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



Did everyone miss it? Combet brags that Labor Party doesn’t care what Australian voters want

The line that everyone seems to have missed (or become numbingly inured to)  is one where Combet claims that Australians won’t be able to get rid of the carbon price even if they want to:

“(Greg Combet) said the linkage of the schemes would make it more difficult for Mr Abbott to axe the carbon price if the Coalition were elected.”   [Source: The Australian]

The spiffy idea, apparently, is that voters won’t have an option of voting to decide a major part of our economic system. The Australian Labor Party’s proud contribution to the national debate is to tell us they have deliberately crafted the legislation that way. We the voters are supposed to be impressed that it will be harder for any newly elected representatives to remove it without major penalties. If the Australian people decide to toss the current government off an electoral cliff, the current government is going to fall, but make the nation pay.  Yes, score ten points for Machiavellian behaviour, but I’m not so sure the voters will be impressed when they have to foot the bill.

Over 80% of Australian’s at the last election voted for parties that promised “no carbon tax”, do I need to use the words arrogant and undemocratic?

I suppose the smile-with-me-excuse is that the ALP “knows what’s best for Australia” and are so smart they can stop the stupid punters from choosing differently? Though a cynic might say that the ALP  knows voters hate the carbon tax, and knows that it’s a gift campaign for the opposition to run against it, so they are protecting their political hides by neutering the advantage — bugger the cost to the citizens of Australia. I’m not sure which is worse, narcissistic tyrant, or pragmatic parasite.

It’s traitorously selfish, but where is the evidence that the ALP have higher aims?

The Labor Party were bragging about this back in October 2010, so over the last two years of dismal polls, they still haven’t done any soul searching about the philosophy of what The Australian Labor Party stands for? It tells us much about the current malaise within the Australian Labor Party that no wise elders have quietly advised these hollow men in their party that this is not in the spirit of western democracies. Aren’t the citizens of Australia supposed to decide which policies they want to live by and pay for? If 90% of Australians wanted to remove this legislation, theoretically, the Labor Party have booby-trapped it and there is no way Australians can vote against it to use their resources in ways of their choosing. If that isn’t unconstitutional, it should be.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (99 votes cast)
Did everyone miss it? Combet brags that Labor Party doesn't care what Australian voters want, 9.4 out of 10 based on 99 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/8ekw5jn

84 comments to Did everyone miss it? Combet brags that Labor Party doesn’t care what Australian voters want

  • #
    janama

    Tony Abbott recently brushed this off saying every law in Australia can be altered.

    This actually points to how stupid Combet is as well as how arrogant.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    LevelGaze

    I’ve said this before: if it did turn out to be constitutionaly difficult to scrap the law, it would be very simple just to set the rate to zero.

    Job done.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      From what I understand, it’s worse than we thought.

      As LevelGaze points out the tax itself can be set to zero.

      But the kickbacks rebates to offset the tax will be much harder to remove. because of the timings (which I don’t understand)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      cohenite

      The carbon tax has nothing to do with the Constitution since it was legislated not incorporated into the Constitution by referendum.

      The permanency of the CO2 tax is a distinct issue from any compensation which may be claimed if it is repealed.

      However, there is no doubt that Combet’s dreams of making the CO2 tax permanent are grounded in creating a compensatory regime which makes repeal prohibitive. This regime of prohibitive compensation in turn is based on what Mark Dreyfus QC, Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change, thought would be the effect of the CO2 tax. Dreyfus said:

      “Once the carbon change legislation is in place repeal would amount to an acquisition of property by the commonwealth, as holders of emissions permits would be deprived of a valuable asset. As a result, the commonwealth would be liable, under s.51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution, to pay compensation, potentially in the billions of dollars. A future government would therefore find repeal prohibitively costly.”

      However a number of rectifications of this repellant attempt to enshrine legislation are available.

      The first and most obvious is to do what the O’Farrell government in NSW did not do in respect of the solar panel scheme introduced by the ALP government on the basis that the 60c rebate would only cost about $400 million. In fact this scheme was heading towards $4 billion but O’Farrell could not scrape the scheme because he did not say during the campaign that he would.

      This meant that the purchasers of the solar panels had no notice and O’Farrell could not repudiate the scheme, merely adjust the rate down from 60c to a ‘reasonable’ level.

      If Abbott makes it plain that people incurring the expense of buying CO2 credits will not be compensated he will be in a strong position to resist compensation.

      More technically Abbott could argue that a CO2 credit is an individual transferable quota (ITQ). An ITQ is arguably a profit á prendre which is a right to take part of the soil, minerals, natural produce including fish and wild animals. Such rights are defined by the statute which created them. If the statute which created them is repealed then the right and any compensation flowing from the right is lost.

      In any event the point about attempting to make the CO2 tax permanent is that it is a disgraceful insult to the Australian electorate if that electorate votes against it; that is something this government specialises in generally.

      The argument that the carbon tax is an expression of a moral necessity is a red herring. In a secular society no moral value should be capable of being litigated. I would be alarmed if anyone advocated otherwise.

      Conversely all litigation should be based on a moral position. Again it would be alarming if legislation were not.

      All legislation creates rights which reflect the moral impetus for the legislation.

      Such rights include compensation if people act to their detriment in accordance with the legislation and are subsequently deprived of their rights.

      In addition people are entitled to expect a continuity of those rights. This is the nature of Sovereign Risk which is an important part of the moral context of a nation.

      Conversely, no parliament should be able to bind a subsequent parliament in terms of its legislation. All legislation should be subject to review and repeal. This is a fundamental moral framework for any legislation.

      The inherent conflict between Sovereign Risk and the supremacy of parliament is resolved in a number of ways which include compensation and, as I have suggested, timely and transparent notice by political parties of their intentions.

      The CO2 tax exemplifies this relation between morality and legality with its supporters now enjoying the evolution of their moral position on CO2 to a legal right.

      This however, should not mean that subsequent parliaments are not entitled to evolve their moral position about CO2 into alternative legal rights.

      By not understanding that distinction Combet and his government show they do not understand the moral basis of their parlialment and Constitution; but that has been obvious for a long time.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Juliar

        The carbon tax has nothing to do with the Constitution since it was legislated not incorporated into the Constitution by referendum.
        The permanency of the CO2 tax is a distinct issue from any compensation which may be claimed if it is repealed

        Every law made has something to do with the Constitution. That is a ridiculous statement.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          The parliment doesn’t create laws, they create statutes. It is only when a statute is tested in the high court and the court rules in favour of the government does it get passed into common law. Well, as a case reference for any proceeding action related to that statute for as long as it exists, anyway.

          The constitution is not relevant to your or me because we are not party to it. It is a set of pre-conditions attached to any person wishing to do business with the Commonwealth of Australia. All additional terms of agreement you enter into with the Commonwelath of Australia can null and void any articles that exist within the constitution. This occurs is such situations as applying for social security, getting a driver’s license, opening a bank account, etc.

          tl;dr: the government is evil. Have a nice day. :)


          Report this

          00

      • #
        LevelGaze

        Cohenite, thanks for that, but –

        My mind isn’t very legal at all, so I had to read your comment at 12.34 several times. Do I have the drift of it now? – all Abbott has to do is declare unequivocally and clearly to everyone that the Tax will be repealed and all will be well? But, wait, you’re talking about carbon credits and the ETS which hasn’t even come into effect yet. Aren’t the two different beasts?

        Please put your argument plainly in a way a dunderhead like me can understand, I’m terribly confused now.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          cohenite

          Every law made has something to do with the Constitution. That is a ridiculous statement

          Only to the extent that they cannot exceed the law making provisions of the Constitution which would make the law ultra vries defective such as this example.

          But even if a law is validly enacted that does not mean that a subsequent parliament cannot unmake the law; this is fundamentally different from the Constitution provisions which are independent of the parliament and can only be made or removed by the Constitutions’ own provisions regarding its alteration.

          That is the point I was making; how is that ridiculous?

          all Abbott has to do is declare unequivocally and clearly to everyone that the Tax will be repealed and all will be well?

          Well, not quite; the point I made was the O’Farrell government did not provide notice of its intentions and therefore people who invested in the stupid solar panels did so in Good Faith which is an Equitable Defence to most legal actions.

          If Abbott makes it plain, and he has done that, that he will repeal the carbontax/ETS that powerful Defence, Good Faith, an Estoppel, which would otherwise allow people to more successfully challenge the abolishment of the carbon tax/ETS, would not be available because that could not claim they acted in Good Faith because they had been put on notice.

          It still won’t stop people litigating I suspect but it puts the succeeding government in a better position to meet the litigation.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            LevelGaze

            Sorry Cohenite,

            Too many weasel words in there for me. I still don’t understand.

            But of course I’m just a dumb scientist…


            Report this

            00

          • #
            cohenite

            Ok LG; how about this; the parliament can change the laws passed by the previous parliament because that is allowed by the Constitution; however no parliament can change the Constitution. The carbon tax, whether in the form of a tax or an ETS, is a law made by parliament so an Abbott parliament can change or remove it.

            If Abbott tells people he is going to do that then the people will have trouble suing him.

            What science are you involved in?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            LevelGaze

            @cohenite 12.10 pm

            1. OK, thanks for that; now understood.
            2. Pathology.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Mike

    “It tells us much about the current malaise within the Australian Labor Party that no wise elders have quietly advised these hollow men in their party that this is not in the spirit of western democracies. Aren’t the citizens of Australia supposed to decide which policies they want to live by and pay for?”

    This kind of talk always amuses me. It’s as if people believe all the propaganda that democracies work and it’s the will of the people and all that guff despite not being able to show one example throughout the world and throughout history where it’s ever worked this way. And of course it can’t.

    Let’s say it did work and the majority got what they wanted (this is the way, I believe, democracy is sold). Why should a majority be allowed to boss around a minority? I call that the tyranny of the majority. As opposed to the tyranny of a minority which is what we have now and has been the norm throughout history.

    What is this wonderful democracy of which people speak and how is it supposed to work?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      cohenite

      The majority rule definition is NOT a definition of a democracy, it is a definition of a mob.

      What defines the Western democracies is an individual rights based due process which incorporates various forms of political enfranchisement; but that essential individual right must be combined with due process in the legal process, which this government is subverting through the case of Thompson and the HSU scandal generally and the pressing questions about Gillard’s employment past.

      The right to property is also essential and we have seen the infringements of that right with the various cases of disposition of landowners without fair and reasonable compensation.

      Another essential right is the right to be informed and to have transparency in the social and political processes; through its investment in the loathsome Finkelstein enquiry and report this government has shown it has scant respect for that essential ingredient of a democracy as well.

      If you believe in and support the democratic form this government is a bad government.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        wes george

        The great thing about a constitutional democracy is that in a stable established system like our own, an incompetent and corrupt government doesn’t define the state of our democracy, rather it is merely a single bad season for our nation. Weather is not climate. We, the people, have the power to both punish and reward at the polls! That’s the corrective feedback power of democracy.

        I wish we could go back to the old days when if someone used the word “democracy” without contextualising it to show he was on about a people’s revolution to redistribute property or otherwise violating a political minority’s rights we assumed “democracy” was short for “constitutional democracy with all the normal civil liberty protections and separation of powers, rule of law, etc., that prevent the tyranny of mob rule.” Only very rarely does anyone invoke the term democracy as a synonym for Comité de salut public.

        With the failed Labor/Green coalition dying in the polls, the rising chorus from the Left is that democracy has failed with them… what is required is some form of disenfranchisement of evil forces opposed to Labor/Greens moral superiority, by any means necessary, including political chicanery and Finkelstink’s censorship.

        However, for the people of Australia, now is the time to celebrate the power of our combined voices! The will of the majority, though rightly circumscribed by the constitution, is the beating heart of our political system. It is elections by which we hold politicians accountable for their follies. Just as importantly, it is elections by which we should choose which policies we will have to live with. Gillard violated the spirit of democracy when she flipped on Carbon Tax, after the election. We were cheated. Votes were stolen.

        Combet’s quip and Gillard’s pronouncement today for education funding well after her probable forced retirement next year is evidence that the slightly delusional Left of 2012 assume they are entitled to rule without the consent of the people, well beyond the limits of their terms in office. As Cohenite points out, to knowingly legislate limits to the policy choices available to future parliaments is a violation of our constitutional right to self-determination.

        Naturally, Combet and Gillard’s unjustified sense of entitlement to command policy beyond their terms in office is based upon their moral superiority over the average Aussie, who Gillard and Combet seem to believe are rather too silly to make important life choices for themselves.

        To Combet and Gillard, we are a bit like unruly children who know not what is best for them.

        The ultimate power to disabuse rogue politicians of their sense of superiority and entitlement to rule without consent lies solely with the will of the people as expressed at the polls.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      The imperfections of simple democracy were so evident to Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, et al that they created a republic with checks and balances. On top of that they added a Bill of Rights which includes, among other features, the right to bear arms, realizing that another need may arise to remove a despotic government. Leftist attacks on the Second Amendment in the US continue unabated, showing where their ultimate intentions lead.

      Ask yourself often: Where will this trend take us if continued?


      Report this

      00

  • #

    “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Winston Churchill

    I didn’t say it was perfect.

    Got a better idea?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    handjive

    Certainty:

    Rushed carbon permit auction to prop up budget

    With the May budget projecting a paper-thin surplus in 2013-14 of $2 billion, an additional $375 million in revenue from forward permits – based on a price of $15 per tonne of carbon – would help counterbalance falling iron ore prices and rising expenditure commitments.

    “…they will also make it harder for a Coalition government to repeal the scheme and cancel companies’ permits.”

    The Climate Change Department notes no intention to introduce any regulations at this stage, but who knows what may happen over next three years…

    Yeah, I believe you…no regulations, free markets…. certainty… no carbon tax means blackouts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    AndyG55

    Every other piece of legislation from this incompetent mob of ALP gits is full of gaping holes, what make Con-bet think this one isn’t.!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave N

    Gillard already bragged that Labor doesn’t care what the voters want, and simultaneously insulted the electorate with her “veggies” comment.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    sillyfilly

    Over 80% of Australian’s at the last election voted for parties that promised “no carbon tax”

    Julia Gillard’s carbon price promise

    * by: Paul Kelly and Dennis Shanahan
    * From: The Australian
    * August 20, 2010 12:00AM

    In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price.

    Now, what’s the whole truth Jo? Quoting the choice of mechanism rather that the stated policy. Disingenuous at best!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mark

      Stupid Horse, you know damn well that the PM was speaking after the electronic media blackout. That comment never got an airing so far as the electorate was concerned.

      You are only confirming that you approve of sophistry and outright mendacity when it comes to your political objectives. Talk about being disingenuous, you (and the PM) really take the cake.

      N-e-i-i-i-g-h!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      It is you who is being disingenuous.

      That time is the publication time – the time that the presses start to roll. The papers then have to be packaged, and distributed, and purchased (by what proportion of the population), and then skimmed over before they are used as bin liner. How many people will have seen that piece, and bothered to read it on election day? How many people would be bothered to change their minds?

      Now compare that with, “There will be no carbon tax in any Government that I lead”, on prime time national television. For the courts to consider a retraction reasonable, it has to be on the same media, with the same coverage as the original. Juliar, being a one-time partner in a lawyering company, would have known that, so at least, this is an admission that she lied, and fully intended to lie.

      Also, post normal research shows that the vast majority of people make their mind up as to how they intend to vote, in the week to ten days prior to polling day, but very few actually decide on the day. And that juicy bit of information was given to me by a senior ALP organiser at a conference three or four years ago. Juliar would have know that as well, unless she is forced to live in a shed at the bottom of the garden at the Lodge.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      cohenite

      Silly, you can cut and dice it any way you want, and quote from any number of subservient, apologising media hacks but here is the truth about Gillard and Swan.

      Now, you a smart mare so say something challenging from the dark side and give us something to chop to bits, but don’t come around slumming and trying to score really stupid, pointless points.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      handjive

      Own goal from the silliest filly.

      It’s no wonder you wouldn’t provide a link, ya donkey.

      Here is the rest of the quote:

      In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step.

      Oh. The citizen’s assembly. Was that a lie, sillyfilly?

      Ms Gillard’s plan focused on creating a 150-strong “citizens’ assembly” of rank-and-file Australians to decide the fate of Labor’s climate change measures

      But, back to the sillyfilly quote and more Gillard lies:

      “I don’t rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism,” she said of the next parliament.

      This part of the quote makes a lie of “the ‘new paradigm’ what made me do it Guv’”.

      And finally, in the same paragraph:

      “I rule out a carbon tax.”

      And so ends the many examples of Gillard’s lie.

      Thanks to sillyfilly for the chance to again highlight Gillard’s deceit all in one link.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Winston

      Silly,
      You are going to lose soooo badly at the next election, that you won’t believe it. Just keep up the smug attitude, because people like you are the best weapon the coalition have. Julia is Custer and you are headed straight for the Little Big Horn. He didn’t see that coming either.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      sillyfilly

      Tony Abbott: who of course never changes his mind:

      “If Australia is greatly to reduce its carbon emissions, the price of carbon intensive products should rise. The Coalition has always been instinctively cautious about new or increased taxes. That’s one of the reasons why the former government opted for an emissions trading scheme over a straight-forward carbon tax. Still, a new tax would be the intelligent skeptic’s way to deal with minimising emissions because it would be much easier than a property right to reduce or to abolish should the justification for it change”


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Winston

        So, Silly, see if you can answer a straight question with a straight answer.
        Is it morally repugnant for any incumbent government to so entrench its legislation so as to make it prohibitively expensive or legally impossible for future opposing governments to repeal? Yes or No?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          sillyfilly

          What’s morally repugnent about joining a market. Tony Abbott can still do what he wants: rescind the ETS, buy back the permits, cancel the compensation and cancel the tax cuts. That’s a decision for him, the party and the Parliament if he becomes PM.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Heywood

            ..when he becomes PM.

            There, fixed it.

            Personally I can’t wait to see you and others from the left squealing about it too.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Winston

            Q:

            What’s morally repugnent about joining a market?

            A:

            Once the carbon change legislation is in place repeal would amount to an acquisition of property by the commonwealth, as holders of emissions permits would be deprived of a valuable asset. As a result, the commonwealth would be liable, under s.51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution, to pay compensation, potentially in the billions of dollars. A future government would therefore find repeal prohibitively costly.

            Just in case you “inadvertently” missed 2.2 above. I hope that was helpful for you, Silly. Nice lot you work for!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark

            Latest Newspoll:

            Green support down to 8%. Many protest Green voters of 2010 have taken a good, close look at the grim visage of Christine Milne and have decided that they don’t like what they see or hear. Gone is the somewhat avuncular image of Bob Brown.

            If they fall much lower they won’t have enough for a quota and will have to rely on Labor for preferences. That is in itself a problem as Labor will have enough on its plate to hold its own third position Senators.

            Abbott may well find himself in control of the Senate after July 2013.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark

            Sorry all. That should read July 2014 of course.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      MudCrab

      Couple of flaws in your arguement, which I think we can safely agree is that ‘Gillard holds the moral high ground’, is that firstly you have Gillard confessing that she never regarded the ‘government I lead’ comment as binding and that misleading the public was no big deal at all, and second, Gillard DIDN’T WIN.

      Winning is 76+ seats.

      Gillard is PM under a power sharing deal.

      Power sharing is all perfectly legal and above board and YES, she IS legally the PM and NO I am not claiming Abbott would have been PM in 2010 if it wasn’t for those meddling kids, yet if you are forced into making a deal to form government then you clearly do not have majority support of the public and you have absolutely zero mandate to do anything, ESPESCIALLY things you have clearly and publicly said you wouldn’t under ‘a government I lead’.

      So yes, Ms SF, you have clearly managed to point out yet another reason why Gillard is a dismal excuse of a leader who treats the voters with barely disguised contempt.

      The ALP eat their own Silly. When, not if, she goes down, the Left will destroy her and years from now history books will list her as the villian responsible for the death of the Labor party. My advice if you want to save the ALP you support so much? Get off her bandwagon now before you become a historical footnote.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Angry

      To “sillyfilly of Gosford” I see you are STILL attempting to scare everybody with this global warming FRAUD.

      How are you CHILDREN feeling?

      God help them!

      Your unfounded FEARS are going to make your children SUICIDAL & MANIC DEPRESSIVE.
      That will be on your conscience.
      You are guilty of CHILD ABUSE and a DANGER to your children!

      It won’t be too long before we read about your family in the newspaper, just like this one…..

      Baby shot over global warming fears:-

      http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,26793969-952,00.html?from=public_rss


      Report this

      00

    • #
      freakedoutbygillard

      dear filly!!!! you are very silly!! i obviously need to remind you that gillard was not ELECTED by Australians…..she was pushed over the line by the independents and green, after receiving less votes and less seats than the coalition…..unelected, therefore NO MANDATE!!!! is that clear enough for you, sillyfilly????


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Mark

    I just think it’s stupid to believe that future generations of this country can be bound in perpetuity by ANY government’s legislation.

    Incidentally, the Constitution states that any compensation due by government action must be on “just terms”. This does not automatically imply that the holders of any credits be compensated in full. As well, there have apparently been historical precedents where property rights granted by government have been resumed and discounted for the purposes of determining “just terms”.

    If Tony Abbott and his party are sincere about their opposition to this iniquitous scheme, they should be informing prospective buyers that an Abbott government will view any compensation action very sternly and that corporations seeking such will find themselves at the bottom of the list for any future government contracts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    It’s as if people believe all the propaganda that democracies work and it’s the will of the people and all that guff despite not being able to show one example throughout the world and throughout history where it’s ever worked this way.

    Ancient Greece approx 2500 years ago – A council, known at the Boule, consisted of representatives from ten geographic areas. Each area had 50 representatives (yes, 50), who were chosen by lot, from all of the males in each area. They each served for one year. There was no concept of political parties, other than the districts.

    The early English Lower House – the House of Commons, was originally established on a similar geographic basis, with each town or borough or shire having a number of representatives. People were elected over local issues, and their reputation for good judgement, and were literally there to represent the actual people who elected them. Originally there was no concept of political parties.

    However that changed when it came to discussing the role of the monarch, in relation to Parliament. This was a yes/no question. The representatives of the towns and boroughs – the trades people – wanted more power for Parliament, supported by a constitutional Monarch. These were the Whigs. Whereas the representative for the counties and shires – the land holders – wanted the Monarch to retain many of their powers of oversight. These were the Torys. The result of the debate and the subsequent vote was that the Whigs won the argument, and the Westminster System was born.

    Unfortunately, the power of being able to marshal concerted and supportive arguments was not lost on either the Whigs or the Torys. So they did not disperse, but rather started to form common policy discussion groups and agreed to provide support for one another during debates, and so political parties were formed in England. The Whigs became the Liberals, and the Torys became the Conservatives.

    In America, the same two political groupings fought the War for Independence, with the Whigs supporting the “rebels” (now politically correctly referred to as “patriots”), and the Torys supporting the retention of the royal system.

    The point? It was the formation of political parties that shifted the focus away from politicians representing their constituents, to a system where the parties will do anything and say anything to remain in power. Without the political party apparatus, democracy works just fine.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      My post at number #10, was supposed to be in response to the post by Mike at #3. Oh well …


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      Which is one reason I argue for outlawing political parties. It gets even uglier when you have “proportional representation” where there are MPs who do not represent a constituency but the wished of the “Party Corporate”. It has reached the point in NZ where political parties may as well be Limited Liability corporations with ivory tower headquarters.

      The idea of communities selecting representatives in an hierarchical fashion – street, locality, district, region – to from the nations Government is very appealing and is one we should consider adopting.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        jorgekafkazar

        Without commenting on the merits of that idea, Grant, I’d like to point out that what you describe is the soviet system.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        RoHa

        Even if we outlaw formal parties, we could still get groupings of informal parties working in just the same way.

        But it really is depressing.

        The best thing to be said for the Caolition is that they are against the carbon tax. Otherwise they are unspeakable.
        The best thing to be said for the ALP is that they are not the Coalition.
        The Greens have some good ideas, but they are nuts about Global Warming.
        Katter’s party had some good ideas, but is being taken over by foam-flecked loonies. (Not as loony as US Republicans, but still pretty dire.)
        The only people left to vote for are Socialist Alternative or me. Socialist Alternative seems caught up with Global Warming as well, and I’m not running.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    It has been a fundamental tenet of Western democracy for hundreds of years that no Government can pass legislation that cannot be undone by a future government.

    The fact that Labor would boast about attempting to do this shows their utter contempt for the democratic process.

    Combet doesn’t care what Australian voters think; by the end of next year it will be the other way round.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I think he knows that they are all dead-men-walking, and is therefore adopting a “stuff-you” attitude.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      It may well be sooner than that. With the mess that Julia is making of Swann’s budget* handing out money left, right and..sorry, left, far left and centre. The supposed surplus has disappeared with the drop in iron ore price halving the mining tax. They won’t have a shred of credibility by next Budget time.

      I think these frantic handouts are designed for a short term boost in Labor’s stocks, followed by a dash to the polls. They will lose but won’t be annihilated, so plan on snouts to be back in the trough in 6 years, after Abbott becomes unpopular undoing the mess. Might even be before Christmas.

      *not sure how you can make a mess of a (regurgitated) dog’s breakfast, but am using clichés like the plague.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    handjive -
    u beat me to it with the AFR article, which has been onlne for 8 hours with only Business Spectator picking it up, even tho the article says the draft changes were released over the weekend. why doesn’t the MSM report all this chopping and changing of the rules?

    and what good would this do?

    2 Sept: Ninemsn: AAP: Govt should reintroduce carbon laws
    The government should reintroduce its carbon legislation to parliament after scrapping the proposed $15 floor price for its emissions trading scheme (ETS), the federal opposition says…
    “Well, the prime minister (Julia Gillard) should bring the scrapping of the floor price to the parliament,” opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt told Network Ten on Sunday.
    “Because she told the parliament that she wouldn’t scrap it, and she should bring it to the parliament.
    “We will use the opportunity to immediately seek an amendment to scrap the carbon tax.”
    Mr Hunt said Labor’s decision on the floor price followed a theme with carbon pricing.
    “The government said they wouldn’t bring in a carbon tax; the ALP then said – not just on one or two occasions, but 11 occasions – they had to have this carbon floor price, it was fundamental according to the prime minister, to certainty,” he said…
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8526102/govt-should-reintroduce-carbon-laws


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    note the “NO” in the AAP headline.
    now read in the excerpts “very little”, “did not appear to be any notable impact”, “difficult to extract if the carbon tax is a contributing factor”:

    3 Sept: SMH: AAP: Caroline Smith: Inflation gauge shows no carbon effect
    A private measure of inflation has posted its largest monthly increase in almost 18 months but very little is from the carbon tax.
    The TD Securities-Melbourne Institute inflation gauge rose 0.6 per cent in August, the biggest month-on-month increase since March 2011.
    TD Securities head of Asia-Pacific Securities Annette Beacher said there did not appear to be any notable impact from the July 1 introduction of the carbon tax, given the unchanged state of utility prices in August.
    “While fruit and vegetable prices rose strongly, it is difficult to extract if the carbon tax is a contributing factor,” she said…
    The main price rises were in fruit and vegetables, automotive fuel, and alcohol and tobacco…
    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-business/inflation-gauge-shows-no-carbon-effect-20120903-2598t.html

    Herald Sun happy to go with the AAP “NO” as well, even tho it is not a direct quote from Beacher:

    Herald Sun: AAP: ‘No carbon tax effect’ on inflation figures
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/inflation-gauge-shows-no-carbon-effect/story-fn7j19iv-1226463838254

    shame on the MSM.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    2 Sept: Montreal Gazette: Natalie Stechyson: Tory memo warns of NDP’s ‘risky’ carbon tax
    The Conservative party issued a memo to its national caucus Sunday that attacked a ‘risky’ and dangerous’ carbon tax that the Tories say is the hidden centrepiece of NDP leader Thomas Mulcair’s economic plan.
    “As we prepare to come back to Ottawa for the fall session of Parliament, it is also important to ensure Canadian middle class families understand the threat posed by Thomas Mulcair’s risky and dangerous economic plan,” said the memo, from Conservative national campaign manager Jenni Byrne.
    “Canadian families know that a tax on carbon is a tax on everything and therefore a tax on everyone.”
    Mulcair has repeatedly called for a cap-and-trade system that would effectively put a price on carbon emissions. The Conservative memo said Mulcair is hiding the carbon tax because it would “kill jobs and raise the price of everything, including gas, groceries and electricity.”…
    The NDP was unable to provide a comment Sunday, but in May Mulcair told a news conference the country did not need to implement additional carbon taxes and advocated a cap-and-trade system.
    In a 2008 committee meeting, Mulcair called carbon taxes “regressive.”
    “In fact, a carbon tax has the disadvantage of allowing companies to pollute as much as they like so long as they pay their prescribed taxes,” he said to the standing committee on finance at the time…
    At the height of the controversy in May, Mulcair toured the oilsands for the first time to promote the idea of sustainable development and polluter pay which, he argued, many people, including Albertans, support.
    He also noted at the time that he was not targeting any one region or any one sector and that the concept of sustainable development needed to be applied to all industries right across Canada…
    http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Tory+memo+warns+risky+carbon/7181579/story.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    2 Sept: ABC: Investors steering clear of carbon scheme: panel
    ALAN KOHLER: I see. Now, Roger, on the subject of carbon. How’s your – what’s your take on what it’s going to mean for the companies concerned?
    ROGER MONTGOMERY (FOUNDER, MONTGOMERY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT): Everything that Les Hosking said was absolutely correct. It’s not gonna have an impact at low prices, it’s not gonna change people’s behaviour, it’s not gonna change company behaviour. So that’s the first problem. The issue for the Government is twofold. One, they’re seen now by – the decision to backflip is seen by international investors as another reason why it’s very uncertain to invest in Australia. And the other big problem is it just makes the hole in their budget surplus even bigger. Already on the back of lower commodity prices, they’re now going to get less revenue from their carbon tax and that’s going to be a huge problem for the Government.
    TOM ELLIOTT (CIO, BEULAH CAPITAL): You know, Roger, I wonder also the political element. I mean, Tony Abbott is still saying he’ll get rid of the tax and that presumably means rid of the trading scheme that follows the tax.
    ROGER MONTGOMERY: Can I just say this?: I’m sure he’ll promise that coming into the next election. But I believe he has to get control of the House of Reps and the Senate in order to be able to do it. So, he’s not gonna be able to do it unless that happens.
    TOM ELLIOTT: But I just think though, it’d be very hard if you were a CEO saying, “Will I invest in all these carbon credits beyond, say, 2013-2014, thinking that the next government will probably get rid of the whole scheme anyway?”
    ALAN KOHLER: Why would you think, Nabila?
    NABILA AHMED, COMPANIES AND MARKETS EDITOR, AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW: I mean, why would you invest in that now? Because …
    TOM ELLIOTT: From what I’ve seen electricity futures are essentially saying that there may not be a carbon tax beyond 2014, so, let’s not back it now.
    ROGER MONTGOMERY: Well exactly, and even at cheap prices, it doesn’t make sense. They’re not fungible; the contracts aren’t fungible anyway at the moment, so. Look, the final issue of course is that we’re tying the price of a commodity that will affect the cost of running our economic business to the future prospects of another continent and that when they recover and the price gets much higher and if we’re in a recession at that time for whatever reason, and we might be, you just never know, then the compounding problem on our companies will be very great, and that was described during the week by Boral in their cement division and the impact on their profits from this.
    http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2011/s3581139.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    don’t back down:

    2 Sept: Business Standard India: Press Trust India: Carbon tax on flights to and from EU may hike fares
    India has joined the US, Russia, China and several other major nations in opposing the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme
    “The likely impact on air fare is expected to be quite significant as all airlines will be forced to pass on the burden to the passengers. However, no Indian carrier is submitting the trial data (on emission) in view of the government’s stand to oppose the scheme,” a source said…
    EU is still seen as holding ‘a pistol to the head’ of other nations,” Paul Steele, IATA’s Director Aviation Environment, had then said…
    Though details of the decisions taken at this meeting, held under the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) banner, were not available, it is understood that most of these countries favoured stringent counter-measures against European airlines if the EU went ahead with imposition of the tax…
    Thereafter, another meeting was held in Moscow in February where another declaration containing a series of counter-measures was adopted.
    Following this, the government decided that Indian airlines would not participate in EU-ETS and, accordingly, these carriers were formally prohibited from participating in the scheme and giving out any emission data to the EU.
    http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/carbon-taxflights-tofrom-eu-may-hike-fares/185059/on


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Wayne, s. Job

      Not hard to beat this EU tax just pay it. Then when their aircraft land in your country whack up the landing fees @ five times the tax on top of the normal landing fees. Reimburse the airline, and the government makes a profit and a big statement. Simple beat them at their own game.

      Their airlines would chuck a conniption fit and the tax would fade into the sunset.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    China “may” launch new “test” schemes, but Reuters spins the headline:

    2 Sept: Reuters Point Carbon: China plans more CO2 schemes, dents EU-link hopes
    China will not tie its nascent emissions trading scheme with an international market until after 2020 as it may launch more test schemes this decade, a senior official said Saturday, denting hopes that a common price on emitting heat-trapping gases in the EU and China would emerge this decade…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.1973613


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    1 Sept: Reuters Point Carbon: California link to Australia’s carbon market a distant prospect: analysts
    After announcing this week it will link its future carbon market to the EU’s, Australia may look to California next as a potential emissions-trading partner, but the U.S. state may be less keen to cement a trans-continental link, analysts said…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.1972742


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova Share this:PrintEmailMoreStumbleUponTwitterFacebookDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Cap & Tax and tagged carbon scam, carbon tax, government cash grab, hot air scam, really stupid idea. Bookmark the permalink. ← Some more climate hand-wringers from the AGU [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MudCrab

    …current malaise within the Australian Labor Party that no wise elders…

    With the disclaimer that yes, I AM actively against the ALP (so may be a bit bias here), I think this is a major problem with the ALP. As a victim of the Howard year’s success, no strong respect commanding figures managed to emerge during that time to be able to fill the ‘elder’ role now.

    This is not to say the ALP of that period were bad people, but the fact that the retort to any unwanted advice offered can be a harsh, “what would you know? YOU never won an election!” can often hold you back.

    The list of ex ALP leaders isn’t that helpful either. Whitlam is looked up to publically at least out of angry of The Dismissal. To confess that Kerr did the right thing would be to confess Whitlam ran a shocking government. The fact that at the post Dismissal election the ALP were trashed is normally ignored as it goes against the party line that they were backstabbed by the evil Kerr.

    Publically at least…

    Hawke unfortunately decended into the ‘silly old bugger’ he once brushed off. Mileage was also lost when he left the well respected Hazel for that ‘other woman’. Yes marriages do break up but here Bob has been clearly cast as the villian in this by much of the public.

    Keating never pretended to like much of the public and in his older years was certainly not going to break a habit of a livetime. Latham was and still is a bit of an angry man. Probably a lot more switched on then maybe would like to confess, his punch first, second and then third if required mind set really didn’t win him many long term friends and seems quite happy these days to make a living successfully telling people EXACTLY what he thinks of everybody in newspaper columns.

    Yet all of these may still have been able to fill the ‘elder’ role had the ALP won some success pre 2007. Instead the party was left with a bunch of new comers and b-rate celebs who eventually won government in 07 and won largely without the guildance of the older mentors. Success went to their heads and since they had won without the help of elders then why should they start now. They had beaten Howard when none of the old guard had so clearly they knew what they were talking about.

    Except of course as can be seen by the steadily declining poll results, a lot of voters now disagree with them. Having effectively said ‘we don’t need you old man’ in 2007, it is a bit late to start asking for advice now. Unfortunately for the ALP they are not going to get out of this for a long time yet. At best the ALP will only lose the next election. At worse they will get butchered and we will see the rise of a new ‘center left’ party to steal the ALPs traditional voter base. Either way come 10-15 years there is little chance any of the current generation will be respected enough to finally fill the long empty ‘elder’ role within the ALP.

    Then again, I never voted for them so you don’t see me crying… :P


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Juliar

      Good post. I do find it amazing that Keating is revered as an idol of the left who was an elder statesman of the Parliament when if anything, he was one of the most vitriolic Politicians of the past few decades. Keating also has the arrogance that there was something wrong with Australia and that he needed to fix society. For example, his over-zealous ideas about Multiculturalism and his very globalist ideas. Keating tried to create the Australia that was very separated and had no real true identity whereas Howard had a shared identity concept with Australia and through his policies.

      Greg Combet was quite bad on Qanda a couple of weeks ago but the worse part was that Mirabella a) struggled to attack Combet and b) couldn’t defend or explain her own policy.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      AndyG55

      ” we will see the rise of a new ‘center left’ party ”

      We already have one.. Its called the Liberal party


      Report this

      00

    • #
      RoHa

      (so may be a bit bias here),

      You mean “(so may be a bit biased here),


      Report this

      00

  • #
    JMD

    The spiffy idea, apparently, is that voters won’t have an option of voting to decide a major part of our economic system

    Ummm…. They don’t now. The dollar itself, the most important part of our economic system i.e. ‘money’, is whatever a bunch of bureaucrats, bankers & assorted shysters want it to be, & who cares, nobody, that’s who. Least of all Labor, Liberal, National, Green etc etc.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Beth cooper

    Its the shamen mentality. ‘We know what yer need. We are the goverment.’


    Report this

    00

  • #

    One thing that might help to mitigate this mess is to lobby for a “future demolition” requirement to be included in every RIS (Regulation Impact Statement).
    [See http://www.finance.gov.au/obpr/ris/index.html ]
    Was there a RIS for the Carbon Tax? Don’t recall seeing one.

    Demonstrated “future demolition” is a feature of Construction Codes in some places, eg the tectonically uncertain areas of California. You not only have to demonstrate how the structure goes up, you have to explain how it can eventually be brought down again.

    (Near here we have a large cement storage silo with double helix pre- and post-tensioned reinforcement. Can’t knock holes in it, turn it into yuppie units or similar. It could simply blow. Only chance might be to place a charge underneath it big enough to topple it into the ocean.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    old44

    “Linkage of the schemes”
    Like a house of cards, remove one and the whole pile collapses.
    Failing that, remove the headquarters of all the “Geeen” schemes to a rural location, I would suggest somewhere between the Giles weather station and Surveyors General Corner. Then we may see how many of these rent-sekers truly love the environment.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter C

    Sorry, I must take you up on: “…. this is not in the spirit of western democracies.”

    This is precisely the spirit of Western Democracy. Outside of Switzerland not one Western Democracy is constrained by a lack of popular mandate if they decide they are going to do something, which makes our democracies a sham, exactly as intended, of course.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Indeed, Peter,
      What does a democracy do when one’s Prime Minister has a power-sharing agreement with eco-loons.

      Four protesters climbed up scaffolding at the rear of Parliament House and onto the roof on Monday, before two scaled the front of the building and unfurled a large sign.

      The sign read: “Coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet. Why is Baillieu funding coal?”

      Ironic that they should shackle themselves to a source of illumination.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    susan

    That was a comment made out of pure spite and nothing to do with how the people feel or what they want. Labor can throw money for such amazing schemes as the $320mil for gender equality for the pacific Island women, $500mil for a muslim school in Indonesia, millions upon millions on the boat people, yet cannot fund the NDIS without slamming the states who had already drawn up their budgets and were not expecting it after she had already said it would be a federal govt initiative! nor can they fund the gonski report advice till 2020!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Combet’s actions are simply the well publicised Fabian agenda, updated. I suspect their goal is to replace “money” with carbon permits as the intermediary item of exchange based on the assumption that inquality is fundamentally caused by “wealth”, or accumulated money. Their reasoning seems to be that if they could replace money with carbon permits that are based on effort or energy expenditure etc, then this will create a more equitable arrangement and ensure that the poor get a better deal than at present. It is Technocracy updated.

    The problem is that Combet and his people don’t understand the real nature of money as an intermediary item of exchange. Printing money or creating carbon permits is the secular equivalent of Creatio ex Nihilo, creating something from nothing.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      The funny part is that the rich people already have, and use alternatives to money. Whether that be land, business, silver or IOU’s. Money in the bank isn’t the defining difference between rich and poor.

      Opportunity and intelligence play a much larger role in differentiating the rich and poor. For example; if your intelligent, you don’t need to have the money in the bank to make a 5 star resort on an island.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    connolly

    Greg knows what every ALP Federal parliamentarian knows. They are done for and the jig is up. The poison pill strategy is an act of desperation by a discredited government. As the mining boom dies, the carbon tax and the over valued Australian dollars destroys whats left of our manufacturing industries they will go to the polls as the worst social democratic government in the history of this country. And hated by their working class constituency. Something to be proud of you reckon Greg?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Dennis

      They are using the ALP brand and trashing it. When they fall let’s hope that sensible people rid the party of the parasites including union movement faceless parasites and extreme Green manipulators on the far far left.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Capn Jack Walker

    Personally I think they have been in shock since they tried to whip the miner’s tax through expecting the populace to support a hate the miners campaign, they were obviously going to fund all their great revolutions thru the Carbon Tax and the miner’s tax. They keep coming up short in the budgets and long in administration costs.

    They bet their future on the politics of envy (Wayne Swan’s post codes) and all along as they have had to adjust to the population’s or media unsupportive reponses, they have attacked by censorship or straight out hate based attacks, when they have to face facts. Shit calling me the son of a victim of the Nazis, a denier, yeah was gonna work a treat, I grew up with holocaust survivors.

    Anyway, as has been said all along the LNP will undo it. Fair warning has been given and if any body goes out and purchases permits, knowing the LNP has made it an election platform, knowing that 70% of people don’t agree with Carbon shennanigans of any sort and that the bottom fell out of Labor’s primary vote and has remained there stuck fast for almost two years, then I wish them good luck in a court of law.

    Caveat emptor will rule. Always does. Anyway they could not find an average punter or their opinion if their political lives dependeded on it, so they keep shovelling coal into a loco headed to a derailment as fast as they can, talking to themselves.

    Some one buy them a fiddle, The ALP and their beds are burning, little Nero ceasars one and all.

    Kevin Rudd was saying there is plenty of money.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Capn Jack Walker

    Caveat emptor will apply, because it is a purchase and business investment decision, just like Government bonds.

    No one is forcing any business to buy or even accept permits.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Capn Jack Walker

    Like all pyramid schemes this one is falling apart, with early buyers the only ones who made money.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    connolly

    What Gillard is doing is setting the Commonwealth up for large compensation claims by rentiers who will claim a property right on a derivative which her government created without a democratic mandate. And tying Australia to the EU is sheer economic vandalism. The Australian carbon dioxide derivative price will be hostage to the Brussels bureaucrats. Thats doubly undemocratic. They are gutless cowards afraid to put this to a vote.

    For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
    John F. Kennedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gbees

    Labor’s out-of-control spending and plans to ensure their irresponsible policies cannot be wound back remind me of Saddam Hussein’s scorched earth policy. The word treasonous definitely comes to mind …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Angry

    NSW Premier had better get some common sense soon and start listening to the people, instead of comming up with this rubbish………..

    Pledge to triple wind and solar power in NSW :-

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/pledge-to-triple-wind-and-solar-power-in-nsw-20120907-25ik3.html

    IS HE DELIBERATELY TRYING TO LOSE THE NEXT ELECTION AND CREATE A NEGATIVE PERCEPTION FOR THE LIBERAL PARTY FEDERALLY ??????

    He and the current NSW “government” are worse than the previous alp (AUSTRALIAN LIARS PARTY) one !!!


    Report this

    00