be such a good idea when they are directly affected.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Tel

      Tony, the objective of a Carbon Tax is to reduce the amount of carbon being consumed. It’s not a matter of Macquarie “threatening” to reduce supply… that’s exactly what you would expect to happen when a price is put onto carbon. The cascade of effects is that electricity prices go up, coal fired generators take in more revenue for burning less carbon, but this is balanced against paying out more money in tax, and thus other “clean” energy alternatives get to play in a higher priced market so they can compete despite less efficient technology.

      Someone somewhere is going to end up with less than they had to begin with, simply because we will be producing less under a low-carbon scenario. It only remains to see who misses out. There’s no mysterious secret code, it’s a fundamental principle of what is being attempted here.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Tel,
        with respect, I disagree.

        Maquarie is not ‘threatening’ to reduce supply, and again, as I mentioned, see the perception I mentioned at Point 1 near the bottom of my comment.

        The ‘generators’ will not be ‘taking’ in more revenue for burning less coal.

        To produce the electricity they do, they burn a very carefully worked out amount of coal, as that is the biggest outlay, their cost of the coal.

        If they burn less coal, they produce less electricity, and they get less money for less electricity.

        Renewables CANNOT compete, under any circumstances.

        Look again at the link to the image I provided, and see that NSW effectively ‘runs out’ of power at the end of next year. If a Company that produces 40% of all NSW power produces less power, then you do the Math.

        That’s not a ‘threat’. That’s an actual end result.

        The body which misses out is the Public, who will suffer electricity rationing or blackouts.

        No Threat. Just the facts of the matter.

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Streetcred

          What’s more is that the annual increase in the TAX has an exponential effect … it won’t take long for the price of electricity from Maquarie to double then triple or rather for Maquarie to stop generating. 40% Of NSW generating capacity, jobs, NSW government dividend, etc … GONE!

          Labor has never really got to grips with the math of anything.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Tel

          If they burn less coal, they produce less electricity, and they get less money for less electricity.

          If the wholesale price goes up, they certainly can make more money by selling less electricity. Just a matter of how much it goes up. Given that it’s only 5c pkwh average right now, there’s scope for it to double, maybe a bit more on that.

          Renewables CANNOT compete, under any circumstances.

          Sure they can compete, under the circumstance that the market is rigged, the wholesale price is a lot higher and they buyers have very few alternative options (err, basically no alternative whatsoever). The wholesale averages are easily checked on the AEMO website, I’m expecting them to double before the 2013 election (presuming we don’t get an early election). Let’s see who can guess closer. Under or over 10c pkwh by next election?

          http://www.aemo.com.au/data/aggPD_2011to2015.html

          (remember they list in megawatt hour, so divide by 1000 to get a value comparable with your bill so you can see the markup)

          The body which misses out is the Public, who will suffer electricity rationing or blackouts.

          Well we live in what is still the vestige of a capitalist society so I expect the typical approach to “rationing” will be higher retail electricity prices. They might attempt to bring in a quota system. The federal government might attempt to impose price controls on the state governments, I think a bit of hardship will do Australians a world of good. Isn’t it strange to see that the party that blew out $200 billion debt in “stimulus” spending is going to bring the dreaded austerity down on us?


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Tristan

      Coal-fired power stations will take a financial hit? If they didn’t, it’d be a pretty strange emissions tax!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Klingon

        The power stations will pass the ENORMOUS COST BURDEN down to each and every Australian, even you Sunshine!!

        On;y a FOOL would advocate higher tax and higher cost of living, based on a FRAUD and a LIE!!!!!!!


        Report this

        00

  • #
    catamon

    I pledge to actively filter out anything said by any member of this current regime, or any other person who sympathises with them.

    Well MadJack, that is probably the best display of head under the blankets fingers in the ears tantrum that i have ever heard of. So no matter what they say, on any matter, your not listening?? My eight year old has a more mature outlook than that.

    As far as the committee and submissions goes, so what? If they had published all 4500 submissions it wouldn’t be making a difference to the overall outcome. According to the committee there have been changes made based on stakeholder input.

    http://climatechange.gov.au/government/submissions/~/media/government/submissions/cel/CEL-LegislativeChangesSinceExposureDraft-20111007-PDF.pdf

    Now that doesn’t mean the legislation is being scrapped which is the outcome that i suspect most posters here would have liked. But, the issue of at hand in these bills has been debated and done over so many times in the last few years, and with ALL the major parties in Australian politics having gone to the last TWO elections with policies to tackle CO@ emissions it would be a major betrayal of the electorate for that to have happened.

    The legislation now before Parliament has been thrashed out over MONTHS by the multi party committee. That was probably the time to be making submissions to the actual body putting it together. But, those opposing it, primarily the Lib/Nat opposition wouldn’t participate. They wanted to leave themselves room for playing politics rather than representing their constituents. Its decision time NOW on this, and though i know you don’t like it, those who actually want action have the numbers in the Parliament to make it happen, and have followed the legitimate due process.

    This illegitimate regime doesn’t deserve to be listened to by the people.

    To me this is i think one of the most telling parts of your rant. It expresses the deep refusal to accept the proper, legitimate, and lawful outcome of the last election by some sections of the electorate that is really at the heart of this. There seems to be a real desire out there for majority Govt, even though the current minority Govt has been working well, and getting things done. Its very strongly arguable that the current HoR is actually more democratically representative than any we have had before because we have more than the usual one party rule.

    But, hey, whats the point of this post? You’ve declared yourself locked by your own frustrations into the echo chamber. Be comfy there and come out to play again late 2013.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Gee catamon,
      why do I think your comment here can be summed up in one line.

      Nyah nyah, nyah nyah nyah! We won!

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Bush bunny

        I sent in one, but I didn’t address the specific legislation.
        Should have, particularly the tax on diesel and how they intend to ‘curb methane emissions from livestock’.

        They sent me a reply to say they had received my email,(and read it?) but only those who addressed the specific legislation would be published.

        Anyone else get a similar reply?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Stylo

          Yeah, that’s what they sent me too. I too was not specific in my objections. They said it would be taken as correspondence and not published.

          With today’s information technology there is surely no excuse for this. What’s a few extra kilobytes in a web server?


          Report this

          00

      • #
        catamon

        When boiled down to essentials i agree it could appear that way. But i also didn’t bleat, wail, and cry for a new election at the times when we lost. That’s what so annoys me about the pathetic ELECTION NOW meme. Its just this continuing dirge of we wus wobbed!! Whaaaa!

        The Govt has a legislative program. They are implementing it and come 2013 they will probably only be judged on the current state of the economy, unemployment and interest rates regardless of how anything else they have done pans out.

        And you never know, we may have an actual opposition by then, with dare i say it, actual policies rather than the dysfunctional freak show of media spin dependent incompetents that we have now.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Streetcred

          That’s one hell of an experiment by an illegitimate government based upon lies of CGAW cult religion.

          The tide of considered opinion is strongly against this government and it should take notice and act accordingly. To press on with the Carbon Dioxide Tax is to be morally bankrupt. But that is to be expected from ‘watermelons’.

          I had a friend who got sucked into the vortex of how much money he could syphon out of CAGW and the carbon dioxide tax cult. So what is your financial promise for talking up this ‘government policy’?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            catamon

            So what is your financial promise for talking up this ‘government policy’?

            What, there is money to be made in this for the likes of lil ole me???

            Much spanking happening at the next Collective meeting i can assure you, as i have not been informed of that!!! Hmmmmm… i reckon is that shifty looking dude Adam…….


            Report this

            00

    • #
      J.H.

      Legitimate?…. Gillard and Co are going to introduce legislation that will cost taxpayers billions to repeal… It has been designed to be deliberately punitive to remove…. This is against all convention, not to mention constitutionally unsound. No previous government can bind the citizenry to something they do not wish as a majority to participate in….. What part of that don’t you understand Catamon.

      What Gillard is doing is using political power to override the will of the people… She incites violence by her very misuse of power. She has brought the entire system into disrepute by her lies and deceit before the election… “There will be no Carbon Tax under a government that I lead.”

      You may pretend due processes Catamon…. but you know it is not so.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        catamon

        She incites violence by her very misuse of power.

        What violence? Surely you are not the kind of rabid twit that would be suggesting in public on a respectable blog that violence has any place in our political system, or that violence against a person or persons with whom you disagree on policy grounds is justifiable in any way?

        That’s more the province of the ignorant talk back shock jocks and their fans surely?


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Madjak

      catamon,

      Speaking of people not listening, catamon shows up.

      My BS filter is on with you also. You should’ve saved those poor electrons. My BS filter kicked in after the first few sentences. It’s now on with anything starting with catamon.

      When one party to a conversation stops listening, the conversation is over. This regime has gone out of their way to stop listening.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Hey Catamon, at least Madjack is honest about his strategy…..


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Darren

    As someone who did get their submission published – I must point out that I was not notified that it was by the government or the office. I only found out when I saw the list link on Andrew Bolt’s site. I’m surprised mine got through.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David from Brisbane

    Are you really interested in stopping oppression? Or just oppression of your particular political views?

    By the way that was rhetorical, a lot like most of what you write.

    Feel free to “suppress” and “censor” my comment.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    DaleC

    My submission (which got the stock reply) is short enough to post entire:

    Madam/Sir,

    Leaving aside the facts that

    i) This bill and its 17 corollaries will not make a measurable difference to the world’s climate
    ii) Many billions of dollars will be sent to highly questionable parties overseas where much of it will be defrauded, as per the European experience
    iii) ETS schemes export jobs to low-compliance regimes, and thus are self-defeating on their own terms if the only intention is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

    I take particular offence at two points:

    i) The short time allowed for public comment is contemptuous in the extreme. It is not possible for well over a thousand pages of draft legislation to be vetted and considered for unforeseen consequences and implications in one week. This is tantamount to driving at high speed off-road with no headlights on a moonless night.
    ii) The political and sophistic rhetoric of redefining a deemed excess of carbon dioxide as “carbon pollution” has been enshrined in the legislation itself. This phrase occurs 72 times. This is subverting the legislative process, reducing it to an exercise in propaganda. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than water or oxygen. Omitting ‘dioxide’ is a cheap trick to confuse the matter with suggestions of particulate soot. Truly shameful.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Australian Government doesn’t give a toss what you think [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.H.

    I was going to write a submission…. But then a wave of weariness swept across me…. I stared a the blinking cursor and said. Stuff it, they won’t accept it anyway. What’s the use of spending several hours writing, collating footnotes, cut and pasting quotes and statistics, delving into the stupid “Clean Energy Future” legislation and getting annoyed, etc

    Well after reading some of the accepted submissions….. I should have just sent a bluddy blog response and called it a submission… It would have been rejected because it wasn’t politically acceptable and I could’ve joined the club and complained bitterly. I would have had the right to whinge.

    Damn it. It doesn’t pay to be lazy or pessimistic…… sigh.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      J.H.
      that’s exactly how I felt when I was quickly hammering up my, er, submission correspondence.

      Huh! What’s the point. This won’t see the light of day.

      Now, however, I actually perceive it may have achieved something of a minor nature. It joins the 94% that were not considered, and that of itself achieves something, because when it all boils down, it shows that Government are only taking into account 6% of what the people took time to write in response to what they themselves called for.

      And 94% – If around 300 were accepted and 4500 not accepted, that is around that 6% mark.

      Pretty large rejection factor in my opinion.

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    the MSM doesn’t care a toss about us either. remember Babcock & Brown:

    Wikipedia: Babcock & Brown
    Babcock & Brown was a global investment and advisory firm based in Sydney, Australia that went into liquidation in 2009. It was best known in financial markets for structured finance deals. The company had at its peak 28 offices and over 1,500 employees worldwide…
    The company went into voluntary administration in March 2009 after unsecured bondholders voted against a debt restructuring plan that would value their claims at 0.1 cents in the dollar. The rejection rendered the company insolvent because it could not meet interest payments…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babcock_%26_Brown

    the Wikipedia entry states “some aspects of B&B’s business, particularly the infrastructure related activities were well-founded and have re-emerged from the B&B collapse. These include B&B’s successful wind energy business – now called Infigen and listed on the ASX, Prime Infrastructure which was acquired by Brookfield”…

    here is ABC doing Infigen a good turn recently by touting a plan for the public to get financially involved in B&B’s (now Infigen’s) Jonathon Upson’s new wind turbine scheme:

    29 Sept: ABC: Turbine sale proposed for new wind farm
    Infigen Energy is seeking public comment on its plan to establish a wind farm cooperative that would allow members of the public to buy single turbines at its Flyers Creek Wind Farm.
    The development manager, Jonathon Upson, says it is a chance for the community to be directly involved in the project…
    “So investors, people in the community and neighbours to the wind farm, can actually buy a share of a wind turbine, and then that turbine, all the profits from that turbine, will then be returned to the cooperative and then distributed to their members as dividends.”
    Mr Upson says it is one way for the local economy to benefit from the project.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-29/turbines-for-sale-at-new-wind-farm/3034984/?site=centralwest&section=news

    further reminder of B&B:

    27 Oct 2008: SMH: Paul Sheehan: Big boys’ greed pulls us all down
    It could be worse. Macquarie Bank, known as “the millionaires factory” for the exorbitant rewards its executives paid themselves, was savaged for years by scathing assessments by analysts aghast at the size and secrecy of its fee structure. Now the bill has come due, paid for by its shareholders. Macquarie Group’s share price has plunged 71 per cent from a peak of $98.50 last year, to $28.75 on Friday.
    Even more blood has been shed at its reckless imitator, Babcock & Brown, whose market value has been destroyed since it peaked last year at $33.90. It closed at $1.40 on Friday, having lost 96 per cent of its market value and 100 per cent of its reputation…
    http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/paul-sheehan/australias-richest-man-youre-having-a-laugh-/2008/10/26/1224955851150.html

    so does Infigen look like a good prospect for punters now?

    31 Aug: SMH: Brian Robins: Infigen ‘in the black’ in two years
    WIND power group Infigen’s financial outlook remains clouded by the continuing low wholesale price of electricity, with little chance of any improvement in the year ahead.
    As a result, its shares remain near the record low of 24.5¢ touched recently, closing steady yesterday at 25.5¢…
    In the year ahead, commissioning of the Woodlawn project will give revenue a further lift, but it will be several years before the group’s finances have any prospect of turning around.
    Debt remains at twice the level of shareholder funds, with interest payments of $87.9 million in the latest year alone a continuing constraint on its financial performance.
    A further $250 million in debt is to be repaid over the next two years, after which the balance sheet will still remain stretched.
    For most investors, Infigen remains a punt on the effect of the federal government’s proposed carbon tax, which is to start at $23 a tonne, coupled with the prospect of rises in the price of renewable energy certificates.
    The planned carbon tax introduction in the second half of next year is expected to boost wholesale electricity prices, which may have a flow-through effect on Infigen’s revenues.
    ”In two years, we will be in profit – net profit after tax,” Miles George, Infigen’s managing director, said yesterday…
    The price of wholesale electricity is expected to rise to almost the same extent as the planned $23 carbon price.
    By around 2014, much of the present surfeit of renewable electricity certificates will have been absorbed, setting the scene for a turnaround in Infigen’s fortunes.
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/infigen-in-the-black-in-two-years-20110830-1jk2u.html

    isn’t that just dandy for us consumers?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Since Australia is being physically gouged for coal and gas at the moment, with not a heed to anything but revenue, is it fair to say this green Labor government has an atrocious conservation record? And one could say as much of a few green state governments. Maybe Tony Windsor has shown them how it’s possible for modern, environmentally-aware politicians to get on very, very well with Big Coal.

    Less importantly – since CAGW is a blatant fiction – this government is presiding over a massive increase in the very “emissions” which are supposed to be at the core of its policy. Thanks to local industrial stagnation and high energy costs, our emissions are being emitted in China, Korea and elsewhere; but until it can be demonstrated that China, Korea etc have a separate atmosphere to that of Australia, it is fair to talk of insincerity.

    As to the scale of GetUp/Labor insincerity, think of a Borgia pope boozing and relaxing with mistresses after a hard day’s piety. About right, don’t you think?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Trigge

    Given that he is in favour of the legislation, it was interesting to see Prof. Garnout’s submission included:

    There is no chance of success unless all substantial countries—first of all the developed countries with high greenhouse gas emissions per person—do their fair share in a global effort.

    As the highest emission countries such as the US, China and China are not doing their ‘fair share’, he is saying we should NOT go ahead as ‘there is no chance of success’.

    Thank you, Prof. Garnout.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Llew Jones

      Garnaut has used the tricksters unit, emissions per person, which by a convoluted logic lets rapidly industrialising nations like China off the hook.

      This really is a unit of trickery designed to fool the thoughtless as well as those ignorant of one of the basic premises of GHG science. viz it is the total worldwide emissions of CO2 that may (or may not depending on the interaction of Earth’s oceans/biosphere with atmospheric CO2) be contributing to the present increase in its atmospheric concentration of about 2ppm per year.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    You see, where pat says what I have highlighted below, this is a concept that most people do not realise.(says Tony, again effectively going off topic)

    WIND power group Infigen’s financial outlook remains clouded by the continuing low wholesale price of electricity, with little chance of any improvement in the year ahead.

    The wholesale price of electricity is the extrapolated total cost of everything about the plant being taken into consideration, and then dividing the KWH generated over the (theoretical) life of the Plant into that total all up cost.

    A Wind plant just cannot survive without Government subsidies. (any renewable in fact)

    Currently, with everything taken into account, Wind power is 7 to 10 times more expensive than coal fired power, which can sell its power to the grid for around 3 cents per KWH.

    So, even at the lower 7 times the cost, wind power costs 21 cents to generate, and they have to sell it to the grid at that price to just break even.

    That 21 cents per KWH is currently around the same price as the providers on sell it to consumers, and that’s residential consumers, as Commerce and Industry pay even less than that for their electricity.

    So, for the provider to keep any sort of profit margin, then it has to purchase its electricity (wholesale) from the cheapest source (coal fired power at that 3 cents per KWH)

    A large scale wind plant of around 100+ wind towers over the life of the plant will produce in comparison to a large scale coal fired plant (a) only one sixth of the Gross Power (wind turbine operating at 100% of the time) (b) will only supply what power it actually generates (theoretically) for one third of the time, and (c) the plant only has half the life span of a coal fired plant. So, theoretically over the life of the wind plant it will only supply one thirty sixth of the power, or around 2.75% of the power for the grid to purchase from it, hence the astronomical cost of wind power electricity.

    In nearly every case, besides the up front subsidy, part of the operating covenant is the Government will also subsidise the SALE of electricity wholesale to the grid in the amount typically of one half.

    So, while the electricity costs 21 cents to generate, the Govt will pay 10.5 cents, so the price is in some way at least partially competitive with coal fired’s 3 cents per KWH.

    So, when a wind plant, or for that fact any of the renewables say they support a price being placed on CO2 emissions, it has absolutely nothing to do with the environment. They want coal fired power’s wholesale price to increase to make their power look (slightly) more attractive for providers to buy.

    Now, as you can see from this, it’s painfully obvious that the more renewables that ‘come on stream’, then the cost of wholesale electicity (the average) will rise considerably, and for providers to maintain any form of profit margin, then the retail price of electricity will also HAVE to rise considerably, now a double whammy because the in full cost of the CO2 tax is also passed to consumers, added on top of the increase from those renewable plants.

    If you seriously think renewables will keep their price low out of altruism, then that already oversold bridge gains even more potential buyers.

    Again, sorry to go off topic as per usual, but, as always, what needs to be highlighted is the real reasons behind all this, and there’s only one.

    Money.

    Our Money.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      val majkus

      talking about money:

      Winston Smith has been collecting data from the Australian Office of Financial Management as to Australian government debt. This is the latest position

      Total Commonwealth Government Securities on Issue – $211,392m consisting of:
      Treasury Bonds – $181,793m
      Treasury Indexed Bonds – $14,379m
      Treasury Notes – $15,200m
      Other Securities – $20m
      As at 7 October 2011
      This is $8 Billion over the last four weeks. Where the hell is it going? This is getting scary as shit.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        val, I’ve been watching the AOFM for two years. Over 40% of the debt matures after 2016. Labor have built into the budget a deficit of around $10B a year!

        The Reserve Bank take up of Bonds and Notes has been virtually zero. Look up the Reserve Bank site and you’ll find that they are basically insolvent. In fact the AOFM had to lend the RBA billions to keep it from going into the negative.

        Talk about poison pills!


        Report this

        00

  • #
    wes george

    It’s all good to expose bald-face corruption of the democracy process, but I’m suffering from outrage fatigue.

    I read this report on Bolt’s blog and yawned, well, whadidya expect? For the “Labor/Greens- dominated Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future” to publish 50-to-1 public submissions AGIANST their fanatical power-mad policies to expand statist control over every aspect of our lives? That would be the honest, ethical and rationally enlightened thing to do, character traits utterly alien to elitist Green power politics.

    Or maybe you thought the committee might report to the Gillard government the public outrage over the carbon tax is so great that perhaps a vote on it should be postponed? That would be the pragmatic and intelligent thing to do—again character traits not usually associated with millenarian Green evangelism.

    So let’s face it, folks. The Greens are partly right–we are living in the End Times. Only it’s not an ecological End Times, but a socio-political End Times.

    Today the Orwellian Ministry for Climate Change put out a paper warning that snow will vanish from the Snowy Mountains sometime before 2050. Yawn… That’s what a Ministry for Climate Change is for! Duh.— to promote fear and loathing of not just the future, but of ourselves as a rational confident people up to dealing with the challenges (and vast opportunities) of our future. Why? So that we will become so cowed we will eventually relinquish our autonomy to an “expert’ credentialed class of unelected technocrats and institutional elites with barely a bleat. This power-mad government would turn us into sheep to be shorn, rather than citizens to be represented.

    The Green/Labor coalition is facing its own End Times whenever the inevitable wheels of democracy are allowed to roll again. So, it’s in their interest to thwart not just the coming election at every opportunity, but to literally undermine the democratic process as an institution…from smashing free expression by enforcing laws that makes arguments which “offend” others illegal, to setting up an entire ministry devoted to the propagation of what amounts to a state-religion. The weaker our civil liberties and our access to unfiltered information the better for the “intellectuals” who would would be our herders and shearers, rather than our agent and voice, to dominate us.

    We have been totally disrespected. The question—which they have forced—is are YOU a citizen of Australia or are YOU a sheep waiting in the yard for a shear and then the slaughter.

    The political stakes have never been higher, and not just for Australians, but for all free nations. For this same battle between free citizens and expanding anti-democratic elitist technocratic power is also coming to a head in the US and Europe.

    Labor-Green government will use any means necessary to achieve its end.

    The End Game has begun.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      catamon

      Wes, if you didn’t like the report that’s cool. You can read the dissenting one.

      Not as though there are any surprises, but its a good reiteration of the std talking points. Oh and since its from the coalition it also has, Unions BOO!

      Its like they just cant help themselves.

      http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jscacefl/report/Coalition.pdf


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Popeye

        Catamon,

        What I’m REALLY going to enjoy is seeing what loud mouthed and smug comments you post here in LESS THAN 2 YEARS TIME.

        My, how time flies.

        Bet we don’t see you here or anywhere (or your socialist mates) FOR A VERY LONG TIME HENCE following the next (very soon/upcoming) federal election.

        Oh, it’s going to be “beautiful in it’s ugliness”!!

        Cheers,


        Report this

        00

        • #
          catamon

          We’ll see Pop. There really isn’t anything that would cause an election on the horizon baring a by election in a marginal ALP seat. If the agreements made in 2010 are adhered to we know the election will be late 2013.

          If the ALP got stupid and put Rudd back in then it may come sooner, but that’s not a given and the whole Rudd Restoration thing is looking more and more like a media beat up. They were certainly frantic about it today.

          It’s even looking more and more like they will have the numbers for the Pokies mandatory pre-commitment before May, and a defeat for the Govt in the HoR on the Migration Act changes this week is not something the Govt will fall over regardless of the media hyperventilation going on.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Sean McHugh

          I have spent time going back through several of Jo’s blogs reading the warmists’ responses. The above juxtaposition of Wes’ coherent composition and Catamon’s reply, provides a stark and representative example of the sort of debate contributions that one expects from those of the carbon faith.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Paul

        Well I think that any Australian Citizen would be well advised to read that Minority Report.

        It has one fatal error, though, it assumes that there is a problem with atmospheric carbon dioxide that needs to be remedied. Other than that it is a good insight into the inner workings of a political process that has ceased to be representative and into the inner workings of the Labour Unions which likewise no longer represent the workers.

        Paul


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      how is the evolutionary biology reading coming along Wes? It does make me wonder what other facts you’ve mangled with fiction.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Helen Armstrong

      Wes, the Ministry for Climate Change Report into the future lack of snow in the Snowys is classic ‘Lets justify our position by writing a paper that justifies our position.”

      Bollocks. As you say, Yawn.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    Pinging John Brookes!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard A

    As a professional, I was extremely peeved to receive my Dorothy Dix email response and outraged at the arrogant treatment of electronic submissions, having last year presented Paperless e-surveying with Mr Laptop Surveyor at the FIG world conference.

    Furthermore I would suggest that the snail mail scribes were welcomed, as they most likely would not have the electronic resources to provide them with the plethora of current published material for and against global warming, cooling or climate change.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tim

    Our PM made two big climate policies-the Citizens’ Assembly (never happened),and her bedrock promise that there would be no carbon tax(ignored).

    Did we really think the submissions would be anything more than more hot political air? The politics are settled, after all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    George Orwells “1984″ character, Emmanuel Goldstein is becoming a reality. The hidden hand is bringing to fruition the age long plan – nothing in politics happens by accident.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael

    Aren’t these committees covered by any laws? If not then its illegal. If so which ones. Their actions maybe illegal. Where are the Australian Federal Police- who don’t enforce federal laws?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    another waste of money – but hey, who cares about money when it comes from the taxpayers?

    10 Oct: SMH: AAP: Ed Logue: NBN ‘most extreme’ broadband plan: EIU
    Labor’s national broadband network (NBN) strategy has been branded the “most extreme” example of government intervention in high speed broadband planning in the world.
    A report by the UK-based Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) makes the claim based on the amount of money being spent on the national network, saying such expenditure is linked to greater government intervention in owning and operating broadband networks, thereby reducing competition…
    Australia’s plan was also the most expensive in the world to implement, with the cost of providing broadband per household at $3455, followed by Gulf state of Qatar at $2299 and Greece at $1167.
    For the US and UK the cost per household was estimated at $159 and $57, respectively…
    The government’s approach eliminated infrastructure-based competition, the EIU said.
    “This is in strong contrast to countries such as Denmark and Switzerland, whose governments prefer to facilitate competitive market driven-market rollout of technology-neutral solutions through regulation and industry facilitation,” it added.
    The EIU also forecast the cost of the NBN at 6.34 per cent of annual government budget revenue, followed by Greece at 2.44 per cent.
    Only nine of 33 governments were planning to spend more than one per cent of annual fiscal revenue for their broadband proposals…
    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/nbn-most-extreme-broadband-plan-eiu-20111010-1lh7i.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John M

    This is a complete disgrace and shows a complete lack of respect for the Australian people and our democracy. We are literally having this tax inserted like a large unwanted suppository.

    The years ahead will now be of very special interest as our economic performance and business confidence will now be closely linked to overseas climate policy. For example, future news of (say)China delaying action would immediately see our currency dumped and have investors scrambling. And we would be stuck in a big hole due to the deliberate non-reversible nature of the legislation. As more years pass and the impacts of the policy bite further it will act like a cancer on the remaining bits of the economy.

    “But, even if climate change is real and action is needed why implement the policy in this non-reversible manner ?”

    This is indeed a mystery, especially since there is now only a very slim chance other countries will push ahead with carbon dioxide reduction schemes given the dismal long-term global economic outlook. It could be decades before other coutries (if any) are brave enough to join us down this sink hole.

    How we manage this mess in the years ahead will certainly be the challenge of our next generations.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      catamon

      “But, even if climate change is real and action is needed why implement the policy in this non-reversible manner ?”

      If climate change is real and action is needed why would you want to reverse it??


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        Short answer:

        It isn’t and it isn’t, so at some point we will need to reverse it.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        catamon

        In fact, the ETS is reversible. All it takes is the political will. It would be a politically very difficult thing to do, not only from the “property rights” perspective, but more so from the tax/pension changes that are coming in associated with the ETS. Getting rid of it mean hurt to people that any politician is loath to get off side.

        But then again, getting it in is a very politically difficult thing to do, and up until now, many people would have though it impossible. Too much short term self interest in politics and the electorate. Still, here we are.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          Cancelling the ill-fated NBN would go a long way towards filling the short-fall.

          Not that it will happen. The Libs are just as committed to the introduction of an ETS as Labor and the Greens. They’re just not being honest about it.


          Report this

          00

        • #

          But then again, getting [the carbon tax] in is a very politically difficult thing to do, and up until now, many people would have though it impossible. Too much short term self interest in politics and the electorate. Still, here we are.

          Good point Catamon. To get rid of the carbon tax then, you think before the election the Coalition should lie to the public about reversing the compensation, then after they win, do it anyway — the voters be damned?

          Too bad conservatives have too many scruples. They’ll have to get rid of it the hard way.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            catamon

            To get rid of the carbon tax then, you think before the election the Coalition should lie to the public about reversing the compensation, then after they win, do it anyway — the voters be damned?

            No, that would be silly, although there have been comments on here before where people have indicated that they hope the Coalition is lying about their “commitment” to tackling CO2 emissions.

            To reverse the effect of the Carbon Price (not tax, its an ETS) Bills the Coalition has to get people to vote for them, knowing they are going to scrap the pension rises and changes to the tax free thresholds that are part of the compensation package. Its politically difficult as by mid 2013, when the sky is still in place and we aren’t reduced to living in caves, people will be wondering what the current scare campaign was all about.

            Too bad conservatives have too many scruples.

            Oh thankyou! Humor in the morning!!!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            wes george

            I love the too-clever-by-half argument that to repeal the carbon tax is really to raise taxes on poor people. Just the sort of thing that wife-beater papist Tony Abbott would love to do!

            So…. the carbon tax comes with bribes for huge swaths of Australia by robbing money from those who make it and giving it to those who don’t, eh? Besides the ever present Green conceit that Australians are so stupid they’ll believe anything, the problem for the Greens is fourfold.

            First, if this is the best argument Catamon can make for the Carbon Tax, his side is so morally and intellectually bankrupt that only proper term for them is corrupt, rotten to the core, brain-dead. The pure cynicism and spite displayed is utterly repulsive. Maybe, Catamon is just a bloody-minded thug, not a fair representative of the Green persuasion, but then again, there is amply anecdotal evidence to suggest Green politics is fundamentally based upon bloody-minded thuggery with a cruel streak. Add Catamon to the list.

            Second, Catamon seems to think his extreme Green moral bankruptcy and corruption is a decadent state shared by the grubby Australian people who will be easily bribe to surrender their civil liberties for the paltry price of carbon tax compensation. But all evidence is to the contrary. The fact that Australians profoundly reject the carbon tax and this corrupt government by wide margins doesn’t deter true believers like Catamon. He just doubles down on stupid.

            Thirdly, Catamon forgets that a comparative number of Australians must be robbed by the Carbon Tax to bribe the rest or the whole system of bread and circus to secure support for the corrupt Green Regime is, as they say, unsustainable. Maths are not a Green strength, eh? So much for the world’s greatest treasurer ever balancing the budget in his lifetime. Just another delusional lie to add to the pile of deceit this government squats upon.

            But fourthly, and perhaps most fantastically drongo of all. Catamon seems to really believe that the corrupt insane clown posse we call the Gillard government will somehow survive until 2013 at which time the sky will be bright, cleansed of carbon pollution, and everyone will hail Julia as a fine Prime Minister as they line up to pay their carbon pollution bills and cash their fat compensation checks….

            Thanks, the load of laughs, Catatonic. ;-)


            Report this

            00

        • #
          wes george

          “…getting [the carbon tax] in is a very politically difficult thing to do, and up until now, many people would have though it impossible…. Still, here we are!”

          —a cluelessly chirpy Catamon smells the scent of sweet victory….or so he thinks.

          The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war.

          —Plutarch

          Me thinks the Labor/Green/insane clown posse will win the battle in Parliament this week at the cost of undoing everything the Labor party has built for decades…the greatest political tragicomedy since Federation is unfolding before our eyes. Isn’t it awesome that we all have, historically speaking, front row seats to this theatre of the absurd? Yes, we will cry and we will laugh, but by the time the curtain comes down on this awful catharsis, maybe, just maybe, we will be that much the wiser as a nation.

          Pass the popcorn, please.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            catamon

            Wes, i’m starting to detect the sniff of frustrated despair in your writings? Don’t lose heart. End 2013 there will be an election and you’ll be able to campaign and vote as will we all. Your open abuse of myself is getting a little tiresome though.

            Catamon is just a bloody-minded thug,

            Really? Actually, i thought i was pretty mild warm and fuzzy. I don’t recall calling you names??

            At least Madjack’s echo echo behavior is funny.

            I think your drawing a long bow in alluding to the imminent passing of the Carbon Price bills as a Phyrric victory. Its been interesting to watch the media these last few days and the utterly frantic “look over there” that has been going on. How the Carbon Price affects the economy WILL be shown over the next two years, but like all policies that are controversial at their introduction it will become less so as its accepted as part of the landscape, and quite possibly, though it may be a bit difficult for you to comprehend at the moment, other issues will dominate in 2013.

            If the economic sky doesn’t fall by 2013, it will be hard for the skeptic’s to maintain the rage outside the echo chamber to the extent where it will influence the outcome of the election, and having run SOOOOO hard with keeping up the Skeer they are going to look a tad intellectually fringe dwellerish unless they can point to actual real negative effects of the Carbon Price by that time.

            Pass the popcorn indeed.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            catamon,
            I fully understand that most of what I comment about here deals with things that actually ‘sound’ like they difficult to believe, because when it comes to the generation of electrical power, nearly all of it is data that is so unbelievably huge, it actually ‘seems’ incomprehensible, so there is always the thought that I’m either ‘making it up’ or making it somehow ‘support my argument’.

            I can understand that, and the hardest thing I have to attempt to do is to make it able to be believed.

            Because of that, I can even understand why some people would not even bother to read what I post here at Joanne’s site.

            So where you say the following in comment 52.1.2.3.1

            How the Carbon Price affects the economy WILL be shown over the next two years, but like all policies that are controversial at their introduction it will become less so as its accepted as part of the landscape …..

            If the economic sky doesn’t fall by 2013, it will be hard for the skeptic’s to maintain the rage ….. unless they can point to actual real negative effects of the Carbon Price by that time.

            That of itself tells me that you are either one of those who doesn’t read what I post here, or that somehow, I’m failing to get the point across.

            Please go and read the Comment I make at 33, and you’ll see I’m actually pointing to the negative effects of this CO2 Tax RIGHT NOW, not in two years when it will be too late.

            Now, at that comment 33, I painted a picture of what may be ‘perceived’ as ‘doom and gloom’.

            However, the current legislation covers its own fundament, and Ross Garnaut alluded to it in every one of his interviews when the legislation was first proposed.

            The doom and gloom I indicated above is VERY obviously something that this Labor Government has actually thought about.

            99 out of 100 people would have not even understood Garnaut when he mentioned what he did, and you see, that’s what the Government is relying on, the fact that no one has a clue what it actually means. Again, classic ‘cover your fundament’ stuff, that when the shirt hits the fan, they can very cunningly come back and say, “but, we told you this!”

            It’s called ‘Security of Supply”

            When those CO2 emitting entities (and keep in mind of the Top 20 ‘derdy polluders’, 14 of them are large scale power plant operators) get into financial difficulties because of the imposition of this huge impost (read that also in comment 33) the Government will ensure the (current) level of electricity supply, eg, plants burning the same amount of coal and emitting the same amount of CO2, by stepping in and keeping those plants operating with loans.

            In other words (more code) the Government seeks not to actually lower emissions by burning less coal to emit less CO2, (which is what the plant operator may have to do to comply) but to ensure their income from those Plants.

            I understand it’s a difficult thing to comprehend, but this is cunning beyond comprehension, obfuscation that no one actually understands.

            So, I don’t need to wait two years to see what will happen.

            I can warn of it right now.

            If power rationing, brownouts, and blackouts do not actually occur (conveniently in the run up to that election) it won’t be because the plant’s operators instigated a scare campaign.

            It will be because the Government sunk money into coal fired power to keep the power actually flowing.

            Nothing at all to do with lowering emissions, and everything to do with ensuring their supply of money keeps flowing.

            Surely even you can see this.

            I make long comments here not to see my words in print. I have 800 or more Posts at my own site if I want to do that. The comments are long because people need to be able to actually understand what this CO2 Tax will actually be doing to one of our staples of life, a reliable and constant supply of electricity.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            catamon

            I understand it’s a difficult thing to comprehend, but this is cunning beyond comprehension, obfuscation that no one actually understands.

            Alternatively, loans (paid back out or revenue) to keep supply up to a required level, for a time, may well be something that has to happen as the economy transitions to cleaner supplies likes Gas, and Renewable’s.

            Nothing at all to do with lowering emissions, and everything to do with ensuring their supply of money keeps flowing.

            If you contend that CAGW is not an issue, and then given the need to rationalize why so many people hold a different opinion, and that the elected Govt is acting, i can well see how to support rationalization you ascribe other motives to the Govt’s legislation.

            What your saying is far and away among the most plausible “alternative motives” i have seen proposed here and is in and of itself logical/rational.

            I read and understand what you have written, but rational or not, i also think its wrong because i don’t agree with the premise that CAGW is not an issue.

            My view is that’s happening now is the basic building block for reducing CO2 emissions and that needs to be done. Getting a price on carbon dioxide pollution, sending a price signal into the economy to encourage investments in alternatives that have lower emissions is i think the best way to do it in a market economy.

            Its not the end of a process, but the beginning. Structural adjustments in an economy will cost, and will involve some pain for possible a lot of people, me included. We obviously disagree on a pretty fundamental level. I’m fine with that.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            catamon,

            Thanks for the reply,
            sometimes replies like this can get lost as the Post slowly expires.
            You do raise one matter I would like to address however, where you say:

            Getting a price on carbon dioxide pollution, sending a price signal into the economy to encourage investments in alternatives that have lower emissions is i think the best way to do it in a market economy.

            What I fail so utterly to understand is why on Earth people would even contemplate moving away from a cheap, reliable and constant source of large scale electrical power to boutique and tiny levels of power that is horrendously expensive, available on a limited and varying time basis, and cannot fulfill an absolute requirement for the 65% of electrical power that is required ABSOLUTELY 24/7/365.

            As it is, any renewables that do get constructed are (AT THE VERY EARLIEST) ten years away, so it’s situation normal for at least ten years, as levels of power slowly reduce and keep in mind most States are just about tapped out now. It’s obvious what is going to happen.

            Currently, the ONLY reason people are investing in renewables is to get their hands on secure Government subsidies, both at construction, and for the delivery of power.

            Bean counters know, and know absolutely, that if renewables had to compete without any of these subsidies, then they would lose their money COLD.

            You also say”

            …and will involve some pain for possibly a lot of people…

            I just can’t understand this. This isn’t just doing without power in the home, no fridge, spoiled food is just the start.

            No power means every high rise building has to shut down, because there is no circulated air inside them, no water, no lifts.
            No power means no jobs.
            No power means no public service trains.
            No power means means traffic chaos.
            No power means no hospitals.
            No power means everything just shuts down.

            Renewables cannot supply that power, and the whole object of this thing is to shut down the only reliable source of all that power we have here in Australia.

            In a few years from now when all this kicks in, disillusioned people everywhere will be asking why they weren’t told about all of this.

            Look, just forget it.
            There’s no point.
            I’m just wasting my time.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        memoryvault

        Let’s see.

        The original comment by John M was about the difficulties in changing the proposed Carbon legislation.

        You changed the subject by asking “if climate change was real and action was needed . . . ” neatly side-stepping the original question.

        When I stated “it isn’t and it isn’t” you merely sidestepped again by introducing the “tax/benefits” angle, and the cost of reversing this.

        I replied by pointing out, purely from an economic point of view, that cancelling the NBN would cover the shortfall.

        Now you have replied basically by claiming the NBN is a “good” thing (which was never part of the discussion).

        Tell me, Catamon, are you even capable of lying straight in bed?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          catamon

          And where have i told a lie oh steaming pile of omniscience?

          “But, even if climate change is real and action is needed why implement the policy in this non-reversible manner ?”

          Was a quote of a quote from the original question which John M seemed to think was a “mystery”.

          “it isn’t and it isn’t”

          Was your pithy and irrelevant response since the premise of the question was: “if climate change is real and action is needed”.

          so at some point we will need to reverse it.

          But not if its “real and action is needed” as in the question.

          For reasons best known to yourself you brought up the NBN and quoted the “cost” as $50B. So as part of this $50B is revenue earned by a working NBN as its being built, somehow revenue the NBN is projected to earn can be used to pay off repealing the Carbon Price Bills if they scrap the NBN?? I get it! You must work in the Lib/Nats doing their costings right!!! Whooee. Didn’t that work out well in 2010!! Hockey/Robb-nomics here we go!!

          Now you have replied basically by claiming the NBN is a “good” thing (which was never part of the discussion).

          Until you made it part of the conversation by making as assertion i obviously disagreed with. The NBN can hardly be descibed truthfully at this point as “ill fated”.

          Tell me, Catamon, are you even capable of lying straight in bed?

          And so are you just having a widdle tanty here, or do you have a specific allegation of a lie??


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            The End Game

            http:/kevboyle.blogspot.com/

            ……So does the writer of Freemasons’ oaths, Albert Pike:

            “The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the “agentur” of the “Illuminati” between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.”

            Many ‘alternative’ commentators have long been predicting a global financial collapse. Such prophets are now starting to appear on the BBC.

            Such an event can only lead to unprecedented turmoil and war.

            We approach a particular end-game, it would appear.

            For international finance imperialists it is the whole world or no world……

            ……SH*T OR BUST.

            …….but whatever happens we will get a new beginning, one perhaps that none of us can forsee.

            Let us be wise.

            If these people all hate Christ.

            As they clearly do.

            Let us be for Christ.

            With our whole hearts and our whole minds and our whole strength.

            The spirit of God, the One they desire so desperately to displace, is what they most fear. We have been seduced and corrupted into shedding the armour of His light and these people think they can now conquer a faithless world.

            It is a terrible thing that we must learn every lesson the hard way….but we will learn it.

            Ultimately, there can only be one winner.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Cookster

    Catamon, “If climate change is real and action is needed why would you want to reverse it??”

    er, maybe because the action taken will cause significant long term harm to Australian jobs, International competitiveness and Living standards for no measurable benefit to the climate?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    I refer to the comment, “The Australian government asks for submissions, gets around 4500, mostly against the tax, then ignores almost all of them. It’s just another form of suppression and censorship, a sign that the elites don’t give a fig what we think.”

    Wrong… it is not just a form of suppression and censorship. It is blatant corruption!

    I never knew it was 4500 submissions. The website clearly states…

    “The department received a total of 326 submissions. The department has not published submissions that are confidential nor has it named the relevant submitters.

    The department has published 267 non-confidential submissions on the legislation received from individuals, academics and business, environmental and community groups. The remaining submissions are either confidential or express general views on the carbon pricing mechanism.

    http://climatechange.gov.au/en/government/submissions/clean-energy-legislative-package/public-submissions.aspx

    The truth is that the submissions are irrelevant. Gillard has stated on a number of occasions, we are going to have her carbon tax.

    Of course, we all know what it is really all about. Remember the Cancun climate summit? One man let the cat out the bag…

    “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” – German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III.

    Just read the following:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-“climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth”/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Rereke @ 26.2.1.1 above

    On the contrary, Rereke, it’s the potential threat that a deposed Gillard currently represents that gives credence to the scenario. At the moment any attempt by anybody to try and undermine her would lead to something along the lines of what you suggest.

    Let’s start from the top: Currently the Labor Caucus can be split into three groups:
    1) – the “pro” Gillard camp who believe things will settle down before the next election (a minority).
    2) – the “pro” KRudd camp who see party oblivion ahead unless Gillard is axed and the Carbon legislation put on hold (a smaller minority).
    3) – all the backbenchers who were never consulted about any of this and see unemployment looming come the next election (a significant majority).

    Any attempt to replace Gillard other than something along the lines I have described above would see the first two factions at war with each other and the third group having to take sides. And to an already confused electorate it would seem like just another leadership hatchet job by the Labor “faceless men” with Labor dipping even further in the polls.

    On the other hand, something along the lines of my above scenario (post #26) would see KRudd swept up in a wave of popularity reflected in the polls, allow the “faceless men” to simply claim they are responding to the electorate (no hatchet job here), make the pro KRudd camp happy, give the backbenchers some hope for their futures, and marginalise the pro Gillard camp and brand them a bunch of “sore losers” if they complain too much.

    That leaves Gillard fuming on the back-bench having “female vapours”, accompanied by Combet and Swan – two of Labor’s most (internally) unpopular identities. KRudd names Shorten as his Deputy PM (part of the back-room faction deal) and suddenly (with a bit of help from the visit by Queen Liz) Labor is back in the game.

    Regardless of who wins the election the people who REALLY run this country get their ETS passed (which is all they want at this stage), Shorten is set up to become the Next Big Thing in the Labor Party (which he has been groomed for, for years), KRudd gets his revenge (which is all he really cares about these days), and Gillard retires from Parliament (after the election) and moves on to whatever cushy UN or similar position is offered to her in return for not making too many waves.

    Meanwhile, while Australians are distracted at home with an election the Climate Change Conference in Durban (November 28 to December 9) passes a resolution agreeing that all parties will henceforth use magnifying glasses while navel-gazing on the issue of CO2-induced climate change and steps to mitigate it.

    Australia’s newly elected PM KRudd OR Australia’s newly elected PM Turnbull will triumphantly wave a copy of this “agreement” while making an impassioned speech declaring “peace in our time”, and incidentally announcing that the resolution meets the requirements of the amendment to the Carbon Tax legislation that started this whole thing in the first place.

    The government of the day implements the legislation much as it exists now, and over the next couple of years Australian industry – with the exception of agri-business and the mining companies, pretty-much closes up shop and goes out of business.

    The government of the day, bereft of a large chunk of its income tax and GST revenue, caves in to the miners BHP, RIO and XTRATA, by accepting the “ideas” of the “minors” – Gina and Twiggy, and North Australia becomes an “economic free trade zone”. Chinese, Indonesian, Malaysian, Korean and Brazillion workers are brought in to work for $10.00 a day, and Aussies need a visa to visit the zone. Journalists are banned.

    By 2020 Southern Australia is reduced to a “welfare state” and the inhabitants share the same welfare dependency status as most Australian Aboriginals, who were used to perfect the model in the first place.

    Oh, and as an added bonus along the way, the ACTU and its member unions, in supporting this madness against the wishes of its rank and file members, finally finishes its act of self-destruction commenced in 1989 with the Pilot’s Strike, and organised labour in this country gets consigned to the dustbin of history.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    On an optimistic note – the about to be implemented CO2 tax will pass as law. The govt will drop further in the polls (15% ?) and we will have an election in 2 years time.
    At this election, the gangreens (who said that first?) will cease to exist as a political entity, the incoming govt will have an absolute majority in both houses and the CO2 tax will be repealed.
    The wealth generated by the Australian resource base will see us recover our economy in less than a decade. Gangreen will be off the political agenda for a generation. The final outcome may even see some overdue reforms that are of benefit to “we the people”.
    Things aren’t all bad, are they?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      ,

      Sorry to disillusion you IR, but:

      Any future election apart from a double dissolution will still leave the gangreens, at absolute worst, with five seats in the Senate.

      Short of a double dissolution the gangreens now control the Senate until July 1 2017.

      Besides which, the so-called “opposition” are as committed to an ETS as the Gillard government.

      .
      We are in for hard times.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Ben Hern

    I had the same patronising reply to my six page submission/’correspondence’; which did address specific articles of the draft legislation and apologised for a lack of external references for lack of available time.
    Honestly I didn’t believe the time spent would make any difference but felt compelled to try to do something, no matter how futile. Seeing the feeble excuses that have been considered ‘proper’ submissions is completely outrageous, one can’t image the censors kept a straight face.
    I feel though my exercise in futility has at least earned me the right to tell watermelon supporters ‘I told you so’ once the tax turns out to be just as futile at lowering emissions of harmless trace gas and just as futile at raising the volume of revenue Juliar and bent-Bob hope to raise in order to balance the books after just over a term of hard Labour mismanagment (mispelling intentional).
    Unless the population at large really has become totally apathetic or lost it’s collective marbles, this arrogance must turn out to be a pyrric victory for both hard Labour and the Watermelons.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Here is a further submission that was indeed one of the 267 published submissions.
    Be aware that this is the whole submission.

    I certainly support the Australian government’s decision to put a price on carbon pollution. Companies that continue to not extend the effort of limiting their carbon pollution have to be taxed. With the exorbitant profits these companies continue to make the least they can do is put a fraction of those profits into ensuring their emissions are reduced. I realise, in their greed, they will pass on these costs to the public but I believe most people are aware of the crucial need to put this legislation in place for the sake of our children and our children’s children. Australia has to make a start to limit carbon pollution, and putting a price on carbon pollution places our nation in the right direction to meet the goal of 80% emission reduction by 2050.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    In fairness, they never said they would do anything about the submissions. It was just a delaying tactic to occupy the opposition while they gathered their strength.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Not hard to see why mine was not published:

    To the people considering the Clean Energy Bills.

    NEW Science.
    I beg you to put the whole process on hold for long enough to understand some very recent studies that shed new light on the whole global warming debate. In just the last few weeks several papers have been published that show a completely different cloud albedo feedback result. Instead of a warming feedback they may have found seventeen times the amount of cooling. Albedo is the single most important number in the whole radiative balance equation. The knowledge that cloud albedo has been misunderstood is the knowedge that the whole of the science behind the global warming scare is flawed!
    All five of the worlds major temperature data sets show that global warming has slowed if not gone into reverse. There is therfore no reason to hurry through big mistakes. Nothing is urgent anymore. The slow down or stop of global warming gives plenty of time to consider well any actions. The rate our technology is advancing and human abilities to deal with carbon dioxide will overtake what may be left of any problem.

    Carbon dioxide has benefits
    In a real greenhouse lovely life giving CO2 is added to the air to encourage plant growth. Elevated atmospheric CO2 is the best way to tackle world hunger. CO2 helps the poor to feed themselves. Reducing such a gift to the impoverished if it does not cause other problems more significant than also encouraging weeds is pure evil.

    Carbon dioxide may help after some natural disasters.

    The ice core experts tell us that atmosperic CO2 levels have been up to 7000ppm in the distant past. Currently they are way down at 390ppm. If for some reason CO2 levels were to fall too low the carbon cycle would break down and life as we know it on this planet would end. Much of the Atmospheric CO2 is eaten up by planckton as a natural part of the carbon cycle (more than 10 percent) but planckton only lives for a few days. Planckton can if given enough nutrients bloom to double its population in just one day. A large meteorite shower hit or a Ve7 ashy volcanic eruption or many other events that provide nutrients and have happened in the past (but when CO2 levels were higher) could therefore make the planckton CO2 demand grow to 1024 times the normal level in just 10 days.
    1 day 2x, 2 days 4x, 3 days 8 x, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024.

    Please slow down and think for a while longer.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    Submission or correspondence? Hmm.
    Let me get this correct. It’s only countable, ie is a submission, if the contents agree with the party line or the sender is too important to be fobbed off.
    Does this mean that at the next election your X will only be treated as a vote if it agrees with the status quo, otherwise it’s just a note and can be ignored.
    I really hope that Anger Fatigue doesn’t set in with Australians. The behaviour outlined above is unacceptable in a democracy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Hladik

    Since Orwell has already been brought up, members of this forum might want to review the last line of his classic, “Animal Farm”. Even from the wrong side of the Big Pond, his precience has never been equalled, and, fearfully, is coming true on your side of the Pond.

    May you succeed in getting a REAL government in place, and SOON!!!!

    Mark H.
    Casper, Wyoming
    United States


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Klingon

    This is the email address of this Joint select committee chairwoman “Anna Burke”.

    The Joint select committee, the UNDEMOCRATIC sock puppets that reclassified legitimate submissions of thousands of Australians objections to this Treasonous carbon DIOXIE (PLANT FOOD) tax as correspondance.

    Anna.Burke.MP@aph.gov.au


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    memoryvault
    October 10, 2011 at 12:28 pm · Reply
    Let’s play what if

    Another card to the scenario?

    http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/perrett_sayd_hell_quit_if_labor_dumps_gillard/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    My submission and my comment is on Fog of Chaos, http://www.fogofchaos.com/ under the name “Submissions of No Consequence” posted on 21st September.

    One would expect that by now at least one public servant would have resigned over the disgraceful treatment of citizens’ submissions.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      val majkus

      Paul thanks for that comment and for giving us the opportunity to read your submission

      I notice you have legal training as do I and I would like to correspond with you

      If you have no objection to that could you send Jo an e mail authorising her to release your e mail address to me


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Patrick

      Paul,
      Unfortunately the upper levels of the Public Service have long ago been politicised (both sides of politics have been remiss) and are now occupied by ‘yes-persons’. The unfortunates in the lower ranks still need to feed their families and pay their mortgages – their resignation would have no PR impact anyway. That’s the regrettable reality and why there have been no PS resignations.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    I’ve informed two MPs of this but not a peep so far. Either the Coalition are keeping their powder dry or are complicit in this scam.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    The best analogy of carbon credits I have read …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    passed by ABC radio national last nite and heard a very creepy section of the “Science Show” indeed:

    Audio: (transcript should be up soon): The Science Show
    Julian Huppert: Australia behind the pack on carbon initiatives
    In 2011, Julian Huppert is the only member of the UK House of Commons who has ever worked as a practising scientist, having worked as a research scientist studying the structures of DNA. Julian Huppert compares the way ideas are developed and changed in science with what happens in politics. In science, people’s positions change. In politics, they rarely do. Julian Huppert lists recent achievements and describes the compromises required in the world of politics. Julian Huppert says two people from the UK who have gained publicity regarding their views on climate science and policy on their recent visits to Australia are not highly regarded back home. Christopher Monckton, says Huppert, is seen as eccentric and insignificant, while Nigel Lawson is considered on the extreme fringe. As carbon initiatives have been in place for some years in Europe and other areas, including China, Australia is seen as behind the pack and needs to catch up.
    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2011/3334815.htm

    Huppert was drawn into the comments on Monckton and Lawson, and says little. the part about Australia being “behind the pack” is based on a misrepresentation of public complaints about the size of the “carbon tax”. the whole tone of this interview is sickening.

    why do i make the mistake of turning on ABC?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    K. Hartmann

    My submission did get published. This could be because it was not recognised as sceptical of AGW or because it referred directly to issues with the legislation.

    http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jscacefl/subs/Sub049hartman.pdf

    I do not expect many committee members to read it or act on the two issues raised. However with official publication of the submission, the issue of uncertainties concerning water vapour feed back have been placed in official records.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Some useful advice for us unsuccessful submitters (for me it was a submission to the MPCCC which disappeared into the CO2-infused ether):

    “Back in 2008 we battled to have a submission published as part of their consultation process for the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. All of the sordid details of our correspondence are here. What proved to be the masterstroke was cc’ing the last email to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Department officers suddenly decided it was a better idea just to accept the damn thing …

    This, in my experience, is all you need to know about public servants: they are motivated by fear. When they thought that publishing my submission could rebound on them, they used every excuse they could possibly think of to block its publication. Once they realised they might be in trouble with the Ombudsman if they didn’t publish it, they couldn’t reverse their decision quickly enough. Most public servants don’t really care about the politics, they just want a quiet life, a regular pay-cheque and the occasional long weekend.”

    And to watch repeats of Yes Minister, no doubt.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    Unions don’t give a toss either:

    11 Oct: SMH: Gerard Henderson: Unions choose masters over
    members in carbon tax debate
    Now, here’s a test. Name one leading trade union figure in the US or Canada who is calling for a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme (including the cap-and-trade version). Just one.
    The fact is that no prominent member of any North American union is advocating such policy. Nor has action on climate change been embraced by the employee organisations’ key bodies – the American AFL-CIO and the Canadian Labour Congress.
    The story is quite different in Australia. Barely a week passes without the president of the ACTU, Ged Kearney, or its secretary, Jeff Lawrence, publicly endorsing Labor’s carbon tax, which will eventually become an emissions trading scheme…
    Thomas Nides, who is a deputy secretary of state in the US and reports directly to Hillary Clinton, addressed The Sydney Institute on September 6, saying: “I wish I could say that we could pass climate change legislation in the United States. I couldn’t. I can’t. We can’t get that through.”
    In view of this quite emphatic statement, it is difficult to see how the US will be trading emissions at a national level any time soon. Under Barack Obama’s administration, an emissions trading scheme is off the agenda. If a Republican happens to defeat Obama at next year’s presidential election, it is even less likely. The recently re-elected Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has indicated that Canada will not introduce a scheme before the US, its major trading partner.
    Meanwhile, the Obama administration’s commitment to alternative energy has been significantly discredited by the collapse of the solar panel firm Solyndra…
    Last week the governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King, warned that the world could be facing its worst-ever financial crisis. This is hardly a time for Australia to be a world leader in implementing a carbon tax. Warburton understands the potential job losses involved in such a risk strategy. His position seems to be understood by trade union leaders in the US and Canada – but not in Australia.
    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/unions-choose-masters-over-members-in-carbon-tax-debate-20111010-1lhf1.html

    i know many union members who do not wish to pay their dues because of their leaders’ support of the CO2 tax/ETS, yet, in many cases, they can’t work without membership. shame on the unions. they have completely failed the workers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Klingon

    Chinese sceptics see global warming as US conspiracy
    http://www.smh.com.au/world/chinese-sceptics-see-global-warming-as-us-conspiracy-20111007-1ldl1.html
    in part:
    BEIJING: It’s not only Western leaders like Julia Gillard and Barack Obama who face fierce resistance from climate sceptics as they try to lay out policies to tackle global warming.
    In China, where carbon emissions have surged despite tough government constraints and targets, President Hu Jintao is having to stare down claims that human-induced climate change is an elaborate American conspiracy.
    ”Global warming is a bogus proposition,” says Zhang Musheng, one of China’s most influential intellectuals and a close adviser to a powerful and hawkish general in the People’s Liberation Army, Liu Yuan.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Klingon

    POLL : Do you support the carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax?…..

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/polls/popup/-/poll_id/e6396e32-e601-3352-ade0-de8f71aa876b/10437189

    THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS “NO” !

    ELECTION NOW !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    would sceptics be allowed to make use of the lawns of Parliament?

    11 Oct: Ninemsn: Placards planted for carbon tax
    A thousand placards with messages of support for a carbon tax will be planted on the lawns of Parliament House in Canberra on Tuesday.
    Climate action advocacy group Say Yes Australia has coordinated the display as lower house MPs prepare to resume debate on the government’s carbon pricing legislation…
    The placards will carry messages of support, including from former prime ministers Bob Hawke and Malcolm Fraser, former NSW premier Bob Carr and rugby union international David Pocock.
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8358284/placards-planted-for-carbon-tax

    it’s all smoke and mirrors, of course:

    11 Oct: Bloomberg: Mathew Carr and Catherine Airlie: U.K.’s CO2 Floor Uses ‘Trick’ to Circumvent EU Law, RWE Says
    The U.K. is using a regulatory “trick” to introduce its carbon tax on fossil-fueled power generation, which would not have been allowed under European Union emissions trading law, said the U.K. unit of RWE AG.
    Britain is using an exemption under the EU Energy Products Directive to proceed with its tax, which it named a carbon floor, John McElroy, director of policy at RWE Npower, said in an interview at the Platts emissions conference in Brussels.
    “That’s the trick that they have used,” he said Oct. 6. “It’s not permitted under the EU emissions trading system.”
    Chancellor George Osborne in March fixed a carbon tax of 4.94 pounds ($7.71) a metric ton from 2013 to raise revenue and prompt investment into power generation such as wind farms and nuclear. Wind turbines are subsidized and the coalition government has said no subsidy will be given to new nuclear power stations…
    The U.K. Department of Energy and Climate Change last month declined to provide Bloomberg News with e-mails and letters between Britain and the European Commission over its planned changes to energy-market regulations and the carbon floor.
    “Its disclosure would provoke a negative reaction by the European Commission and could undermine the commission’s willingness to enter into further discussions and negotiations with the U.K.,” Tim Warham, an energy markets and networks official in DECC in London, said in a Sept. 23 letter to Bloomberg News.
    “The U.K.’s ability to protect and promote its interests in the context of electricity market reform would be adversely affected if the requested information was disclosed,” he said…
    The EU’s carbon cap-and-trade program already requires Britain’s power stations to buy permits to cover a portion of emissions and they’ll have to purchase all allowances from 2013. EU permits for December rose 1.8 percent to 10.65 euros a metric ton at 10:26 a.m. in London. They have fallen 25 percent this year…
    The U.K. carbon floor is cutting the need for emission reductions in other EU nations because it encourages a faster pace of abatement in Britain, said David Hone, climate adviser at Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) and chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association.
    The policy effectively subsidizes power generation in other EU nations and increases the total cost of complying with climate-protection measures, Hone said last week at the Platts emissions conference in Brussels. “We are probably setting a poor example for the rest of the world.” …
    Future British governments may abandon the tax, McElroy said. “The unilateral approach undermines the EU emissions trading system as the principle instrument for delivering low- carbon investment across Europe.”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-10/u-k-s-carbon-floor-uses-trick-to-circumvent-eu-law-rwe-says.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Klingon

    Perrett says he’ll quit if Labor dumps Gillard!

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/perrett_sayd_hell_quit_if_labor_dumps_gillard/

    GIVE HIM SOME ENCOURAGEMENT TO JUMP SHIP BY SENDING HIM AN EMAIL AT …..

    Graham.Perrett.MP@aph.gov.au


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    This current Regime appears to be behaving more like a short term dictatorship rather than a democratically elected government representing the will of the people.

    Their conduct with these submissions is a clear cut example of this.

    They and their feeble supporters seem to think they can do whatever they like between now and he next election. They seem to think their luck will change as their tax and bribe scheme kicks in.

    In reality they’re just doing the legwork for a collection of self interested fringe groups who know they have their one and only taste of power. I’m sure these groups are helping the deluded believe that it will all come right near the end of the term.

    Good luck with that, you naive fools.

    REGIME CHANGE NOW


    Report this

    00

    • #
      catamon

      Come on Madjack, be serious. How is getting legislation negotiated through a hung parliament acting like a “short term dictatorship rather than a democratically elected government” ??

      Much is made of the “will of the people” here, but seems to me the upset is caused because the Govt aren’t following your will one one issue. Will of the people gets expressed at an election. They won it.


      Report this

      00

      • #
      • #
        wes george

        Gillard lied about not bringing in a Carbon Tax. That’s how she “won” the election. If she had promised to bring in a carbon tax BEFORE the election Tony Abbott would be PM today.

        That’s how Gillard and Brown are acting like banana-republic thugs. The will of the people was cheated. Gillard didn’t win the election she stole it.

        Now, if Gillard was a fair dinkum pollie who believed in democracy and the need of parliamentarians to represent the will of the people she could have still rescinded on her promise of no carbon tax in order to form a government with the Greens and independents. But she still has the moral and ethical responsibility to submit the carbon tax directly to the Australian people for a referendum or postpone the vote on a carbon tax until after the next election.

        Anything short of that is, yeah, pretty much like a “short term dictatorship rather than a democratically elected government”

        Gillard, by cheating the Australian public out of their fair say in the carbon tax debate has done more damage to our democracy than any other politician I can imagine since federation, bar none.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Peter Lang

        Catamon said:

        Come on Madjack, be serious. How is getting legislation negotiated through a hung parliament acting like a “short term dictatorship rather than a democratically elected government” ??

        You’ve missed the point of the thread. The point is that the Labor and Greens have combined to prevent the submissions to the parliamentary inquiry from being considered or published. 4500 submissions were received but only 70 submissions are being considered. It is apparant that the selection process was manipulated. This is dishonest government, not open and honest government.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Mark

    Given a couple of years it might not cost an Abbott government much at all to buy back the “carbon” permits.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-09/green-europe-imperiled-as-debt-crisis-triggers-46-carbon-market-collapse.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    I’m watching the House of Reps streaming live. It’s just awful.

    Warren Snowdon minister for Veteran’s affairs, said to words to the effect:

    The CSIRO says there will be a 30-fold increase in the number of days 35 degrees or hotter by 2070 unless we reduce our emissions.

    Some of the islands in my electorate are at most 3m above sea level. Any rise in sea level is a danger. This is not alarmist talk, this is science.

    Labor’s necessary reform recognises the important role of indigenous Australia’s to be involved in carbon trading for the emissions savings derived from energy generated on their land. … ATSIC will recieve $22M to participate in the clean energy program.

    (Cites a report claiming correlation between violent crime and temperature.)

    Acting now will avoid long term costs.

    The leader of the opposition needs to be held accountable for the untruths he’s been spreading.

    The Clean Energy Future bill sets a foundation that will be appreciated for generations to come.

    Yes it will, Warren, and you’re lucky history won’t remember your hand in the matter.

    Barry Haase MP for Durack, said to words to the effect:

    I have to bring my concerns via the House because the Prime Minister will not reply to my communications. Another sign of this government not listening to the people.

    This country has gone to rack and ruin. Have an election.

    We know the USA, Canada have postponed their carbon emissions schemes.
    We know a starting price of $23/tonne is 50% above the world trade price of $15/tonne.
    It is a fact the 2020 emissions objective will not be met by pricing carbon, the CEF addresses only 38% of the target, leaving 62% to be purchased as permits from overseas, which will be $57B/year by 2050. Billion upon billion going to overseas carbon trading, subject to rorting like never seen before. Even Norway has been implicated in a $5B carbon tax rort.

    The government’s tax will raise $76B in the first 6 years. (!!)

    Will australia ever recover from the tax on the weather?

    Chris Hayes?? roughly said:

    To turn away from the facts, to turn away from the science, is not something a responsible leader of the opposition should do. It based on good science, good economics, and good for the nation. The good science says we have a problem. …
    If you let people do a bad thing for free, like polluting, they do it too much.
    This is about tax avoidance! The big polluters can avoid this tax by changing the dynamics of our economy. Market forces are ignited to produce less pollution.

    Joe Hockey approximately generally said:

    We have to legislate based on the best available evidence. The climate is changing. Human activity does contribute to climate change. I have held these views for over ten years.
    … I was a supporter of ETS up until Copenhagen 2009. With no global agreement it no longer made sense for Australia to go it alone.

    (Proceeds to spruik the Direct Action plan, noting the government has allocated $10B on activities under CEF that match the opposition’s definition of Direct Action, which the government says will not work.)

    The Treasury economic impact modelling does not include the effect of: the steel transformation plan, the Clean Energy Fund, the operation of the Clean Energy Commission, or the announced 15% increase in the carbon price.

    Australian household savings rates are now at generational lows as people cocoon themselves amidst the uncertain outlook.

    Future parliaments will be liable to buy back carbon permits, which is an attempt to plant a poison pill in the legislation. .. This defies the will of the people.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Anna Burke shrieked words to the effect:

    The level of debate around this issue has been hysterical.
    Let’s have a debate on fact not hysteria.
    I will respect others, and agree to disagree on some issues. But the death threat I received this morning in email is beyond the pale. I reflect the majority opinion of my electorate who have told me to stay the course.

    I want to thank those who sent in submissions to the committee. We didn’t ignore them. We did read them. Many submissions questioned the legitimacy of the legislation. When the situation changes, the policy needs to change, that is the responsible thing to do.

    The idea that this has been forced upon us suddenly is hysterical. Reductions targets have been proposed since 1990.

    Rises of 2 degrees will result in dangerous climate change. Coral bleaching is happening more often and is caused by CO2. All the scientific academies agree.
    I don’t see why people see this as insufficient or inconclusive.

    Debate on banning CFCs was the same, the sky was going to fall, but still we acted on that and yet the world went on.
    Debate on removing lead from petrol was the same, the sky was going to fall, but we acted to ban this and the world went on.

    China has given reductions targets to individual provinces which requires them to reduce the amount of energy used to run their economy. … Australia is lagging behind other countries.

    It’s time to act and stop putting our heads in the sand.

    Livid. :-(


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MadJak

      Andrew@80,

      A completely lacklustre response from Ms Burke. The usual political babble lines. I do, however, reccommend anyone recieving death threats from any side of this or any other issue to get the police involved. There is no point in trying to get any political mileage out of it – refer it to the police so they can sort it out.

      I really can’t understand why anyone would think that emailing death threats about would do anything but undermine their position. This is of course assuming that said threat did take place and the person who sent it was, in fact not an astroturfer.

      I assume it will be reported to the police for investigation? Emails are pretty easy to track down, so it shouldn’t be too difficult.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        These so called ‘death threats’ seem to be standard fare these days to deflect critique.

        As far as I’m concerned they are not death threats until the Feds are called in and there are charges brought against the offenders.

        Also, if one was serious one would not state the fact, just get on with it.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Michael

    I reflect the majority opinion of my electorate who have told me to stay the course.

    Does anyone actually know the opinion of the voters in Anna Burke’s Electorate? I doubt they support this tax as she thinks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Anna Burke at 13:57 in APH said:

    The committee has concluded that the bills should pass.

    The science basis is well founded and is still appropriately scrutinised.

    Delay in taking action imposes a higher cost in the future.

    I commend the committee’s report to the house.

    Upvote this comment if you believe the committee’s final report is uninformed on the latest facts of climate science, or ignorant of the fragility of the argument from consensus, or is unreasonable in the size of tax burden relative to the size of the problem.

    Downvote if you think the report’s development was informed and totally reasonable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Peter Lang says @ post 2 :

    “Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation” rejected 98% of submissions.

    Wasn’t it 98% of climate scientists that were supposed to have agreed that AGW is for real?

    98% seems to be an important number when dealing in propaganda …..


    Report this

    00

  • #

    UPDATE: There are at least 3 lists of submissions

    There are at least three different government committee sites with “submissions”. To make things confusing the Dept of Climate Change accepted submissions on the draft legislation until August 22, and the Joint Committee took submissions on the final until Sept 22. But the Joint committee submission pages link to the DCC submissions page (with 267 subs published) as well as to it’s own submissions page where only 70 of 4500 are listed as published (through the word “submissions”.)

    There is also an Inquiry into Carbon Tax Pricing Mechanisms by the Senate Committee. David Evan’s submission was accept there, where 102 are listed out of who knows how many?

    Thanks to Peter Lang and Anton Lang for help sorting out the various submissions.

    See the post itself for the links.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      val majkus

      A huge thanks to Peter Lang in this post for keeping us on the straight and narrow in regard to the separate inquiry submissions
      (andrew bolt got it wrong in his post and Jo in her post here got it wrong)
      Peter Lang put me right and I’m sure Anton Lang would agree with me
      I’m a fan of Anton’s but credit where credit is due


      Report this

      00

  • #

    (I’m in a dark place right now.)

    What makes people believe that their votes will count at the next “election”.

    The behaviour of the government is such that they don’t care to listen to the public. And that makes me very concerned about what the government will do next to silence dissent and to perpetuate their position of power.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Andrew and Kevin, I’ve moved your comments to a new thread I just posted for updates on the legislation. See The “Clean Energy Bill” aka Carbon Tax legislation is going through Parliament this week

    Thanks to those who have the time to follow it in detail.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Catamon’s “floor price” won’t matter a damn in the face of real world markets. Not to mention a new government that will be doing its damndest to undermine the whole shebang.

    Typical of “greenies” though, to think that they can impose their will in perpetuity. Just like the Communist party of old. Just like Gillard invoked “history” in one her recent parliamentary rants. Funny, I seem to remember all those commos of yesteryear claiming that history was on their side too.

    Well, we all know how history really turned out, don’t we?

    Two elections is all it will take to relegate the green sludge to their rightful place in the political cesspit.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    This is off topic but if the event of 1883 is repeated the whole world will see and feel the effect.

    The Jakarta Post Tuesday Oct11,2011

    http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/10/08/anak-krakatau-volcanic-activity-continues-picking.html

    The Krakatoa Volcano Eruption in 1883 Was a Worldwide Weather and Media Event

    The eruption of the volcano at Krakatoa in the Pacific Ocean in 1883 was a major disaster by any measure. The entire island of Krakatoa was simply blown apart, and the resulting tsunami killed tens of thousands of people on other islands in the vicinity.

    The volcanic dust thrown into the atmosphere affected the weather around the world, and people as far away as Britain and the United States saw bizarre red sunsets caused by particles in the atmosphere……..

    http://history1800s.about.com/thegildedage/a/krakatoa.htm


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Unlikely that Krakatau has recharged enough to have a big eruption. More here.

      On the other hand Katla is grumbling. If she goes off in a VEI 5 eruption like last time (1918), right into the teeth of a solar minimum, then Europe might have the difficult problem of explaining why they’re spending so much to save the world from global warming while many of their voters are freezing to death.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    cohenite

    I have read a number of the submissions and note, as Jo observes that there are a number of ‘commissions’ examing the various submissions; the commission which matters, in the sense of being the mouthpiece of the government, is the DCC body. This submission from TCS was submitted there and at the risk of sounding partisan is as good as any I’ve read [see number 74 from the list];

    http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/scrutinynewtaxes_ctte/carbontax/submissions.htm

    Let’s face it, this goverment is a wretched caricature of democratic process and it will need either a groundswell of opposition much greater than what we have seen or a lot of money or both directed at this vile government to have any effect.


    Report this

    00

  • #

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>