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



Gillard knew the Australian public didn’t want an ETS or a Tax

Gillard knew eight months before the last election that the public did not want an emissions trading scheme (ETS):

(Former Labor MP and ABC presenter) Maxine McKew writes that Ms Gillard met Mr Rudd at Kirribilli House in early January 2010.

“Gillard had a blunt message for her Prime Minister,” she writes. “She told Rudd that under no circumstances would she support the case for an election based on the need for action on climate change.

She didn’t want to offer an ETS, and later declared in the campaign “there will be no Carbon Tax”, but after the election she gave us both. Her poor  supporters have been left to weasel and whine post hoc that the public voted for carbon action in 2007. Apologists dissembled on whether the carbon tax is a “tax” or a “fixed priced scheme for an  ETS” pretending that a lie was not a lie, that Gillard was doing what the people wanted and not breaking her word. It all comes to nothing.

Gillard cares for working families by giving them what they asked not to get and deceiving them about what a vote for Gillard means. This is “moving forward” right? Forward to where — a third-rate autocratic state?

In 2010 eighty percent of Australians voted for parties promising no carbon tax. It’s not just that Gillard felt that an ETS was unpopular with the people, she didn’t even think it was worth trying to convince the people it ought to be popular.

How could Gillard run for another election? There is no promise she could make that anyone can believe.

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (121 votes cast)
Gillard knew the Australian public didn't want an ETS or a Tax, 9.2 out of 10 based on 121 ratings

Tiny Url for this post:

281 comments to Gillard knew the Australian public didn’t want an ETS or a Tax

  • #
    MadJak

    Of course they knew this – it’s blatantly obvious. The public could smell a rat and were making noises (outside of the lamestream media)

    If they had a shred of integrity or respect for the australians who pay their wages they would not have sold out on this principle -in exchange for power

    But hey, I understand that once you sell out once, it becomes easier the second time, the third time, the fourth time.

    And that is all this government is interested in – Power – at any cost. They’re professional Unionists (used to living off other peoples fees) and failed lawyers. Somehow we let these people with very little life experience direct us. I call this stupid.


    Report this

    573

  • #
    Mattb

    “In 2010 eighty percent of Australians voted for parties promising no carbon tax”… and yet both said they’d introduce one to try and win the independents.


    Report this

    731

    • #
      cohenite

      That’s not true matty.


      Report this

      214

      • #
        Catamon

        Actually cohenite, it is.

        Carbon Price was a condition of the negotiations that got the ALP into Govt.

        Abbott offered “anything”, except his arse. So, if the Fibs had achieved Govt they would have had to have done so with a commitment to a Carbon Price, among other things.

        The upshot is a Carbon Price, legislated, debated, and passed through both Houses in accordance with entirely proper procedure.

        Oh, and the country was spared the undoubtedly disastrous consequences of having the purile bunch of idiot economic illiteratii that are the Coalition front bench in positions of any actual power.


        Report this

        747

        • #
          Mark

          Abbott offered “anything”, except his arse. So, if the Fibs had achieved Govt they would have had to have done so with a commitment to a Carbon Price, among other things.

          And we have whose word for this, Tony Windsor’s?


          Report this

          244

          • #
            Catamon

            Well, Abbott has sort of denied it….but did he do it in writing?? :)


            Report this

            325

          • #
            Mark

            So does all that mean you’ve still got nothing but the word of Windsor?


            Report this

            202

          • #
            Catamon

            So does all that mean you’ve still got nothing but the word of Windsor?

            Its good enough for me, he generally talks sense when i have seen him speak, and he was, after all, there, so he is reporting first hand.

            On the other hand Abbott has declared on national tele that he tells porkies and that only his scripted, written remarks should be believed.

            Also, Windsor has made these assertions in Parliament. If there was any substance to Abbott’s sort of, denials he simply has pin Windsor for misleading Parliament and to date he hasn’t made dare any such allegations.


            Report this

            433

          • #
            Mark

            Its good enough for me…

            You would say that, wouldn’t you, Cat? Why am I not surprised.

            Rationalise it all you like. You still have n-o-t-h-i-n-g!


            Report this

            153

          • #
            cohenite

            Cat is prepared to take the word of Windsor; Windsor is a hypocrite; he sold his farm to a coal mine for millions and while opposing coal and CSG and supporting AGW.

            Windsor is a vile hypocrite and anyone who supports him shares that stigma.

            You have nothing to add to this debate catamon.


            Report this

            223

          • #
            cohenite

            My disgust at catamon’s position made me press the enter button prematurely; my comment should have said.

            Cat is prepared to take the word of Windsor; Windsor is a hypocrite; he sold his farm to a coal mine for millions and buys other farms with CSG prospects while opposing coal and CSG and supporting AGW.

            Windsor is a vile hypocrite and anyone who supports him shares that stigma.

            You have nothing to add to this debate catamon.


            Report this

            233

        • #
          cohenite

          No it is not. Only the Greens, who got 12% of the vote, had a policy of a CO2 tax; Gillard specifically denied it, so did Swan.

          The coalition never had it as their policy.

          Therefore the electorate voted 88% against a CO2 tax.

          Are you saying that Abbott promised Windsor a CO2 tax for his support because, as I understand it, he never promised it to the other ‘independents’? Why would he promise it to Windsor and not the others?


          Report this

          303

          • #
            Winston

            Catamon and MattBs responses above show exactly what rational people have to deal with in the mindset of delusional CAGW acolytes. Their attitude and belief system actually is enough to make me physically sick.

            Firstly, no honest appraisal of the situation would suggest that Labor didn’t renege on its undertaking to the electorate and as a consequence, showed bad faith. Swan and Gillard are quoted pre-election as completely ruling out introducing either an ETS or Carbon Tax, in fact it was a scare campaign by the coalition apparently according to Swan in his election eve statement of intent.

            Secondly, there is no evidence that Abbott ever intended to introduce a Carbon tax, and irregardless of that, the fact remains- he didn’t introduce a Carbon Tax, did he? No court of law can convict on what you might have done, only what you did do.

            Thirdly, Gillard didn’t have to capitulate to the Greens or the independents, all of whom bar Katter would have gone with Labor under any circumstances. Only a complete lack of respect for their constituents allowed Gillard and co. the latitude to make a deal so against the wishes of the vast majority of people with a functioning cerebral cortex.

            Fourthly, no matter how bad the current government is, no matter how heavily indebted we become, no matter how corrupt, fraudulent, immoral, untrustworthy or duplicitous these Labor politicians are shown to be, these men like Cat and Matt trot out and defend their heroes, spinning, contorting and dissembling wherever they can in a desperate attempt to deceive, manipulate opinion, and ultimately defend the indefensible.

            These are the same sort of apologists who acquiesce to atrocities and the propagation of various injustices in the name of some greater cause, except in this case there is even less excuse, in that this is merely parochialism, mindless barracking for a side, a team, or a particular “wing”. In so doing it is the sort of vacuous failure to accept reality that actually confirms how unfit these particular morons are to hold any public office, or to make any decision more complex that when to inhale or exhale. A hint guys, try not to do both simultaneously.


            Report this

            862

          • #
            inedible hyperbowl

            …codependence. It seduces passive participants into rejecting reason and commits them to continuation of farce. A dedication to irrationality grows more difficult to renounce with each reiteration of unreason, for the deluded must increasingly face the shame not only of his folly but of the misery it begets. As the tally grows, the likelihood of self-correction diminishes; and the committed one-worlder now chained to his oars, must insulate himself against both reality and countervailing opinion. He does so handily by demonizing those trying to restore him to sanity

            Quote from the Foreword in Melanie Phillips book “The world turned upside down”.

            Fits those two perfectly!


            Report this

            161

          • #
            memoryvault

            Winston

            Hammer, nail, head.

            A thumbs up from me.


            Report this

            171

          • #
            Catamon

            Wow, Winston, you seriously need stronger meds mate.


            Report this

            251

          • #
            Sonny

            Brilliant Winston.


            Report this

            220

          • #
            RoHa

            “and irregardless of that,”

            I’ve heard a lot about it, but this is actually the first time I’ve seen anyone use the non-word “irregardless”.

            “Regardless” is correct, Winston.


            Report this

            71

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Thank you Catamon, well done.

            With your eight word repost of Winston, you totally validated his position and his opinion.

            Only a person with your understanding of the world could have done it.


            Report this

            190

        • #
          Sean McHugh

          Catamon said:

          “Abbott offered “anything”, except his arse. So, if the Fibs had achieved Govt they would have had to have done so with a commitment to a Carbon Price, among other things.”

          Elsewhere you make it clear that Windsor’s word is good enough for you. Well it ain’t good enough for me. Windsor only started with the snarling and accusations when things started going pear-shaped for his new left bedfellows. That’s when he became desperate to justify his grubby choice to his betrayed conservative electorate.

          In any case, nothing has ever been quite so definitive as Gillard’s immortal words:

          “There will be no Carbon Tax under the Government I lead”.

          And let’s not forget Swan’s indignant denial of the very idea, disparaging those who were suggesting that they would introduce a carbon tax:

          Well certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax from the Liberals in their advertising. We certainly reject that.”
          Meet the Press, 15 August 2010.

          The bottom line is that there is just noting good about the Labor/Greens/’Independents’ party, except for those for whom being ‘politically correct’ (left) is all that is needed. They are the Government’s minions and some of them vainly contribute to Jo’s blog.


          Report this

          190

          • #
            Sean McHugh

            Another reason to distrust Windsor’s word is that he was not only OK with Gillard breaking her word to the people, but made it a condition! Now he ferociously defends her and himself. That tells us plenty about that dropkick’s integrity and the sort of value he places on one’s word.


            Report this

            110

        • #
          handjive

          @ Catamon
          October 25, 2012 at 7:45 pm · Reply.

          Carbon Price was a condition of the negotiations that got the ALP into Govt.

          ❝ Abbott offered “anything”, except his arse.
          So, if the Fibs had achieved Govt they would have had to have done so with a commitment to a Carbon Price, among other things. ❞

          » » »

          Let’s go to the transcript:

          Mr Windsor said Mr Abbott knew this when he “begged” for the prime minister’s job during 17 days of talks after the election.

          “You’ve never denied it Tony,” Mr Windsor said.

          Mr Abbott later told parliament there was one thing he was not prepared to do.

          “I wasn’t prepared to introduce a carbon tax in breach of my pre-election commitments,” Mr Abbott said.

          Possibly ‘arse’ is the best description of Gillard’s carbon (sic) tax, the tax Tony Windsor endorses.


          Report this

          110

        • #
          Jazza

          You slander Abbott with words from one of the most unreliable idiots who went against their electorate majority voters to enshrine Gillard.
          Funny thing is the archives will show after the announcement of support and commentary on formation of government, both those “independent ” idiots had nothing but praise for the negotiation skills of both Gillard and Abbott,with no such story offered . How reliable is a later burst of bile,when they have witnessed the government under constant pressure from Abbott’s ability to cut through spin ans show up its incompetence and waste and to refer to Gillard’s election promise LIE?


          Report this

          20

    • #
      Konrad

      MattB, get over yourself,
      AGW is a hoax which all of the left, including yourself have supported. You have stupidly done so in the age of the Internet. Sceptics will never forgive and the Internet will never forget. You can scrub like lady Macbeth, you can even use the Scotchbrite, but this filthy stain whilt not out. We know why you are squealing. Every politician, activist and journalist you hold dear has left a permanent record of their shameless, unthinking AGW advocacy for all to see at the click of a mouse, for all time. Sceptics have an obligation to the rest of society to remind all of your misdeeds, otherwise you will simply move on to the next hoax. Biocrisis? Boidebt? Sustainability? All your current players are compromised. Time for fresh troops who are truly concerned about the environment, not politics.


      Report this

      633

      • #

        Well said. Too many poorly understood ‘problems’ have been butchered and blown out of all proportion by politicians for purely political aims – AGW is just another in a long line.

        The web won’t forget and we won’t forget where it is…


        Report this

        252

      • #
        Sonny

        Matt B and Catamon have seemingly fallen victim to mind control.
        Maybe there is a code or some sequence of words which will break the spell?


        Report this

        60

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Sonny

          There is an answer on the way.

          I hear that CSIRO Medical recovery section is working on a way to extract the Warmer Worm from infected patients and it is based on the old remedy for tapeworm removal.

          The patient will be laid in a quiet place and a recorded message played next to the left ear over and over again.

          Nobody knows why but so far the worm is only evident in the left ear area of the brain.

          The recorded message is played over and over on a loop :

          “We are from the United Nations IPCC and we want to present you with and award for services to the

          perpetuation of Man Made Global Warming”.

          The worm is quite susceptible to flattery and in 94.3% of the trials so far it pokes it’s head out and is

          quickly gripped and removed with pliers.

          The cases which don’t respond to this treatment have been found to have a very short history of infection

          and sometime achieve spontaneous remission as a result of possessing too much common sense to be tricked

          by the Warmer Worm.

          KK :)


          Report this

          70

        • #
          Angry

          They would first have to actually possess minds before they can be controlled…….


          Report this

          20

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            True

            But if they are up, around, walking and talking they must at least have a brain stem with a few bits of processing matter connected to it.

            KK


            Report this

            00

    • #

      That was after the election you idiot. It wasn’t what the electorate was promised during the campaign. Hence the electorate voted against a carbon tax. The best result from the hung parliament would have been another election, not an obscene auction of broken promises to achieve power at any cost.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jim Stewart

    A leader with some intestinal fortitude would have tried to convince the Australian public that they had got it wrong and why they now thought differently. Then allow the public, through another election, to give some authority (or otherwise) to the change in policy direction in such a fundamentally important issue to our economy and hence, wellbeing. Power corrupts weak leaders, we have just witnesed another example, how most previous prime ministers must be paining or rolling in their graves.
    As well, this present government made no effort to open up the market to allow it to decide which energy source was best suited to a low carbon dioxide future – no, they picked ‘ANOTHER WINNER’ in wind and solar sourced energy. Leaving Hydro (poor old Tassie), Gas fired generation and Nuclear energy sources all still basicaly locked up and not to be given any oxygen.
    These spendthrifts must be relegated to the waste bin so we can rebuild this ‘lucky’ country, offering future generations some tools to care for themselves as they see fit.


    Report this

    182

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Power corrupts weak leaders, we have just witnesed another example…

      …and strong ones along with everything in-between.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Jazza

      Jim,My local member tells me that is what the Liberals intend to do–they will upon reaching the government benches, begin talks on the problems of the nation and will take the people with them, after making sure they keep any promises they make in the run up to the next election.They know that some facets of IR, the business taxes etc must be looked at, but they won’t ever impose any new such imposts without amandate–They are well aware of the anger in the public domain and what has caused it,ie Gillard obtaining a mandate courtesy of the “useless idiots” and trashing it by doing the opposite of her election promises..


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    I can’t wait to kick that lying strumpet out of office.


    Report this

    321

  • #
    Gnome

    I voted Labor because she promised that she would not proceed with “carbon pricing” before gaining public consensus by way of a people’s assembly before doing so.

    I couldn’t see how a people’s assembly, given the information about global warming, renewable energy and the economic effects of a carbon dioxide tax could be so stupid as to provide sanction to “carbon pricing”.

    She treated the electorate with contempt, I now hold her and her party in contempt. But don’t hurry the next election, I am enjoying the disintegration of this rabble too much. I thought after Slipper was deposed I would lose some of the enjoyment, but with the MRRT raising no revenue, a day after Craig Thomson’s home is raided by police, the same day as the company tax reform working group comes in and says it can’t achieve anything and…

    Enjoy!


    Report this

    280

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Gnome.

      You’ve really lifted my spirits , thanks.

      KK :)


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Rohan

      But don’t hurry the next election, I am enjoying the disintegration of this rabble too much.

      Gnome, I respectfully disagree with you there. This bunch of clowns are doing serious damage to this great nation thus need to be removed sooner rather than later. The sooner they’re voted out, the earlier the damage can be repaired.


      Report this

      151

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        You are both right there.

        It’s good to see ugly people self destructing but it’s even gooder to see them stop causing damage.

        KK


        Report this

        80

      • #
        RoHa

        “This bunch of clowns are doing serious damage to this great nation thus need to be removed sooner rather than later.”

        The big problem is that the system will provide us with another bunch of clowns who are just as bad, albeit in different ways.


        Report this

        21

        • #
          John Brookes

          We aren’t a great nation. A nice place to live perhaps, but I reckon we’ve got a lot of work to do if we want to be a great nation.


          Report this

          213

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            For once I agree JB.

            A nation of wonderful, well intentioned people with the potential to be great.

            Under the right leadership.

            Will it ever return; will will ever see the fruits of the potential we once displayed?

            Maybe we need to be a little more skeptical of the politicians who scam us.

            KK


            Report this

            50

          • #
            ExWarmist

            One persons “Great Nation” tends to be another persons “Terror & Tyranny”.

            Being “Great” is often short lived, and never seems to last.

            Not sure it’s worth being “Great”.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            True Ex

            It does depend on your definition.

            To me a great nation provides opportunity in the form of a good basic education.

            Provides a good basic level of low cost (not free) medical care.

            Makes sure everyone has a job where they are on deck 30 or 40 hours a week.

            This reduces social security to those who are ABSOLUTELY wheel chair bound or in an institution for those who are unable to care for themselves.

            Many of the “jobs” will be funded by the Government but will be productive in keeping our streets clean cutting undergrowth from bushfire prone areas and so on.

            It may be necessary for Government to get off their blots and ORGANISE this; it is not that hard.

            Everyone will feel part of the team; the way we were in the fifties and early sixties before the money

            we had saved in tax collections was blown by various politicians in buying votes with the “easy

            lifestyle” option. “Vote for us and you need never work again”

            And it was true. Many did, never Work Again.

            Just that those working had to work 50% harder to cover the extra cost.

            Time for a Fairer More Equitable Australia.

            Where have I heard those words before?

            KK


            Report this

            10

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            Great nations come from humble beginnings. If you say you cannot, you never will.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Juliar

      You poor soul. Why in god’s name would you vote for them?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Joe's World(progressive evolution)

    Jo,

    I find politicians do this quite often…

    Make a promise before the election, then break it at the beginning of the term and the rest of their mandate is spent on propaganda to show how we wanted what they slipped in through more bias media(paid for by the tax payer).


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Father of Josh

    I’ve figured out, “Its good enough for me.” means “Om”.
    “She told Rudd that under no circumstances would she support the case for an election based on the need for action on climate change.”
    What’s new? She’s not going to the polls for that. Never will. Blown the chance.


    Report this

    30

  • #

    “In next year’s federal elections, make an example of the ruling Australian Labor Party and its cronies. Burn them right down to the bloody ground.

    Don’t leave even a charred stalk.”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/the-creeping-betrayal-of-democracy-in-australia/

    The political mainstream in Oz are not only completely ignoring the wishes of the electorate, but also think it won’t even remember Gillard’s betrayal of them.

    Pointman


    Report this

    180

    • #
      inedible hyperbowl

      Pointman, it won’t happen unless we introduce indelible dye on thumbs.


      Report this

      60

    • #

      Hi inedible hyperbowl.

      From your comment, your concern is voting irregularity. Certainly I’ve heard of a simple way of combating it. Simply video anyone who’s dropped off at a polling station by a car/bus that waits for them to come out, before driving them off to the next station. If electoral legislation or the law won’t help, you and a few friends armed with nothing better than a decent smart phone, can make a helluva difference. Why not try it?

      The more blatant they are, the more careless they are. If a parade of the same faces turning up at different polling stations on the same day were plastered all over the internet (which is the shop window of the world), multiple voting would soon die out.

      Pointman


      Report this

      120

    • #
      handjive

      Most excellent post, Pointman.

      Your point about voting to send a message has made me re-consider my pledge to vote informal.

      I am not convinced it will make the change required. But at least you made me think about it.

      But, any vote for any party you can’t put a cigarette paper between, is interpreted as a vote to continue the agenda, business as usual.

      If 50% plus of a compulsory voting system voted informal, might be interpreted as a failure, or dis-enchantment of the political system?


      Report this

      20

      • #

        Hi handjive. If 50% vote informal, it certainly sends a message, but utterly destroying a political party sends a stronger one, that’ll be remembered by all the rest for a long time.

        Pointman


        Report this

        30

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    We have found that the management and regulation of Man Made Global Warming is just another money making scheme for those tapped in to the power supply.

    Unionism is another such example, which was pointed out above by Madjak.

    Being a Member of Parliament also has the potential to let the office holder develop power and influence that can lead to substantial improvement in lifestyle.

    What these things have in common is limited positions and access to power and influence.

    Where controls are poor or ineffective abuse follows and the general public suffers.

    Unionists receive very little for the substantial fees paid. I paid for 28 years.

    Public infrastructure for such a “wealthy” country is appalling and points to blatant abuse of power by politicians who have diverted taxes for their own benefit. The BER for example is often referred to as “waste” of money but that is wrong thinking.

    The people who built school sun sheds and halls of do not see waste; their pockets are bulging.

    I know the above is rambling, but the point is we have been too trusting of people in public office .

    We have believed the slogans, lucky country, fair go, law and order etc were real.

    Measured against the Potential that Australia has our society is actually fairly crappy and this situation exists because we have no method by which people in public office can be held to account.

    The carbon tax, excessive union fees, blatant expenditure of tax dollars on union friendly projects, the continued endorsement of Coal Seam Gas licenses (NSW Liberals) near water supplies and aquifers all reek of uncontrolled, self interest based management of our hard won tax dollars.

    We need a way of making Public Office Holders Accountable.

    KK


    Report this

    111

    • #
      inedible hyperbowl

      because we have no method by which people in public office can be held to account.

      KK, part of the newspapers job I thought was to hold our pollies to account?
      There is the problem.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        The Newcastle Herald carefully screens and adjusts comments from the general public in the opinion columns and blogs.

        The blatant censorship is obvious but they are doing the locals a favor in not causing alarm about how they

        are being ripped off by all manner of cunning schemes.

        Why would Novocastrians want to be involved in any thing else besides drinking , sport, Rugby League and drinking.

        KK


        Report this

        30

      • #
        RoHa

        “KK, part of the newspapers job I thought was to hold our pollies to account?”

        The Murdoch press is just after our souls, and Fairfax is just interested in being fashionable while trying to stop Rinehart from stealing their’s. They think they’ve got souls to steal.


        Report this

        25

        • #
          RoHa

          Stealing theirs!

          Everyone, please hit the thumbs down to punish me.


          Report this

          31

        • #
          Winston

          RoHa,
          I gave you a thumbs up, “irregardless”.
          Yours in grammatical purgatory,
          Winston


          Report this

          30

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Winston

            The words “irrespective” and “regardless” can and often are blended by the Illiterati to form that unmentionable conflation you noticed.

            It would seem to be an editing omission rather than any lack of learning.

            Our brain functions by using the basic rough template for the situation 90% of the time and

            occasionally updating it with fresh input for the remainder.

            We humans are imperfect but this is especially true for climate scientists.

            KK


            Report this

            20

  • #
    Mark D.

    Wait a minute, I thought the aftershock of this carbon tax was no big deal. Maxine, where are you?


    Report this

    80

  • #
    pat

    so ineffective (more counter-productive like turnbull) has greg hunt been as the Coalition’s Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage (how could he be otherwise with a title like that?), i had to do a search to see if he still held the position. when has he ever exploited public opposition to the CO2 tax to the Coalition’s advantage?

    meanwhile, enjoy the irony of the various players in the following saga, after turnbull had lost the leadership over the ETS:

    15 May 2010: Age: Jason Dowling: Point Nepean may get luxury hotel
    Local federal Liberal MP Greg Hunt said the cancellation of the coasts and climate centre, which was to be operated by the University of Melbourne, and the establishment of a commercial hotel or hostel on the site was a ”catastrophic outcome”…
    The University of Melbourne last night expressed disappointment that the coastal and climate centre had been cancelled.
    The federal government has cancelled a multimillion-dollar funding commitment for the centre.
    A spokesman for federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said yesterday that a 2007 heads of agreement between the Commonwealth and the University of Melbourne for a national centre for coasts and climate was conditional on a lease being signed and a funding agreement being agreed to. ”Neither of these have occurred and since the handover neither the University of Melbourne nor the Victorian government has raised this matter with the Commonwealth,” the spokesman said… http://www.theage.com.au/national/point-nepean-may-get-luxury-hotel-20100514-v4mq.html

    Greg Hunt: Hansard: Future of Point Nepean Site – Speech to Parliament
    June 21, 2010
    Beyond that, and still more importantly, it was agreed through the work of the Point Nepean Community Trust—a long, arduous and consultative planning process—that this was to be the site of the National Centre for Coasts and Climate. It was to be the site of a great research facility on a boutique scale that would be one of the jewels not just of the Mornington Peninsula, Port Phillip or Melbourne but of Victoria and Australia with regard to research and the environment.
    The things allocated were as follows: firstly, 110 student places; secondly, $7 million for the University of Melbourne to have a fit-out done on its behalf by the Point Nepean Community Trust; thirdly, $2 million of trailing rent over three years, including an escalator to be provided by the Commonwealth; fourthly, a much broader package of over $50 million allocated by the Commonwealth through different sources; and, fifthly, the agreement that, on handing over to the state of Victoria, the state would produce a payment of $10 million to be held in escrow purely for the purposes of the quarantine station area…
    It was a vision based around marine research and in the tradition of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the Bodega Bay marine institute. These are the global models upon which the Point Nepean vision was established…
    This has been a personal passion of mine for many years…
    The facts are these: on coming to government the Rudd government, through Minister Garrett, took instructions from the state of Victoria and put on hold almost all works relating to the completion of the National Centre for Coasts and Climate. Why? Because the state had a very different vision. As we saw recently in the Southern Peninsula News, that vision was to establish a large, commercial luxury hotel. This was in breach of every promise that the state had made during 2003, 2004 and 2005. This was in breach of the very campaign that the state waged during that time…
    So that sacred pledge was sacrificed with an instruction from the state of Victoria, through Parks Victoria and the office of the state environment minister Gavin Jennings, to Mr Garrett that the Commonwealth should wind back the works and hold the project in abeyance…
    The second element is this: the state immediately pocketed the $7 million which had been allocated to the University of Melbourne. That money which had been set aside for marine education, for research into climate change, for research into the magnificent heritage of Point Nepean—the tidal influence, the marine environment, the ecology of Port Phillip—was gone…
    http://www.greghunt.com.au/Home/LatestNews/tabid/133/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1447/categoryId/3/Future-of-Point-Nepean-Site–Speech-to-Parliament.aspx

    it’s okay to laugh, or at least smile.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    wonder if this well-paid position in a “charity” is open to climate change specialists with knowledge & experience of the science who are CAGW sceptics? we wouldn’t want oxfam to fall foul of the anti-discrimination laws, would we?

    Oxfam Australia Jobs: Climate Change Program Advisor
    Applications Close: Wednesday 14th of November 2012
    An exciting and unique opportunity for climate change specialists
    Fixed term 12 month contract, maternity leave backfill until January 2014
    Melbourne based
    We need your knowledge and experience in climate change science and development programming to support the ongoing implementation of Oxfam Australia’s Climate Change Plan of Action.
    This is a varied role that will support the development and implementation of new and existing climate change programs, oversee capacity building and learning initiatives with program staff and partners and support the coordination of Oxfam Australia’s climate change work across our public engagement, longer term development and humanitarian programs.
    We need someone who has a high level of technical capacity in climate change programming coupled with strong interpersonal communication and organisational skills.
    Salary $76,556 plus super, benefits and access to salary packaging.
    We promote diversity and practice equity. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are encouraged to apply.
    Download the position description and application form below …
    https://www.oxfam.org.au/my/jobs


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Sonny

    Jo,

    You make it sound as if Gillard had a choice to introduce a carbon dioxide scam tax and ETS.
    From what I understand Australian politicians are puppets to The United Nations and Agenda 21.
    Global warming is not just a scam to rob money off the productive class, it’s major goals are also to destabilize economies, deindustrialize nations, destroy agriculture, and ultimately depopulate the earth.

    Let’s call a spade a fucking shovel.


    Report this

    170

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      And help the general public understand why we should Get Out Of The United Bloodsucking Nations ASAP.

      KK


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Angry

        This is something that all Australians need to be made aware of……….

        AUSTRALIA TO BECOME A COLONY OF THE UN :-

        In case you are not aware of it, the government is planning to hold a referendum with the next federal election to alter the Australian Constitution to recognize the authority of local councils. ( at present local councils cannot make their own laws and by-laws)
        Most Australian local councils are members of ICLEI an arm of the United Nations Agenda 21.
        If this referendum passes ( it has been rejected by the public in a previous referendum) who do you think will be dictating the laws and by-laws of the local councils, Australia-wide, in future? ICLEI as per the Agenda 21 program,that’s who.

        Are we to become a colony of the U.N.?
        Simon Crean to offload councils referendum promise
        http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/simon-crean-to-offload-councils-referendum-promise/story-fn59niix-1226496663001

        Constitutional recognition for councils: a better governed Australia
        http://theconversation.edu.au/constitutional-recognition-for-councils-a-better-governed-australia-10184

        “The Greens will not allow local government recognition to fall off the agenda” ( Well they wouldn’t, would they. Peggy)
        http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-releases/labor%E2%80%99s-weak-kneed-approach-council-referendum-fails-local-communities

        NOW READ THE FOLLOWING LINKS:

        Why does your council desperately want recognition in the constitution ?
        http://larryhannigan.com/councils_and_the_constitution.htm

        The validity of local council by-laws.
        http://www.larryhannigan.com/validbylaws.htm

        Local councils- referendum 1988 ( rejected )
        http://www.larryhannigan.com/councilpowers.htm

        (What we are signed up to.)
        INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN AUSTRALIA
        http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/austral/inst.htm
        Cooperation
        Australia supported the establishment of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development and has been a member of the Commission since its inception. Australia’s commitment to the principles of Agenda 21 is also reflected in the appointment of an Ambassador for the Environment. Australia has consistently supported an expanded role for NGO participation throughout the UNCED process. This commitment has been reinforced by having NGO representatives on Australian delegations to all sessions of the CSD.
        Australia funds key international institutions involved in promoting multilateral solutions to environmental problems. Among these organisations are United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), World Health Organisation (WHO), United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), International Maritime Organisation (IMO), United Nations Education and Scientific Cooperation Organisation (UNESCO), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), and the twenty-two international agricultural research centres, including the sixteen centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.
        Since 1992, Australia has undertaken a range of substantial measures to integrate and promote the principles of sustainable development throughout the development cooperation program. The policy basis for the development program is contained in the document, “Towards a Sustainable Future.” This policy focuses on the key themes contained in Agenda 21, namely; the economic and social dimensions of development, the conservation and management of resources for development, and strengthening the role of major groups. In particular the policy basis is targeted towards sustainable development priorities in the Asia-Pacific region. The environmental expenditure component of Australia’s aid program increased from A$ 120 million in 1992 to over A$ 160 million in 1995.


        Report this

        70

    • #
      Angry

      THE COMMUNIST GILLARD “government” BRIBES COUNTRIES WITH AUSTRALIAN TAXPAYERS MONEY TO SUPPORT UN BID !!!!

      GILLARD “the red dog” AND THE COMMUNIST AUSTRALIAN “government” ARE TRAITORS TO ALL AUSTRALIANS !!!!!!!!!!!

      Australian aid flows to UN backers………………

      A place on the UN Security Council brings world prestige. Source: Supplied
      AUSTRALIAN aid spending in Africa, the Caribbean, South East Asia and the Pacific has increased by more than $2.9 billion since the government announced its bid for the UN Security Council.
      Countries traditionally not supported by Australia, which the government believes are now backing the bid, have been lavished with tens of millions of dollars.
      The government claims the campaign announced by Kevin Rudd in 2008 for the seat, which will be voted on at the UN later this month, has cost $23.59 million.
      However, aid and development spending in countries believed to be backing Australia has exploded, with taxpayers now funding everything from diplomatic training in the Caribbean to mango production practices in Cambodia and pearl culture in Tanzania.
      The increase in spending has come as Australia committed to increase its aid budget to 0.5 per cent of GDP by 2015, up from 0.32 in 2008-09, but government sources said the sudden change in focus outside of Australia’s region to Africa and the Caribbean was designed around the bid.

      Spending in Africa, where the government has concentrated much of its effort due to the region’s 50 UN votes, has included a $300,000 membership of a convention on biological diversity in Kenya.
      The number of African countries receiving support doubled between 2008-10, a government aid spending report revealed, with total spending in the region leaping from $101 million in 2007-08 to $354 million this financial year.
      Australia is now funding services including food, shelter, health and education, safe water and sanitation in Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Sudan, Libya, Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger Cote d’Ivoire, Chad and the Central African Republic.
      A separate project on water safety for Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe is also being funded by taxpayers.
      Australia has also given $17.3 million to help African countries improve law and order and justice, $50,000 on a police conference in Uganda and $143,000 on an African Network of Forensic Medicine forum.
      In 2011 Australia hosted 60 African heads of state or delegations, while Governor-General Quentin Bryce visited nine African states in 2009.
      Prime Minister Julia Gillard has appointed five special envoys to Africa.
      Five years ago Australia gave no aid to the Caribbean but the region, along with South America, has been lavished with almost $170 million in assistance since the UN bid was announced.
      The government believes it has the support of 15 Caribbean countries.
      A scholarship program in 2010 cost $150,000, diplomatic training came with a $330,000 bill and $210,000 was spent on a Caribbean Economic Resilience Design.
      South America has also benefited with $65 million given to a giant telescope project in Chile’s Atacama Desert.
      Foreign Minister Bob Carr denied the aid and development splurge is linked with the bid.
      “Australia’s aid program is not a part of the UNSC bid budget,” his spokeswoman said.
      She said Australian aid alleviated poverty, helped children and she added “we cannot be serious about alleviating global poverty without considering ways to support Africa.”
      The aid to the Caribbean, she said, was showing “Australia’s experience in the Pacific means that we are well placed to assist all small island developing states (SIDS) around the world.”
      Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Julie Bishop rejected the government’s claims the aid boost in Africa and the Caribbean was not connected to the bid.
      “I don’t think anybody believes that,” she said.
      “For example, the large increases in foreign aid to Latin America and the Caribbean are hard to justify on any development grounds given that most countries in Latin America and the Caribbean rank more highly on the human development index than than countries in the Asia/Pacific.”
      Spending on UN, Commonwealth and other international organisations is also on the rise and is due to jump from $342 million in 2011-12 to $457 million by 2015-16.
      Australia’s development partnerships with the UN will cost $102 million in 2015-16 and rejoining the UN International Fund for Agricultural Development will cost millions.
      WHERE THE MONEY IS SPENT
      Africa
      07-08 $101 million
      After the bid
      08-09 $153 million
      09-10 $175.2 million
      10-11 $287.1 million
      11-12 $291.3 million
      12-13 $354.6 million
      Latin America and Caribbean
      07-08 $0
      After the bid
      08-09 $0
      09-10 $36.8 million
      10-11 $41.9 million
      11-12 $43.4 million
      12-13 $47.7 million
      Pacific
      07-08 $862.9 million
      After the bid
      08-09 $922.7 million
      09-10 $1,099.6 million
      10-11 $1,100.8 million
      11-12 $1,155.9 million
      12-13 $1,170.9 million
      East Asia
      07-08 $969.7 million
      After the bid
      08-09 $1,016 million
      09-10 $1,116.8 million
      10-11 $1,099.1 million
      11-12 $1,205.8 million
      12-13 $1,321.2 million
      EXAMPLES
      - $140,000 for technical support for pearl culture in Tanzania in 2012.
      - 2750 scholarships in Africa.
      - Number of African states receiving assistance has doubled between 2008-10.
      - $270,000 reviewing agriculture and fisheries management in Eritrea between 2008-10.
      - $300,000 in 2009 for membership of the convention on biological diversity in Kenya.
      - $130,000 for peace building in Sierra leone and Burundi ion 2010.
      - $17.3 million between 2009-13 to help African countries develop effective law and justice frameworks.
      - $150,000 on the mango supply chain practices in Cambodia.
      - $647,000 on fisheries development in Cambodia.
      - $40,000 in 2010 for a scoping mission for contemporary political and diplomatic challenges for small states in the Caribbean training program.
      - $330,000 in 2010 for a Caribbean development training program.
      - $150,000 in 2010 for a Caribbean scholarship program.
      - $11,000 on climate change in the Caribbean in 2010.
      - $300,000 for farming initiatives in Egypt.
      - Spending on UN, Commonwealth and other international organisations to jump from $342 million in 2011-12 to $457 million in 2015-16.

      http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/australian-aid-flows-to-un-backers/story-e6freuy9-1226486103291

      SHAME SHAME SHAME !!!!!!!!!!!!


      Report this

      71

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        The unspoken implication behind all this munificence is that we here in good old Oz are doing so well and

        have everything under control under our various governments that WE CAN AFFORD TO BE GENEROUS.

        There are, unfortunately, many Australians, who are feeling the weight of very poor and disinterested

        Governance; they would love a bit of TLC and a little bit of time spent on problem solving here where it means something.

        Some ideas:

        Compared with transport infrastructure in Europe, Australia is like a third world country.

        Compared with many countries in Asia and Europe, with Finland as a prime example, our school children are not

        well educated; this is largely a matter of student indiscipline in classes and reflects the failure of the

        left wing plot to make everyone equal. If ever an example of this false sense of superiority brought about by

        forty years of “personal responsibility” was needed, the last Australian Olympic Swimming teams performance

        in and out of the water says it all.

        Just where is the Leadership in Australia.

        KK


        Report this

        60

    • #
      Tim

      You said it, Sonny. If more people looked at the global perspective instead of their backyard, they might get the message that when the UN says ‘jump’ we say ‘how high’. Like many countries, we have sold out our soul, our sovereignty and our people.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    I have a previous email exchange from Labor MP Graham Perrett which may be of interest to the chatter in comments above.
    It goes specifically to the question of whether Labor (or any part of it) canvassed support for a Carbon Tax sufficiently prior to the election to be able to claim they had electoral support to go forward with it.
    I do not know how much Mr Perrett’s previous electoral banter can be generalised to Labor as a whole. Other readers here may have similar stories from their own local candidates.

    I’ve highlighted some interesting portions in bold.
    —–8<—–8<———8<—–8<———8<—–8<——-8<—–8<——-8<—–8<—-


    From: "Perrett, Graham (MP)" <Graham.Perrett.MP (at) aph gov au>
    To: 'Andrew McRae' <andrewxxxx (at) xxx.com.au>
    Subject: Graham Perrett MP
    Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 04:34:56 +0000 (12/10/11 14:34:56)

    Dear Andrew

    Thank you for your email below that raises your objection to the Gillard Government’s landmark legislation to put a price on carbon. I appreciate that you have taken the time to provide me with your feedback as this helps keep me on top of the issues that are important to the residents I represent.

    I have noted your comments and acknowledge that you feel passionately about this issue. I commend you for this passion as it is not only your democratic right to voice your opinion to your elected representative, it also ensures that full and proper scrutiny is being applied to important decisions that Governments make.

    I understand that this decision has caused some level of apprehension in the community. But I believe this fear is unfounded and I suspect that the more people learn about what the Government has planned, the less apprehensive they will become.

    I firmly believe that the overwhelming weight of credible scientific opinion on this issue falls predominantly on the Government’s side. Environmentalists and Economists alike have confirmed the cost of not acting will be far greater than the cost of acting now to address this problem. And the experts also agree that the best way is to make polluters pay by putting a price on carbon.

    For your reference, I have also included a copy of my recent speech in Parliament in support of the Clean Energy Bill 2011.

     
     
    Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (11:02): I rise to voice my strong support for the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and 18 related bills before the House. It is an honour to do so with you in the chair, Deputy Speaker Livermore, because I know you feel passionately about this as well. I note that this is the third time I have risen in the House to speak in support of a system that will set Australia on a course to a clean energy future.

    Mr Randall interjecting—

    Mr PERRETT: The opposition have wrecked our previous two attempts to put a price on carbon emissions, although I should commend the member for Wentworth, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, for his courage to cross the floor on those occasions and also the two very brave Liberal senators, Sue Boyce and Judith Troeth, who had the courage to also cross the floor in the Senate. I saw them do so on the day that the Greens voted with the National Party against that legislation. Who knows what would have happened if a few more people had had the courage to support the CPRS then, but that is history. We cannot change our yesterdays, but we can influence our tomorrows.

    [ By the way, the proprietor of barnabyisright.com was right on the money. The banks were behind the whole carbon price push. Thus the "commendable" support for the watermelon policy by Mr Goldman Sachs himself. The pseudoscience and the climate impacts were a cover story.
    But blah blah, let's cut to the chase...]


    The opposition also claim that the government does not have a mandate to introduce this legislation. That is complete rubbish. They need to go back to the maths books and work out what a majority is. As far as I can work it out, a majority is 50 per cent plus one. They can either rewrite the laws of mathematics or rewrite the Constitution, but to suggest that we do not have a mandate is completely erroneous and specious. They seem to think that just because the Leader of the Opposition could not cajole or bully the Independents or sell anything to them to entice them into supporting him that somehow that is a reason that we do not have a mandate. This is the Leader of the Opposition who was elected, I recall, by one vote: 42 to 41. That was in a ballot where there was spoiled ballot paper—and how you can spoil a ballot paper when there are only three people in it I do not know—and a sick MP who did not turn up for the vote. But the Leader of the Opposition says, 'Oh, no, no.' I would not for one minute suggest that he does not have the right to be the Leader of the Opposition. My understanding of mathematics is very simple: if you get the majority, you have the support of those behind you, even the 41 who did not vote for you.

    The Leader of the Opposition wants to bully this parliament into rejecting this bill and waiving our responsibility to secure Australia's clean energy future. As the government, we were elected to govern in the best interests of the Australian people— for today and for our future; for our children and our grandchildren— and that is exactly what we are doing. My electorate knows where I stand on action on climate change and they always have. At the 2007 and 2010 elections, I was upfront with my electorate that a Labor government would price carbon pollution—and I am more than happy to show my election materials to anyone who doubts this. The Gillard Labor government made a clear election commitment to put a price on carbon, and that is exactly what we are delivering. I know full well that my community will hold me accountable to deliver on that commitment. Wherever I go in my electorate—at street stalls, at schools, at aged-care homes, at shopping centres and at other places of business—there is strong support for action on climate change. At a community cabinet in my electorate earlier this month speakers on the floor expressed strong support for a carbon tax.

    —–8<—–8<———8<—–8<———8<—–8<——-8<—–8<——-8<—–8<—-

    Assuming that Mr Perrett was telling the truth, this puts an interesting spin on things.
    How were Labor candidates so up front about putting a price on carbon, without anyone actually being aware that Labor were going to do it??
    If all these candidates were so upfront about putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions, why did Mr Perrett admit that the public still had a lot more to learn about the tax?
    Was his accusation of hypocrisy by Abbott in parliament an accidental tacit admission that the mandate was obtained by cajoling or bullying the Independents? Moreover, does it imply that the mandate for the legislation comes not from a majority of informed voters but from one cajoled and bullied politician?

    The question is not so much how Labor can introduce a carbon tax after Gillard saying there wouldn't be one. The question should be, why would Gillard say there would be no carbon tax when this was The Plan all along?
    What, Mr Perrett got that memo but the future Prime Minister missed it? Just another case of being "young and naïve" perhaps?


    Report this

    170

    • #
      Gnome

      So Perrett reckons if you get over 50% you’ve got a mandate to do anything at all? That’s what having a mandate means?

      Wow! Bet he doesn’t want to be quoted back to himself after the next election.

      (For consideration- mandate means the things which it is mandatory for the Government to do (or not do), because they promised to do (or not do) them.)


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Mattb

      As they say when quoting facts… here is the full quote:
      “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but lets be absolutely clear. I am determined to price carbon”


      Report this

      09

      • #
        Mark D.

        Ha, Absolutely clear?

        No Mattb, she wasn’t “absolutely clear” else she would have said CO2 not carbon. If she really wants to “price” (tax) carbon then you Aussies are in for a whole lot more tax.

        The observation is clear; she meant to be a weasel. She meant to say anything necessary to be elected.

        And you support her.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        Angry

        vermin attract each other……


        Report this

        41

      • #
        Gnome

        Not fair either Matt. You either quote the whole thing including not proceeding without consensus after a people’s assembly, or you accept our right to only quote the bit that matters.

        You can’t criticise us for quoting selectively, then pretend to make the correction by quoting selectively.

        Anyway, “no carbon tax” means no carbon tax, not carbon tax now and ETS later. I would never have voted for that.


        Report this

        40

    • #
      Angry

      Labor MP Graham Perrett another stinking communist traitor to his fellow Australians.


      Report this

      71

  • #
    Manfred

    Carbon tax losing its sting with voters

    PUBLISHED: 22 Oct 2012 Financial Review
    http://www.afr.com/p/national/carbon_tax_losing_its_sting_with_QEngKwqgo7MgUYSagsVd8L

    Those of you who may have seen the Financial Review this past weekend may also have noticed the above article, in which it is said that the carbon tax is yesterday’s news and we now reside in a ‘post carbon tax era’. From recollection I think Australian Treasury indicates that the economic impact of tax is very small (considerably less than expected) though mention of year 2 and year 3 projections was studiously avoided.

    It seems that no matter how monstrous the political lie or the electoral deceit, the life span of the foul odour is about a year. Present company excepted, are people really “moving on” or is this the spin meister surreptitiously at work?


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      It is safe to say that it is the spin meister, because it is always one spin meister or another.

      On the few occasions, when I have been able to have a conversation with politicians or senior party members (of various hue), it is always officially “off the record”, and “background information”. If I want information that I can quote, it has to be supplied through a member of the staff (who of course is a PR person).


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Angry

      Australians will NEVER FORGET OR FORGIVE THE TREASON OF THIS “RED DOG” and it’s communist government !

      They are finished !


      Report this

      53

  • #
    MadJak

    Haha Thomson must be co-operating with the police so well that they needed to raid his house and his electoral office the other day.

    And he continues to tout the line You can trust me, I’m a union placed politician….

    Yeah sure….


    Report this

    110

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    OT. Headline “Gillard to boost Murray water
    Are they to liquefy her or is it something else?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Mark

    More news:

    A rare breakout of political sanity has occurred in NSW. The ‘Coastal Retreat’ legislation passed by the previous ALP government has been repealed. These laws forced local councils to enact ‘follow-on’ by-laws based on the IPCC sea level fiction.

    Local governments of a ‘Green’ bent now have nowhere to hide if they attempt to enforce their lunatic regulations on their ratepayers. They will ‘own’ fairly and squarely any by-laws that they pass on coastal retreat.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      That’s fantastic.

      Back to reality.

      Back to common sense.

      Down with Political Correct Straightjackets for the masses.

      KK :)


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Sonny

        Catastrophic sea level rises due to effects of global warming….
        Oh yeh how are those predictions of 3 – 5m sea level rise by the end of the century tracking?
        Do I need to look at coastal sea level rise data, calculate the expected annual rises and probe to anyone what a complete bunch of fucking bullshit this all is?


        Report this

        50

  • #
    Joe's World(progressive evolution)

    Jo,

    Does Australia have a legislation where they can prorogue(suspend) parliament?

    In Canada, both the federal and provincial leaders use this quite often when they are in trouble.
    Sure gives our freedom system a black eye when they can suspend parliament until they are out of their pickle.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      cohenite

      The GG has the power to dissolve parliament for whatever reason [elections usually] but must do so on the advice of the executive via the PM.

      If Gillard thought things were getting too hot she theoretically has the power to proprogue parliament. I think she would have to invoke some declared crisis to justify such advice to the GG, but as we have seen nothing is beyond her.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        cohenite

        This at Bolt.

        I really think the rule of law and due process is being lost in this country.

        This will be Gillard’s legacy.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          John Brookes

          The right has a history of pursing its political opponents in the courts. The right is “born to rule”, and any method to bring down your opponents is ok. In WA, Richard Court pursued Carmen Lawrence. Federally, they went after Paul Keating and his piggery. In the US, they tried to impeach Clinton.

          The right have no shame, and would have no power if not for the useless idiots who vote for them.


          Report this

          216

          • #
            Mark D.

            Tried to impeach Clinton?

            Sorry that you don’t believe in the rule of law JB.

            You should be asking yourself if he actually did break the law.

            DID HE?(of course I shouldn’t assume that you know what sexual relations are either.
            Or do you believe leaders from the Left don’t have to follow the same rule of law?


            Report this

            61

          • #
            John Brookes

            It was, Mark D, a witch hunt. The frantic writhings of a right wing squirming with the frustration of not being in power.


            Report this

            214

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            Carmen Lawrence used parliamentary privilege to destroy a person’s reputation to the point where they committed suicide. The claims were later shown to be utterly without foundation.

            And you talk about “witch hunts”?????


            Report this

            80

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Hi JB…

            It was, Mark D, a witch hunt. The frantic writhings of a right wing squirming with the frustration of not being in power.

            The squirming of which you speak does not know political flavours or colours.

            Surprisingly – the lust for power is not the least bit political – it is apolitical, and amoral. Political and Moral frameworks are simply vehicles for the expression of the lust for power – and are not conditioned by it.

            The upshot. Every frustrated tyrant squirms – regardless of what lies fly from their mouths.


            Report this

            70

          • #
            Tony Hansen

            John, How about Goss and Joh?


            Report this

            30

          • #
            cohenite

            Touched a nerve John? Your examples are pathetic; Lawrence drove an innocent person to suicide; there are still questions about Keating’s involvement in that piggery and while Clinton was cleared of wrongdoing in the Whitewater episode many of his associates were convicted; in respect of Lewinsky the issues are close to ONE of the controversies surrounding Gillard; which is, how can a women assert misogyny when her personal life is littered with affairs with married men, which by any standards, are a betrayal of the wife.

            Gillard has cogent questions to answer about her employment at Slater and Gordon; the potential offences are criminal: false witness, lying under oath and misrepresentation.

            “Born to rule”! John obviously owns a time machine and is confusing the present day with Victorian England.


            Report this

            61

          • #
            wes george

            Actually, I kind of liked Clinton’s definition of sex.

            However, My efforts at using it as a pick up line down at the local club scene (back in the day) were miserable failures.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            ExWarmist,

            You are absolutely spot on the money.

            You obviously have a deep understanding of the political psyche, which is both worrying and suspicious.

            Unlike John Brookes, of course, who speaks from a theoretical position of political naivety. Adam Smith (deity rest his soul) had more of a clue.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            cohenite

            However, My efforts at using it as a pick up line down at the local club scene (back in the day) were miserable failures.

            wes, you have to make sure the cigar is not lit.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Streetcred

            John, you’re on shaky ground … the left has a long history of exterminating dissent without any attempt at court. Better to just retract that silly statement of yours.

            “The right left have [sic] no shame, and would have no power if not for the useless idiots who vote for them.”

            Maybe next time we should just not allow lefties to vote as they don’t know how to exercise power with responsibility.


            Report this

            31

          • #
            Streetcred

            I still would like to know, John, how Keating being only ever a union misogynist (he definitely doesn’t like women) came to be so fabulously wealthy ? Maybe an impending future royal commission into union corruption might answer that for all of us.


            Report this

            31

          • #
            John Brookes

            And there you have it Streetcred. He’s been out of office for 14 years, and still you want to pursue him. John Howard lied about there being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – but I don’t want him jailed – just happy in his retirement. Why are the right such an unforgiving lot?


            Report this

            27

          • #
            Catamon

            Actually, I kind of liked Clinton’s definition of sex.

            So, never accept a cigar from that man wes.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Catamon

            Why are the right such an unforgiving lot?

            Because they get their legal work done pro bono.


            Report this

            11

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      All Australian Parliaments – state and federal – have the power to effectively (as opposed to via legislation), prorogue themselves by simple majority vote to suspend sittings.

      Christine Kenneally and her (then) Labor government did this in NSW prior to the last election (but before it was called), to prevent open debate about the sale of power utilities.

      What we really need is Citizen Initiated Referendum and
      Citizen Initiated Recall.

      .
      But don’t hold your breath waiting for either.


      Report this

      61

      • #
        wes george

        What we really need is Citizen Initiated Referendum and
        Citizen Initiated Recall.

        That’s a call for mob rule, MV.

        Once the legal structure was in place for Citizen Initiated Referendums, then EVERY election would be followed by a CIR public safety committee thereafter…

        Well, every election, until one particular resonant CIR Comité de salut public results in a violent revolution after which a necessary dictatorship of the proletariate would be installed and Habeas corpus suspended.

        Final solution, indeed.

        And you get pissed off when I call your ideas extremist. Well, maybe you’re just bloody naive.


        Report this

        32

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          … EVERY election would be followed by a CIR …

          I’m not so sure, Wes.

          Think about it for a moment. An election is held, and one party or the other gets elected through majority vote. They get elected because the majority of people like the PACKAGE of policies the elected party propose (or because the other side have soiled their own nest, which is a different scenario).

          A CIR would therefore only be meaningful on a policy, by policy basis. So a CIR could serve to fine-tune the actual policies that would be translated into law.

          Mind you, I would not put it past the politicians to simply re-brand a rejected policy with another name and different spin … leading to another CIR … ?


          Report this

          30

          • #
            wes george

            Think the end game through, Rereke.

            If a CIR legal structure was in place, as MV naively suggested, then every loser of an election would have a legal apparatus to challenge the election result. After all, we can be sure that when Labor loses the next federal election there will be plenty of “activists” who imagine the defeat was illegitimate. Call a referendum!

            Obviously, it wouldn’t be wise for a loser of a massive landslide to challenge the result immediately and get whacked again, but in Britain, France, the US and Australia election results hinge on 1 to 5% margins. Why wouldn’t the loser seek to challenge the election at the very first opportunity?

            Polls vary monthly. Could get lucky.

            The whole idea of electing a representative for a given term is to separate them from threat of instant recall so that they can exercise judgement in defiance of mob rule for the good of the nation.

            Some wiseguy once pointed out that people elect the government that they deserve. I take that to mean that constitutional democracy is a learning process for us all. The Gillard clown posse is a case in point. We, as a nation deeply erred in electing her. But that error in no way justifies mob rule or the violence that would result from debasing our constitutional system.

            A CIR would favour the demagogic left more than a responsible conservative coalition seeking to roll back government hand-outs (bribes) to business, unions, state controlled media and other bureaucracies… whoever.

            Look at Newman Campbell in Queensland. He’s trying to roll back wasteful spending and is being demagogued as a cruel Nazi trying to destroy the lives of people who require the state to redistribute other people’s money to them. Call a CIR! Start a popular revolt.

            A welfare state’s goal is to achieve a majority dependent upon a working and creative minority to feed, clothe and entertain it. An absolutely pure majority theoretically should eventually twig and vote to kill the so-called rich and eat their property one day.

            Within a matter of a few election a Citizen Initiated Referendum (CIR) would be standard procedure. So standard, in fact, that the ultimate end game is a referendum resulting in a government that then bans all referendums, including the usual elections.

            For what are referendums but elections by another name?

            By debasing the working constitutional arrangement for elections with an “outrage”-based alternative route to power elevating mob rule to a civil right, we are setting up a route to absolute power. For once power is achieved through mob rule it is rarely relinquished without violence.

            We already have in place a constitutional democracy that provides for an election process that is finely balanced with the rule of law and judiciary and our civil right to freely associate and express dissent.

            Citizen Initiated Referendums are like laws outlawing ‘hate’ violence. It’s already illegal to bash someone. The redundancy only creates an entirely new and divisive civil rights industry to abuse the legal system, while no better protecting anyone from violence.

            CIR is a dangerous and unlimited redundancy that empowers most those who would stop at nothing to seize power illegitimately.


            Report this

            02

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            Wes, your ability to display your utter ignorance on a seemingly limitless number of subjects knows no bounds. CIR has NOTHING to do with elections or the results of elections. We already have legislation covering disputed election outcomes and the means of addressing and resolving such disputes.

            CIR has NOTHING to do with challenging election results. Again, you are singing from the Boswell/National Party hymn book, which tells us a lot about you.

            CIR is simply a means for the electorate to overturn legislation which is not supported by the majority of the population. Isn’t the “will of the people” (as constrained by the Constitution) what it’s all supposed to be about?

            At the last election the Australian people voted overwhelmingly AGAINST a carbon tax. Nonetheless, we got a carbon tax. What is so wrong, so dangerous, so threatening, in the Australian people having a mechanism for saying “no way – you want to do that, go back to the polls and get a mandate from the people”?

            CIR works like this: the government of the day passes legislation that is perceived as unpopular and without a mandate with a majority of voters. A petition is started. A specified number of people must sign the petition – figures of anywhere between 100,000 and 500,000 have been bandied about.

            Once the required number of petitioners has been reached, the legislation must be subjected to vote by referendum, and to succeed must secure a majority of votes in a majority of states, just like any other referendum.

            The carbon tax question is probably the ONLY issue I can think of in the past decade that could even secure the signatures to force a referendum, let alone overturn the legislation.

            Perhaps you’d like to explain, with reference to the Boswell/National Party “mob rule” doctrine, how, for instance, CIR could be used to pass laws to shoot everyone with blue eyes, to solve the major city overpopulation situation?

            .
            I guess the moral of the story is this, Wes George: If you are going to side with idiots** and quote idiots, the don’t be surprised if you are counted with the idiots.

            Readers feel free to substitute Senator Boswell and the National Party here.


            Report this

            31

          • #
            wes george

            You’re shifting the goal post, but to no avail.

            The answer is the same. If every decision by parliament can be challenged by a referendum based upon how large of a mob demagogues can assemble then we are finished as nation of laws.

            Every government of the day passes legislation that is perceived as unpopular and without mandate by some disgruntled segment of the population. So a petition for referendum will always be started if the legal apparatus is made available.

            What this country needs is fewer laws. Fewer new and unwarranted rights to challenge the constitutional rights of everyone and more personal responsibility to cast your bloody vote intelligently in the first place!

            If we get it wrong and elect a Gillard-Oskshot-Windsor-Green Government then we have the government we deserve until the next election.

            We, as the people, must take responsibility for the people we elect.

            What you are suggesting is a shadow government composed of whomever can raise the largest mob.

            Obviously, given today’s government this would benefit us, the majority of Australians who are opposed to the carbon tax.

            But how daft does one have to be to not see that such mob rule would be quickly turned against property rights, against free expression of ideas not held by the majority and ultimately to a ‘dictatorship of the proletariate.’

            The “idiotic” ideas I am drawing upon extend from Plato and Aristotle to the Magna Carta to the Scottish Enlightenment to the Federalist Papers and beyond to Lincoln, Orwell, Churchill, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, William Buckley and many others who have outlined the fallacies of unlimited democracy.

            Although, I reckon you do not know the pedigree of your memes, I am sorry to inform you they start in the 1845 anarchist uprisings across europa and are well expressed in Carl Marx’s, Engel’s, Trotsky’s and Mao’s work. The dictatorships they spawned murdered well over 100,000,000 people between 1917 and 1987.

            Absolute democracy as expressed in mob rule will always lead to a dictatorship of the proletariate.

            I’ve provided you with a reading list above. Start with Plato’s Republic. Don’t stop until you understand the American concept of the separation of power between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. And why the consolidation of power in the hands of any single source is a recipe for totalitarianism.


            Report this

            13

          • #
            Mark

            Load of crap, Wes.

            You’ve just hand-waived off legitimate criticisms of your position and restated your demolished arguments.

            Just tell us when Switzerland lapsed into anarchy, Wes. Or are you going to insist that they are, according to you. Now that would be laughable.


            Report this

            40

        • #
          memoryvault

          That’s a call for mob rule, MV.

          Yeah, look what happened to poor old Switzerland.
          Not to mention about a dozen other European democracies, plus about 20 states in the USA.

          Citizen Initiated Referenda (CIR) are constrained by the same limitations as are imposed on the Federal Parliament by the Commonwealth Constitution. You do realise that’s what the Constitution is for, don’t you Wes? To DEFINE and LIMIT the power of government.

          Seriously Wes you should learn to engage your brain before spouting National Party dogma, as espoused by that well-known socialist Boswell.

          Final solution, indeed.

          As I pointed out in a previous thread, Wes, it’s getting more and more difficult to distinguish your mindset from that of the cultists who want to tattoo us and ship us off the “re-education” camps.

          .
          Or simply kill us off.


          Report this

          40

      • #
        Catamon

        Why am i so un-surprised to find advocates of a citizens initiated recall mechanism posting here. Of all the idiot ideas to be proposed in a functional democracy, that is one of the most obviously stupid.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Sean

      Interestingly, the green crook running Ontario just prorogued parliament and then resigned as PM to avoid a criminal indictment for contempt of parliament regarding his lies to parliament about the costs of his latest energy fiascoes.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    RoHa

    “How could Gillard run for another election? There is no promise she could make that anyone can believe.”

    Meh. She’s a politician. No-one over the age of nine should believe any promise she made anyway.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Sonny

      I don’t know Roha,

      It seems that voting public, even after being lied to ad infinitum, still clings onto the fallacy that politicians (like all other business professionals) are held to account for the promises that they make and their consequences.

      As far as I’m aware there is ZERO accountability for politicians and anybody employed by them.
      Take a look at Tim Flannery.

      How are his predictions of permanent drought in Eastern Australia going?
      How much money was wasted on Desal plants based on his brand of alarmism?
      Has he been reprimanded for his complete and utter failure in this regard?


      Report this

      40

      • #
        RoHa

        I said no-one over the age of nine should believe her promises.

        But, yes, the voting public are pretty stupid. And that goes for the right as well as the left. The only solution I see is to make me dictator for life.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Sean

      people on the left are not to bright and will believe anything,
      she will probably get re-elected


      Report this

      21

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    “In 2010 eighty percent of Australians voted for parties promising no carbon tax”
    By 2012 one hundred percent of Australians were paying a carbon (sic) tax!


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Sean

    Is Australia still a country? I thought Gillard had turned it back into a penal colony. How is life down under as a carbon slave?


    Report this

    32

  • #
    Angry

    WAYNE SWAN DONATES AUSTRALIAN TAXPAYER FUNDS TO THE UNITED STATES DEMOCRAT PARTY !!!

    Pretty free throwing around our ( taxpayer’s ) money, eh? .

    Treasurer Wayne Swan linked to Democrat charity donation
    http://www.news.com.au/national/swans-attack-on-us-republican-party-labelled-hateful/story-fndo4eg9-1226478700065
    First part.
    TREASURER Wayne Swan, who today said US Republicans are economic “crazies”, has been linked to a Government gift of $550,000 to a foundation run by former US President, Democrat Bill Clinton.
    The taxpayers’ money four days ago went to the former president’s Clinton Foundation to pay for carbon accounting in Kenya.

    Liberal environment spokesman Greg Hunt today said the Treasurer was “playing in partisan politics” by attacking the Republicans and helping a leading Democrat figure during the US election campaign.

    “It’s completely inappropriate for the Treasurer to be playing in partisan US politics and that is not in Australia’s interests,” Mr Hunt told news.com.au.

    “Against that background, it seems even odder that they are giving money to one of the world’s richest foundations.”

    The Government approved $550,000 for the design of a “National Carbon Accounting System in Kenya”, according to a tender document from the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.
    The Government is expected to be asked why it was sending the design work to Boston when it boasts of creating so-called green jobs here in Australia.

    https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=public.cn.view&CNUUID=D1A6B387-E86B-B6BB-75D075AAAF6B33F9

    SHAME, SHAME, SHAME !!!!!!!!!!


    Report this

    91

  • #
    Good one, Gillard

    After all her & Krudd’s loony expenditure, Gillard now turns around to cut the welfare benefits of single mums – gee, single mums are raising some of this country’s next generation of workers, let’s make it harder for them. Good one Gillard. This shows you really care for families and the next generation of workers. Go hang out with your rich greenie [******] mates.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Angry

    THE COMMUNIST AUSTRALIAN “GOVERNMENT” EXTORTS MONEY FROM TAXPAYERS BASED ON FRAUD !!!!!!!!!!!!

    Prior to the 2010 Federal election, Labor leader Julia Gillard stated the following as an election promise – clearly and concisely:

    “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.”

    http://www.hotheads.com.au/carbon%20tax%20-%20julia%20gillard%2001.mp3

    Prior to the 2010 Federal election, shadow treasurer Wayne Swan stated the following as an election promise – clearly and concisely:

    “No it’s not possible that we’re bringing in the carbon tax, that is a hysterically inaccurate claim being made by the Coalition.”

    http://www.hotheads.com.au/carbon%20tax%20-%20wayne%20swan%2001.mp3

    read more:-

    http://www.hotheads.com.au/carbon tax scam.htm


    Report this

    12

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    @Sonny
    “You are right. They are a bunch of fraudsters liars and thieves.
    And their pathetic little minions come here routinely to spy on the few “contrarians” who care enough about Australia to speak up”
    Sorry Sonny, gotta disagree.
    They’re only doing the best that they can to survive and, clearly, thrive despite their apparent lack of talents.
    That they are coining it in and will continue to do so is apparent and has to, within the context that they exist, be applauded. Darwin and I’m by no means a creationist got it wrong when he lauded ‘survival of the fittest’ as being the evolutionary advantage.
    Politicians of the ilk that you’ve denigrated clearly buck that trend. Cuckoos do win sometimes!
    As for the ‘minions’; yup flies are attracted to the unsavoury stuff but it’s nowt to do with spying. Just nature!


    Report this

    30

    • #
      John Brookes

      Gotta agree Roy, the only people with less talent than the current government are the current opposition.


      Report this

      112

      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        How do you distinguish between two zeroes?


        Report this

        73

      • #

        @ John Brookes
        I have this fantasy where you post the following: ” I have to inform you that I’ve re-examined the facts as they currently stand and find myself at odds with my own conscience regarding this issue and others we have discussed here. I therefore must as a matter of personal integrity re-evaluate my position and renounce my pro AGW stance.” I believe in you John, you always manage to come across as silky reasonable despite your viewpoint. ( A bit like the Gestapo). I live in hope.


        Report this

        11

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        John Brooks said:

        Gotta agree Roy, the only people with less talent than the current government are the current opposition.

        The Labor/Greens and the ‘Independents’ would agree with you on the second part. They blame Abbott and the Coalition for everything that has gone wrong – and everything has gone wrong. Never before has an Opposition been assigned, what must be, magical detrimental omnipotence. It’s a shame that they aren’t in Government because, if they were, we would be able to kick their destroying arses out.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Sean McHugh

          John Brookes said:

          And I’m still of the opinion that there are gaps in our understanding of climate change . .

          It’s worse than we thought.

          – but that one should be careful and start to act before we have complete knowledge.

          Make a whole lot of expensive useless gestures now and hide the decline later.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Angry

        The communist “red dog” gillard “government” reminds me of a sewerage pit……

        THE BROWN CHUNKY STUFF ALWAYS FLOATS TO THE SURFACE !


        Report this

        22

  • #
    ExWarmist

    My apologies for everyone else – OT (older thread relevant).

    Attn James: You have been answered here

    You need to read what you link to more closely before using it to buttress your arguments. The UK Met Office (according to Mr Dave Britton) does indeed agree with Mr Rose wrt the 16 year pause in warming.

    Note that Dave Britton is the Chief Press Officer for the UK Met Office.

    Furthermore – the same post states that the UK Met Office holds that the world is currently warming at 0.03 degrees celcius per decade – that’s scary stuff. 0.3 degrees of warming in a century at the current rate…..

    Colour me terrified!


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Bob Fernley-Jones

    I recall recently that Greg Combet, others, and MSM were ecstatic that because of the introduction of the carbon tax, there has been an alleged fall in demand for electricity and reduced CO2 emissions particularly in naughty Victoria causing the shutting down of part of the coal plants at Yallourn.

    Would it not be expected that demand would be reduced in the spring what with reduced heating or cooling requirements? For instance, at about that time I was able to switch-off the electrical booster heater in my 10-YO solar absorbent hot water service. And, of course all those expensive PV systems substantially paid for by taxpayers, (for the benefit of those that can afford the balance of cost or feel nobly green from it), will also come-on. (more so those systems affected by shade when the wintery sun was low in the sky).

    I went looking for some fully seasonal graphs of electricity demand but all that seems to be available give the winter and summer peak demands only; see the Victorian purple line here:
    http://www.aer.gov.au/sites/default/files/imagecache/accc_aer_statistics_page/20120712091554_Regional%20peak%20demand_CHART_1.png

    This shows a steady decline since around 2006/7 for summer and winter peak demand. (there is no indication for lower demand spring and autumn). Given the general winter-summer decline in demand for five or six years it seems rather extravagant to claim any attribution to the carbon tax since its very recent introduction!

    Also, if we can trust the BOM records for temperature, for the whole of the State of Victoria the following graph has a rough correlation with that above, given that seasonal temperatures are related to seasonal electricity demand. However, what we really need is a graph for the major population centres, particularly Greater Melbourne and nearby Geelong. (and 2012 is not yet available)
    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=vic&season=0112&ave_yr=0

    On that BOM site-page there is opportunity to explore other seasons or months or temperature definitions and more; at the will of your mouse finger endurance, but broadly, the few I’ve checked for evil Victoria are in rough conformity with the first graph cited.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    Roaa Garnaut taking care of the people in PNG, in the name of sustainability:

    26 Oct: Radio Australia: Ok Tedi wants PNG government to join it in Xstata’s Frieda River Project
    3 billion US dollar Frieda River project
    Since the Canadian company Inmet sold out at the beginning of last year Ok Tedi has been 100%-owned for the benefit of Papua New Guineans.
    The PNG government has a 37% stake and the PNG Sustainable Development Program Limited the rest…
    JEMIMA GARRETT: Nigel Parker has been working with Professor Ross Garnaut, Chairman of both Ok Tedi and PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd, to chart the way foreward (sic)…
    Frieda River is a big prize. It is a world class copper and gold deposit even bigger than Ok Tedi’s original resource.
    Xstrata has made it clear it may be willing to sell part or all of its holding.
    Nigel Parker says it is an investment that makes sense for Ok Tedi…
    GARRETT: What would it take for Ok Tedi to be in a position to buy into Frieda River?
    PARKER: It is simply the shareholder commitment to it. Our major shareholder PNGSD are very interested in it because of the benefits it would bring Papua New Guinea, particularly if Papua New Guinea’s own mining and exploration company has a very large chunk of it…
    GARRETT: Ok Tedi is a crucial source of revenue for the PNG government.
    In 2011, it received 496 million US dollars from Ok Tedi in taxes and levies and a further 64 million dollars in dividends.
    The government has a clear interest in ensuring Ok Tedi’s future but it will also need to consider the environmental impact of development at Frieda River.
    Xstata is due to deliver its feasibility study on the Frieda River project next month.
    Ok Tedi Managing Director, Nigel Parker, is keen to get on and make a bid…
    GARETT: You mentioned that Frieda river is very similar to the situation of Ok Tedi. Frieda River is in the head waters of the Sepik River. Ok Tedi has had a catstrophic effect on the Fly River. How would you do things differently at Frieda River?
    PARKER: You are absolutely correct. It is a pristine environment and in this day and age mining companies have to look totally different as to how they mine or exploit mineral resources. We are of the view that, with the gas resources here in the Western Province, we would first up generate power on this side and then transmit power through the Ok Tedi System and then up over the mountains so by using gas fired power, 160 odd megawatts, as opposed to damming pristine valleys and absorbing enormous areas, a la the Three Gorges dam in China, that would be our first view, that we would not look to interfere with the environment where we could use gas fired power. Then it gets down to whether it has to be open puit or whether we can go underground. I can’t answer those questions at this point.
    GARRETT: What about a tailings dam. That has been the big problem here. We have seen a mud river heading down towards the ocean at the mouth of the Fly River. What would you do a Frieda River?
    PARKER: My understanding is that that is not the same issue on the Frieda River side, that off the mountain escarpments there is land down there that is well aligned to tailings dams and tailings treatment solutions…
    GARRETT: Would you consider putting tailings into the river if the tailings dam didn’t seem possible?
    PARKER: I would suggest that the Board of OTML would be very sensitive towards that and, in fact, given the fact that the Sepik River is a pristine river that certainly would not be an option for us.
    GARRETT: But you are not ruling it out?
    PARKER: At this point, I could say to you that we would rule that out because in this day and age you can’t move into this type of situation to put tailings and, in fact, in our own operation here we have an active project in play at the moment, looking at building a tailings dam, very close to the mine operations and we anticipate that within twelve months or so we will have a fairly good fix on whether we can actually do that now. Why we can do it as opposed to the BHP era is that, 30 odd years have moved on, engineering solutions have developed, tailings treatment solutions have developed. The Chinese have built the Three Gorges dam. They’re putting highways under sedimentary flood plains so it’s a totally different environment now.
    http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/asia-pacific/ok-tedi-wants-png-government-to-join-it-in-xstatas-frieda-river-project/1036162


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Winston

      Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, knowing great white father, Garnaut, is “looking after” the natives. Who said the age of colonialism was dead? Still life in the old boy yet, while there are still virgin realms to exploit. I’m sure they’ll throw the natives a few trinkets to keep them happy and grease a few palms in government to maintain the upper echelon corruption in the PNG government. Nice!


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Dave

        .
        The ATM expatriates – this is Ross Garnauts private club. Chairman of the board of ATM expatriates. The ATM expatriates is a club of environmental vandals that rape PNG with pollution and then take huge amounts of money from the country. Ross Garnaut is the president , secretary and publicity man for this club. Then picks up a little number in Australia to Tax everyone to the hilt and Gillard pays him a fortune for this as well. Back to PNG – have a close read of all these local PNG websites that aren’t too happy with our “Great RIP-OFF White Master” Mr. or Professor or Moneyman Ross Garnaut.

        1. PNG PM calls on BHP Billiton to hand back control of PNGSDP. Mr. Ross Garnaut runs this show – the PNGSDP.
        2. PNGSDP wants to expand its mining operations Ross Garnaut is pushing for expanding his mining empire.
        3. Poisonous gas leak at Ramu refinery contaminates food gardens and Mr. Ross Garnaut owns shares in Higland Pacific which owns shares in Ramu. Surprised?

        These are just October occurances involving Mr. Ross Garnaut – don’t get me started on this leech and his past history in PNG. This man states CO2 is pollution and he is fucking killing millions of villagers lives in PNG right now. Pollution is CO2 says Mr. Ross Garnaut – and then goes back to the PNG $ (Kena) ATM and withdraws millions upon millions in cash. Check out Mr. Garnauts property portfolio around the world. Bastarrrrrrrd!

        How come MattyB, John Brookes, James, Catamon and the rest of these trolls not see this blatent vandal for what he is? Blinded by the money maybe and the chance to work with the most pure Professor in Australian history as he says himself. See Mr. Ross Garnauts own website sprouting all the tenderness of Vlad Tepes – the Impaler of environmentalism!


        Report this

        20

      • #
        John Brookes

        Not like BHP then?


        Report this

        05

        • #
          Dave

          .
          John – you’re correct in one train of opinion but wrong in the other.

          It all depends if Mr. Ross Garnaut is involved.

          Why doesn’t he have investments in Australian mining projects (as in mining on Australian soil) – because not enough money for him.

          In PNG Mr. Ross Garnaut was BHP (OK Tedi) and is now on the PNG Sustainable Development Program (Mr. Ross Garnaut is the Number One Leader) who is pushing for Xstata’s Frieda River Project to go ahead and pollute the Sepik River with millions of tonnes of heavy metal tailings and pollution with no regard for the environment.

          In Australia – BHP could not conduct such a mine site. UWA monitors the majority of environmental impacts by copper and gold mines in WA.

          Surely you can disconnect between your hero of CO2 and CAGW and true pollution, by protesting against such colonialistic money hungry white male Fuckwit who is Ross Garnaut.


          Report this

          30

        • #
          Dave

          .
          John Brookes,

          Forgot to add that Mr. Ross Garnaut was the cause of the Ramu tailings pollution in Basamuk Bay – which moulded it’s waste disposal system on Lihir Mine site.

          Read this carefully John because it’s the only LEFT wing website that actually reported this mess even though it was a pussyfoot effort.

          Ramu has had a land based gas spill plus the wiping out of Basamuk Bay with deep sea tailings placement. Not even 100 meters from the beach in 2010.

          You support Ross Garnaut and YOU SUPPORT death in PNG. Are you really interested in the environment JB?


          Report this

          20

      • #
        Dave

        .
        Forgot to add another website in PNG with Mr. Ross Garnaut.

        my focus has been on Paga Hill – but if the Treasurer, Prof Ross Garnaut and CEO David Sode, are not concerned by the findings of two COIs, two Public Accounts Committee inquiries, one Auditor General’s Office special investigation and a Supreme Court decision, that would indeed be a worrying new revelation.

        The Evidence on Rex Paki – an article on PNG Exposed is discussing Rex Paki – now on the board with Mr. Ross Garnaut????

        This man is not suitable to have influence in such environmentally and socially sensitive areas in PNG where his only interest is in the MONEY. Ask the ATO for how much tax Mr. Ross Garnaut has paid in the last twenty years – less than 1% of his worth.

        Mr. ATM EXPATRIATE PRESIDENT – Mr. Ross Garnaut.


        Report this

        40

    • #
      Angry

      Ahh yes ross GUANO………

      Ross Garnaut – the “gold” standard of environmentalism

      http://climatereview.net/ChewTheFat/?p=206

      He is also a member of the treasonous anti human Trilateral Commission

      http://www.wakeup2thelies.com/2011/11/27/a-list-of-the-current-australian-members-of-the-trilateral-commission/

      What a SCUMBAG!


      Report this

      11

  • #
    pat

    CCAs dive 11 pct on low expectations for Nov. auction
    LOS ANGELES, Oct 25 (Reuters Point Carbon) – California carbon allowances (CCAs) covering 2013 emissions fell 11 percent from their price one week ago to close Thursday at $12.25/t, the lowest price seen so far this year, on a growing belief that permits will clear near the program’s price floor of $10/t at next month’s auction…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2035359?&ref=searchlist

    “touts”???

    Controversial project touts ocean carbon credits
    WASHINGTON, Oct 25 (Reuters Point Carbon) – A controversial project located off the shore of western Canada that aims to both boost salmon populations and sequester carbon is unlikely to be able to repay a $2.5 million loan to a local credit union because it may not generate carbon credits as its proponents promised…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2035315?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    25 Oct: Bloomberg: Francois de Beaupuy: France’s Solar Suppliers Urge Industry Consolidation
    Schneider Electric SA (SU), Mersen (MRN) and Air Liquide SA (AI), which sell electrical equipment, graphite and gases to solar-panel makers, said the photovoltaic industry must consolidate to rebound from a price war.
    “We are going through a cleaning up of the market,” Schneider Chief Financial Officer Emmanuel Babeau said on a conference call today as he commented on declining sales to the solar industry. “There are too many players,” and the market will rebound as PV power prices become competitive “quicker than some could expect.”…
    About 180 solar manufacturers will probably fail or get bought by 2015 as overcapacity and low prices drive a wave of consolidation, GTM Research said this month. Almost half of those companies are based in the U.S., Europe and Canada, where manufacturing costs are high and producers can’t compete with lower-cost panels from China, the Boston-based researcher said…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-25/france-s-solar-suppliers-urge-industry-consolidation.html

    26 Oct: Daily Telegraph: AAP: Adelaide solar plant to compete with China
    Prime Minister Julia Gillard opened Adelaide’s Tindo Solar on Friday.
    Manager Richard Inwood said in time the plant would be able to produce panels at about the same price as those imported from China.
    Because of greater automation and innovation, Tindo could employ a lot less workers, Mr Inwood added…
    Tindo, which can meet the solar panel needs of 15 to 20 per cent of Australia, employs 12 people but plans to expand to up to 100 workers within three years.
    Mr Inwood said China could not continue to lose billions of dollars and predicted there would soon be a change, which would benefit Tindo.
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/gillard-opens-solar-panel-plant/story-e6freuz0-1226503743179


    Report this

    10

  • #

    My God, how did you Aussies end up with people like this?!!!. Democracy is dying because voters are being deceived. Fortunately for you, you don’t have MMP where you can vote for a horse and end up with a lame donkey who brays platitudes at you. For the umpteenth time. until we deal decisively with the way our media disseminates information ( without bias or prejudice) we can’t expect to have an informed public who, in possession of the facts, can make more informed decisions. Sounds hopelessly idealist I know but we have to start talking about this. The entire AGW meme only gained traction through a hopelessly subjective media narrative. Politicians seem to be generally too stupid and gormless to deviate from their mandated political positions. Perhaps we should select our politicians by press ganging them.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      John Brookes

      CT, you really should get a grip. The only reason the media ever report Monckton, Plimer et al is because they like conflict, and baldly reporting the facts on global warming is not nearly as much fun as pretending there are two legitimate schools of thought.

      But don’t trust me, CT, just wait 10 or 20 years, and you’ll be embarrassed by what you thought today.


      Report this

      219

      • #

        Luvverly, I called you out. Not only will I not be embarrassed in 10 or 20 years time, I will be proud of having the nous to suspect the intentions of some very dodgy people and what they did 20 or 30 years before. On your first point, you like comedy don’t you? The media would rather walk on broken glass than report on anything Monckton et al would have to say. They have cried wolf for so long now that any counter claims would put huge strain on their credibility. Lastly, this “School of Thought” has no real evidence to back up their claims. THAT is a fact. For the record, I believe man went to the moon, there is no God, and science and politics should never mix.


        Report this

        72

      • #
        memoryvault

        just wait 10 or 20 years

        I thought the “science was settled”, “snow was a thing of the past”, “drought was the new norm”, and “even if it rains the water won’t flow into the dams”.

        Now you’re telling me I have to wait “ten or twenty years” for confirmation of these “predictions”.

        I’ve got a news flash for you JB. Sometime in the next ten or twenty years SOMEWHERE:

        There will be a major earthquake,
        There will be a major volcano eruption,
        There will be a major hurricane,
        There will be a major cyclone,
        There will be major flooding,
        There will be serious drought.

        And you will attribute it all to “climate change”.

        .
        Sad, really.


        Report this

        130

      • #
        Chris M

        JB, I prefer to look forward to your much more imminent embarrassment, when the twitterati, latte-sippers, climate change troughers, watermelons and dinosaur Lefties like you are cast into the wilderness in about a year’s time (hopefully less). Mock away while you still have the chance, Johnny boy.


        Report this

        61

      • #
        Angry

        BROOKES, leftists like yourself are the ones who are out of touch and you will find out at the next federal election just how ANGRY the majority of Australians are with this communist “red dog” sham of a “government” !


        Report this

        51

      • #
        Jazza

        Ten years John? Why it’s now been 16 years since the planet warmed–why wait so long?
        I’ve moved on just the Obummer seems to have done and the Mitten!


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Sean

        John Brookes, do you really believe the crap you write [snip]?

        Also John, I don’t think that your BA in physics qualifies you to have an opinion on climate science – just applying your cult’s own standards to you mate.

        [] ED


        Report this

        10

  • #
    fretslider

    She didn’t want to offer an ETS, and later declared in the campaign “there will be no Carbon Tax”, but after the election she gave us both.

    She undoubtedly learned that tactic from Tony Blair. Everyone seems to do that now. But remember, she might even claim, like Blair, that she did in ‘good faith’ because she believed ‘it was the right thing to do’

    The weasels are in charge


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Paul R

    How could Gillard run for another election? There is no promise she could make that anyone can believe.

    I just hope that she is young and naive enough to believe she can beat Abbott or Turncoat. Either way we’re not in real good shape governmentally, nothings changed though and what could you expect of a government with origins such as the government of Australia, a government designed to tug of the forelock, to cow tow to the empire of the day, British, American, Fancy UN style one. The only thing we had going for us was the slight chance that we might actually have a higher authority, the rule of law. Gillard has done away with those rumours.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    News on the wires, is that Former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was sentenced this evening (GMT) to four years in jail for tax fraud.

    If an Italian millionaire, with “interesting” friends, can not avoid prosecution and sentencing, then perhaps Australia has some interesting times ahead.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    25 Oct: Denver Post: Steve Raabe: Weld County details investigation of Abound Solar
    Abound Solar, the defunct solar-panel manufacturer, is under criminal investigation for possible securities fraud, consumer fraud and financial misrepresentation, the Weld County district attorney’s office said Thursday.
    Loveland-based Abound closed its Colorado plant in July and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation in a move that left 125 workers without jobs and taxpayers holding the bag for up to $60 million in defaulted loans…
    The securities-fraud investigation stems from allegations that “officials at Abound Solar knew products the company was selling were defective, and then asked investors to invest in the company without telling them about the defective products,” the DA’s office said in a news release.
    Similarly, the consumer-fraud allegation is that Abound knowingly sold defective panels to customers.
    The third subject of investigation is that Abound allegedly misled financial institutions when the company was seeking loans…
    Abound has become the subject of political controversy over its failure after the U.S. Department of Energy approved up to $400 million in federal loan guarantees for the company.
    Abound drew about $70 million in guaranteed loans. The DOE has estimated that U.S. taxpayers will be on the hook for about $40 million to $60 million after Abound’s liquidation…
    Abound, formerly known as AVA Solar, was created in 2007 by energy researchers at Colorado State University. The company licensed the technology from CSU and operated independently from the university.
    CSU spokesman Mike Hooker said he is not aware of any university officials being under investigation related to Abound…
    http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_21853854

    26 Oct: Washington Times: Stephen Dinan: Audit: Green jobs stimulus program wastes cash
    Only 38 percent of those who have completed training got jobs based on it, and only 16 percent kept jobs for at least six months — the key measure of success for the program…
    The government earmarked more than $400 million for green jobs training programs, and $328.5 million has been spent so far…
    The Labor Department challenged the findings, saying that auditors didn’t consider the full progress of those who got training. The department said some of those who got training found jobs before their training was completed and said they should have been counted…
    Mr. Issa said in addition to poor performance records, the green jobs money “served as a slush fund” for the Obama administration to dole out payments to allies “like the National Council of La Raza, the Blue Green alliance and the U.S. Steelworkers Union.”
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/26/audit-green-jobs-stimulus-program-wastes-cash/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Politics is a dirty game but What a scumbag

    And the mining tax that Swan and Guilleard claimed to have gotten through as one of their first post night of the long knifes event has produced how much revenue? Yeah, that’s right, they decided to pass through some legislation looking like they were “the master negotiators”, but instead was just a complete lemon…..

    Honestly, you wouldn’t have to be very good to look like an absolute master compared to these ingrates.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Jazza

      A site called barnabyisright put the weights up about the mining tax with figures and all to show how the “world’s greatest treasurer” was played like the proverbial fiddle by “3 big miners”. The guy was prescient on a number of things but especially on matters fiscal. I live in hope when he finishes his(study) present occupation he will reactivate that blog–it was a first daily port of call and a real eye opener!


      Report this

      10

  • #

    Morning Jo,

    Forward to where — a third-rate autocratic state?

    I think that’s a bit harsh, at present I think it only rates as 2nd rate. To be 3rd rate it would need Malcolm Turnbull as Opposition Leader. :-)


    Report this

    20

  • #

    Just tell us when Switzerland lapsed into anarchy, Wes. Or are you going to insist that they are, according to you. Now that would be laughable.

    I just love people who use Swizerland as an example of a direct democracy that we should asspire to.

    So Mark, I’ll ask you the same questions I ask all such true believers.

    1. How many pre-conditions of EU Membership remain for Switzerland to meet?
    2. Considering that nothing in any of the Direct Democracy models preclude CIR questions having been defeated or suspended, at a later time, given that the minimum number of signatures for a new CIR are met, the question can be put to a CIR again. How are the people truly sovreign?
    3. If a subsequent CIR, or Government initiated Referendum accedes to EU Membership will a nation who surrenders sovreignty to the EU collective still be the pinnacle of Democracy we should aspire to?


    Report this

    01

    • #
      memoryvault

      I just love people who use Swizerland (sic) as an example of a direct democracy that we should asspire (sic) to.

      I am somewhat at a loss to understand quite how Mark’s passing observation that Wes George was talking crap (again) somehow managed to develop into an interrogation of Swiss politics.

      Nonetheless, in the spirit of open communication I’ll assume you’re another politically-challenged Boswell / National Party / Assembly of God acolyte (like Wes, apparently) and see if I can answer your questions.

      1. How many pre-conditions of EU Membership remain for Switzerland to meet?

      Pretty-much none. To all intents and purposes it is already a fully paid-up, functioning member via a series of treaties. The MAIN stumbling block to formal membership is that the Swiss people keep voting against it in referendums – you now – people power at work.

      2. Considering that nothing in any of the Direct Democracy models preclude CIR questions having been defeated or suspended, at a later time, given that the minimum number of signatures for a new CIR are met, the question can be put to a CIR again. How are the people truly sovreign (sic)?

      Because they can go on REJECTING it over and over again. Mind you, I’m pretty sure there aren’t too many people dumb enough, with pockets deep enough, to keep trying to get an issue up for referendum that has already been soundly defeated at referendum.

      Then again, it is the National Party and the Assembly of God church we are talking about, so I guess just about any level of idiocy is possible.

      3. If a subsequent CIR, or Government initiated Referendum accedes to EU Membership will a nation who surrenders sovreignty (sic) to the EU collective still be the pinnacle of Democracy we should aspire to?

      Not entirely sure what joining the EU has to do with Australian politics, but here goes.

      Australia is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Monarchy. Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors are the government. The Monarch, in turn, swears an oath to govern in accordance with the laws and customs of the people, that is, Their Will. The Parliament exists to advise the Monarch (the government) of The Will of the People. The Government is further constrained by the limitations imposed upon it by the written Constitution.

      The American system is much the same. It is a Constitutional Republic. The President is roughly the equivalent of our Monarch, the Oath of Office is our Coronation Oath, the Congress is our Parliament, and both are constrained by a written constitution. Like Australia, the USA is NOT a democracy. Both are democratic forms of government, in the sense that we get to choose our representatives (and the Americans get to choose their President), but neither are democracies (majority rules unconstrained by laws, customs, oaths or constitutions).

      Heaven forbid that we should ever become a full-blown democracy because therein lies precisely the “mob rule” that Wes was babbling on about.

      All of which has precisely nothing to do with the desirability of Australians having a formal means of overturning bad laws introduced by lying or corrupt politicians.

      .
      Or, in the case of the current government, bad laws introduced by lying AND corrupt politicians.


      Report this

      42

      • #

        So in essence your answers are,

        1) One only, public assent to membership.
        Tick, right answer.
        2) Switzerland will never vote for membership.
        Do you close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears when you tell yourself this?
        3) Australia and the US aren’t democracies.
        Now here was me thinking that democracy has three types, direct, representative and hybrid. And that the democratic index classifies Switzerland as a hybrid democracy, not a direct democracy and Australia and USA as representative democracies of the parliamentary type.

        Oh well, one out of three for you.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          .
          1) – Agreed.

          2) – Your question never mentioned Switzerland, in fact it specifically states “in any of the Direct Democracy models”. Therefore what the Swiss people may or may not do in the future specifically with regard to EU membership, can hardly be the correct answer to a generalised question about “direct democracy models”.

          I answered the question specifically with reference to possible mechanics and outcomes of a CIR system in Australia, since that is what the whole thread you are commenting on is about.

          3) – The Australian Constitution:

          Section 61 – Executive power

          The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

          Section 62 – Federal Executive Council

          There shall be a Federal Executive Council** to ADVISE the Governor-General in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the Governor-General and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure.

          ** Today known as the Cabinet, and is comprised of the various Ministers.

          .
          We are called a “representative democracy” because we get to choose, by election, who will represent our will to the government. The government remains the Monarch, and the Monarch is constrained by, amongst other things, the Constitution.

          We are officially a Constitutional Monarchy.

          .
          Don’t blame me – I didn’t write the Constitution.


          Report this

          20

          • #

            Correct, we are a Constitutional Monarchy, and our then Monarch acceded to the establishment of a Constitution and the formation of a Representative Parliamentary System, thus making us a Parliamentary Democracy, a type of Representative Democracy, not just in name but in actuality.

            I may be mistaken but it appears that you think we are a version of an Absolute Monarchy.

            You selectively quote sections 61 & 62 to support your argument but disregard section 64, probably because that would show your **Today known as the cabinet,(sic) to be wrong.

            Try this to understand the makeup and function of The Federal Executive Coincil, our equivelant to the Privy Council.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            No, England is an absolute Monarchy – there is no constitution.

            Section 64 – Ministers of State & Ministers to sit in Parliament

            The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State** of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

            Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council****, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

            After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

            ** Yep. Today we call “officers who administer departments of State” Ministers.

            **** Double Yep. Today the body comprised of the Ministers is called The Cabinet.

            .
            So your point is . . . .


            Report this

            10

          • #

            My point is that Parliamentary Secretaries (not appointed by the GG & not part of Cabinet) can and have been appointed to The Federal Executive Council.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          The United States is actually a Republic. Democracy is its means of maintaining and managing that Republic.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            The modern definition of a Republic is a representative democracy with an elected Head of State such as a President. At the time that the US became a Republic the accepted definition of democracy was a Direct Democracy.


            Report this

            00

      • #

        Question, why do you use both the quote function of the blog and add (sic) within what you are quoting? Just a tad redundant.

        Or are you one of the fools that believes sic erat scriptum is a way to ridicule a post you don’t agree with?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          .
          I ges Id just hait for pipple to thinck I speled as bad as u.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Well given that this is an informal setting, I like many others tend to be more lax with spelling and grammar than I would in a formal setting.

            That you respond to the question in this manner would tend to say that you are attempting to ridicule me and diminish the worh of my contribution based only on spelling & grammar. This says much more about you than it does about me.

            It is a pity you weren’t as pedantic with your own assertion about the Federal Executive Council as you are with my spelling


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I think you will find that Parliamentary Secretaries are appointed in an advisory capacity, and their appointment is confirmed by the GG..


            Report this

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            Paul, trust me on this, I would not go to any effort at all to ridicule you.

            .
            You’re doing such a sterling job all by yourself.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Giving attention to spelling subliminally indicates that you have also given attention to the subject matter you are trying to convey. You do yourself an injustice by being lax in spelling, and it detracts from the veracity of your message.

            Or such is my opinion.


            Report this

            10

          • #

            I think you will find that Parliamentary Secretaries are appointed in an advisory capacity, and their appointment is confirmed by the GG..

            2.1.4 In accordance with section 64 of the Constitution, all ministers of state (ministers and parliamentary secretaries) must be members of the Executive Council. The title ‘The Honourable’ may be used by all members for the duration of their appointment, i.e. usually for life. Only those executive councillors who are members of the current ministry are summoned to advise the Governor-General at meetings of the Council.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            The people may well be Sovereign, that doesn’t mean that what they want is in the national interest. We elect representatives to decide these thing for us. It aint perfect, but it’s better than the alternatives.

            Well, on that note I’m going to leave it, PaulM. If you accept that we “elect politicians to decide what’s best for us” – to paraphrase you, then you are back at the Tribal Elder stage of development of civilisation, and God help all of us if there are many more like you.

            Personally I vote for a person who I believe is going to represent the will of their electorate.

            That is, after all, why we call them “representatives”.


            Report this

            02

          • #

            to paraphrase you, then you are back at the Tribal Elder stage of development of civilisation, and God help all of us if there are many more like you.

            That isn’t paraphrasing, that is twisting and distorting what I said to suit your own argument.

            We have not been talking about wether we are properly represented by those we elect, that is a completely different discussion.

            Now you are simply being a coward and introducing specifics when we have been debating the broarder concept of democracy, and enhancing your cowardice by completely misrepresenting what I said.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          memoryvault

          .

          Question: What on earth has anything you have written so far got to do with the desirability or otherwise of Australia having some form of Citizens Initiated Referendum to overturn unpopular, bad laws introduced without a mandate, like the carbon tax?


          Report this

          10

          • #

            What is to prevent a CIR that succeded under one Party being overturned by another down the track? You are simply substituting the current inherent flaw in democracy with one you prefer but which in effect would be the same. There is no law that can’t be repealed under our current system, it is simply a matter of the cost of doing so once the government changes.

            And if we are to go down the road of unpopular, bad laws introduced without mandate, that agrument can be extended to just about all legislation, depending on your point of view.

            Democracy has flaws, but those flaws are to an extent it’s strength simply by the distance they place between our system of governance and totalitarian rule. I will accept the flaws in the current system any day over the only way to remove them which is to take away our right to dissent. I accept that by doing this I will have to accept the unacceptable for the time that is set down for a Parliamentary Term to expire and an election to be called.

            Why, because CIR’s in Switzerland have been held on some fairly dangerous (Swiss Peacekeepers can’t bear arms)and ridiculous (Pets are entitled to legal representation, homeopathy should be part of taxpayer funded health services) initiatives.

            The people may well be Sovereign, that doesn’t mean that what they want is in the national interest. We elect representatives to decide these thing for us. It aint perfect, but it’s better than the alternatives.


            Report this

            01

          • #
            Mark

            Paul.

            Your examples (even if true) of defective CIR laws pales into insignificance when compared to some of the laws passed by your beloved parliamentary representatives.

            It’s just not good enough to state “well if you don’t like the laws just vote for the other crowd and they will repeal those laws”.

            Wrong! The Libs hardly ever repeal Labor laws. Far from it, they leave them in place so that they get cemented in and reinforced by more socialist laws.

            The Coalition stands for nothing more than “socialism, but at a slower pace, comrade”. The only free enterprise they stand for is that of their mates at the big end of town. They couldn’t care less for small or medium size business.


            Report this

            21

          • #

            It’s just not good enough to state “well if you don’t like the laws just vote for the other crowd and they will repeal those laws”.

            How about it not being good enough to twist what a person says to suit your argument.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            PaulM

            What is to prevent a CIR that succeded under one Party being overturned by another down the track?

            Nothing at all. And that is the whole point.

            The citizens of the country, entitled to vote on a matter, agree by weight of numbers, that a certain measure should become law.

            At some later point, the citizens of the country, entitled to vote on a matter, agree by weight of numbers, that the previous measure was a crock of excrement, and should no longer be law.

            True democracy in action. And much better than voting for individuals whom you do not know, and who then make decisions on the citizens behalf, in which the citizens have absolutely no say.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Nothing at all. And that is the whole point.

            So the main difference between what we have and what you would prefer is the mechanism and time needed to change legislation.

            Our current system provides a mechanism periodically, your prefered system provides a mechanism for change every time enough signatures are gathered to force a CIR.

            That is exactly the type of system GetUp would love.

            No thanks, I’ll stick with the flaws we currently have rather than open that can of worms.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark

            How about it not being good enough to twist what a person says to suit your argument.

            Pot…kettle…black!!!!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            That is exactly the type of system GetUp would love.

            That is a straw man, and a logical error.

            GetUp would first of all need to get a majority of those citizens, who are entitled to vote, to vote in favour of what they propose. If their position is carried, the implementation could be deferred until the next General Election, whereupon it becomes incumbent on the incoming party to draft and pass the required legislation to enact the intent of the referendum.

            If, at any time, either before or after the next General Election, another group mounts a new referendum to negate the first, and achieves a majority of those voters entitled to vote. Then no action is required by Parliament.

            You obviously find such a prospect frightening, as well you might. It reduces Parliamentarians to the role of public service, rather than having the role of public mastership. For this reason, no Parliament will allow CIR to proceed. They much prefer the current system. But please do not refer to it as Democracy, because democratic, it is not.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            That is a straw man, and a logical error.

            CIR’s give the people veto rights of any legislative initiative and compell the government to consideration of the CIR in all circumstances regardless of wether it was part of their mandate at the election or not. CIR’s can be forced despite the Opposition of the governing party.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            CIR’s give the people veto rights of any legislative initiative if, and only if, the majority of people voting in the referendum choose such a veto. It may be that the majority of the electorate loved all of the policies proposed by a party, except for one policy that was heartily disliked. They would still vote for that party, in the knowledge that, if the majority agreed, the CIR could be used to remove the disliked policy.

            And yes, having the ability to raise a CIR does force the Government to consider the popularity of every policy they propose, and obliges them to act in a way that they consider reflects the wishes of the majority of voters.

            That is the point where we start to see democracy in action.


            Report this

            10

    • #
      Mark

      Woohoo yet another jumps in to defend the hogs stuffing themselves at the publicly funded trough.

      I can only assert that my notion of democracy is a world removed from that of you and Wes who swear unbounded fealty to a bunch of thieving swine, the likes of whom most decent people would not willingly invite into their homes.

      At no point have you addressed my point about CIR bringing about the collapse of government in any country where it exists. Both you and Wes indulged yourselves in an welter of comments utterly unrelated to the point.

      There was a Liberal Senator (Michael Baume) a while back who, when confronted with the subject of CIR could only respond with a lame “it goes against the principal of representative government”. That’s polliespeak for “I’m terrified of what the electors might do if they actually had some power”.

      Your sort of pollie, Paul and Wes. But not mine.


      Report this

      20

      • #

        Your definition of democracy appears to extend only to governments that do exactly what you want and introduce policies and legislation that you agree with.

        You then infer that those who don’t agree with you aren’t decent people, I’m surprised you didn’t include the favourite nuggett of “right thinking people” in your response.

        Your sort of democracy. But not mine.


        Report this

        01

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          The definition of democracy applies to Governments that do exactly what they told the constituency they would do in their manifesto, and in public or broadcast speeches.

          The current Australian system is more like an Autocracy (government in which one person or one group of people have uncontrolled or unlimited authority over others), rather than a Democracy (government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system).


          Report this

          10

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Subsequent thought: Calling the current political system in Australia a “democracy” is actually one of the great propaganda lies of our time.

          My conclusion is that PaulM is a propaganda wonk, probably working for the Labour party or an affiliated organisation (such as a union, perhaps).


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Mark

            My conclusion is that PaulM is a propaganda wonk, probably working for the Labour party or an affiliated organisation (such as a union, perhaps).

            Got that right (as usual) Rereke!

            The overweening arrogance of Paul to suggest that he and his ilk are the ‘chosen ones’ when it comes to national good and security stands for all to see.

            The style is different but the hubris matches up well with our old ‘friend’ Adam Smith. Just shut up and do what you’re told.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            My conclusion is that PaulM is a propaganda wonk, probably working for the Labour party or an affiliated organisation (such as a union, perhaps).

            I am currently working full time & run a secondary small business and am a vocal critic of our current government and their policies.

            I am not a member of any political party although I am a member of a number of organisations like the IPA.

            My screen name here is the same one I use on numerous sites both Australian and International and is my real name and the first letter of my surname, not a personna to hide an agenda.

            You infer dishonourable motives because I don’t believe exeactly the same things as you, and that I find both insulting and highly offensive as well as being against the core of what it means to live in a free democracy, that being the right to hold alternate views without being defamed and villified for holding those views.

            I do not know you, and you will note I have cast no asspersions on your motives or your agenda, I simply disagree with parts of what you have said.

            If you truly believe in free speech and democracy you will appologise for this personal attack on my integrity.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            In that case, Paul, I fully retract and withdraw the second paragraph in my comment at 39.2.1.2, and apologise without reservation.

            But I stand by my first paragraph in that comment, because the term “democracy” has become bastardised by politicians, spin merchants, and the press. If we are to have meaningful discourse, then we must look past the names used for concepts, in order to understand the actual concepts themselves.

            The citizens of Australia (and indeed most countries who have inherited the Westminister style of governance), actually have very little choice, regarding material matters, at election time.

            The best any individual voter can do is vote for the least abhorrent group of candidates and policies. And even then, the policies stated by the candidates are often the opposite of the actual policies enacted. The last election stands witness to that.


            Report this

            10

          • #
          • #

            But I stand by my first paragraph in that comment, because the term “democracy”…….

            The question then becomes how do you structure our democracy to both give the people the level of participation you would like and still remain a functional government not subject to loud vocal minority views?

            For example, many that believe we should have CIR’s think that there should be referenda held whenever is is proposed to deploy our troops overseas be it on peacekeeping or offensive deployments?

            I have no problem with CIR’s as such, only in the way they can be raised. On average Switzerland has 3 referenda during the term of a government, that is a very costly exercise. If they were legislated that they are to be held in conjunction with an election that would be cost effective.

            You then only need to sort out what issues can be put to a CIR and the size of the petition needed. In Switzerland it only requires 100 000 signatures (1.26% of the population).

            For me, what our democracy lacks is State & Federal recall provisions. In that case we would need to decide if reall was done by simple majority (50% + 1 vote) or clear majority (argued by many to be 51%, I would think 55% would be less divisive).


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Mark

            I have no problem with CIR’s as such, only in the way they can be raised. On average Switzerland has 3 referenda during the term of a government, that is a very costly exercise.

            Finally, some common ground. Alleluyia!

            For me, what our democracy lacks is State & Federal recall provisions. In that case we would need to decide if reall was done by simple majority (50% + 1 vote) or clear majority (argued by many to be 51%, I would think 55% would be less divisive).

            Agree.

            Paul, there can always be argy-bargy about the finer details. A couple of points you raise I would quibble with.

            Re the holding of ALL CIRs on a regular election date. There will always be some issues which will require as immediate action as the system allows.

            In your comment you raised the costs of holding CIRs, something that would normally concern me as well. But would you not think that considering the vast amounts of money that governments waste, the cost of holding a CIR or three is insignificant?


            Report this

            20

          • #

            There will always be some issues which will require as immediate action as the system allows.

            I agree, and I would suggest that would be a refinement come to during discussions on what and how a CIR would be raised. I am trying not to get into the finer details but rather discussing a framework.

            But would you not think that considering the vast amounts of money that governments waste, the cost of holding a CIR or three is insignificant?

            That would very much depend on the issue being proposed. I find the $Billions in waste encapsulated in the Gillard Memorial Hall & Toilets Program as reprehensible as I would if we were a more direct democracy that held a CIR on legal representation of pets in divorce hearings, even if it only cost 20mil like it did in Switzerland.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Mark

            Paul.

            I’ve always believed in ‘waste not, want not’ but wouldn’t condemn the Swiss system out of hand on the odd dopey vote that sneaked through.

            The wealth creators of this country have been treated with contempt for too long by too many in Canberra. That includes pollies and beureaucrats. It’s like we have our own version of the ‘nomenklatura’.


            Report this

            30

          • #

            I’ve always believed in ‘waste not, want not’ but wouldn’t condemn the Swiss system out of hand on the odd dopey vote that sneaked through.

            That brings us back to the original question then, and the main problem with the Swiss version of direct democracy.

            Here in Qld we get closer and closer to getting DLS each time it is put up for a vote, as the demographics of the state and the attitudes of the people change.

            The lack of National Interest Protections in the Swiss system have opened the possibility that the people can indeed vote to join the EU collective and no longer be a direct democracy, or a democracy of any sort.

            That is why I fear CIR’s in the current debate where alltogether too many proponents of the concept aren’t willing to discuss the flaws in the design, especially when many of the proponets of CIR’s and direct democracy in Auatralia are also supporters of an Asia/Pacific Union to rival the EU.


            Report this

            00

      • #

        The current Australian system is more like an Autocracy (government in which one person or one group of people have uncontrolled or unlimited authority over others),

        If that were the case then we would have Rudd/Turnbulls ETS, Rudds MMRT and every other half-arsed thought bubble he came up with.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Perhaps wiser heads in the Government of the day prevailed.

          I did not suggest that there would be no infighting within an Autocracy – everybody wants to be the leader, and will plot and intrigue to raise their status and diminish others. In fact, that is the major distraction that saves the citizenry from the more extreme ideas of some of these people. In that regard, an Autocracy is self limiting, with the result that anything useful is often only done by accident.


          Report this

          10

        • #
          Mark

          It was the tidal wave of faxes and emails to Coalition Senators and MHRs from their constituents that thwarted the ETS Paul. The people forced the change, the pollies backed down out of electoral fear!

          Just the day before I heard Senator Heffernan state on Sydney radio that nothing could stop the implementation of the ETS. The ‘great unwashed’, whom you so disdain, begged to differ and forced not only a backdown but a Coalition leadership change.

          Ah! I almost forgot. When are all those countries with CIR gonna fall into anarchy and collapse, Paul?


          Report this

          00

          • #

            It was the tidal wave of faxes and emails to Coalition Senators and MHRs from their constituents that thwarted the ETS Paul. The people forced the change, the pollies backed down out of electoral fear!

            I know, I was part of the flood and I was there in Canberra at the rally.

            When are all those countries with CIR gonna fall into anarchy and collapse, Paul?

            Where did I say that? More distortions and twisting won’t shore up your argument


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark

            Where did I say that? More distortions and twisting won’t shore up your argument

            What! backtracking now Paul? You have made comment after comment damning with faint (if any) praise, the notion that the electorate should have greater control over their representatives and I use that word in the loosest possible connotation.

            Well excuse me Paul but I fail to see how anyone could come to any other conclusion from your utterances here.

            I might add that more highhandedness won’t shore up your argument, that’s for sure.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            You spend an inordinate ammount of time making assumptions of what I mean and adding your own unsubstantiated assertiona and distortions to suit your argument rather asking questions.

            Well excuse me Paul but I fail to see how anyone could come to any other conclusion from your utterances here.

            Congratulations, for figuring out that much.

            If everything was chrystal clear with all conclusions laid out it wouldn’t be a blog it would be an opinion piece.

            You can’t foster a discussion/debate if you leave no room for questions or dissent.

            If you want to reach conclussions, ask question don’t sling insults.


            Report this

            00

        • #

          Perhaps wiser heads in the Government of the day prevailed.

          If this is the case they have neither ‘uncontrolled or unlimited authority’ (sic) then do they?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Paul,

            You cherry pick what I wrote. Please do not stoop to such tactics – they do not impress me, nor the other readers of this site, it is a feeble way to make a point.

            You will note that I then went on to say that because of factional in-fighting, an autocracy tends to be self-limiting. But the implication of that is should the members of an autocracy unite, and agree on a common purpose, then they could exercise uncontrolled and unlimited authority. The electorate currently has no means for preventing that from happening.


            Report this

            10

          • #

            I was refering back to the original post.

            The current Australian system is more like an Autocracy (government in which one person or one group of people have uncontrolled or unlimited authority over others), rather than a Democracy (government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system).


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I was refering back to the original post.

            Ah, I see, But I later qualified that initial comment in the very comment you quoted; and did so because the conversation had moved away from the general principle, in the original post, and onto the way that the political system actually works, within the various party rooms.

            Still, I see that we have moved off the topic of the pro’s and con’s of various political structures, and on to the semantics of blogging. So I will now take my leave.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            and did so because the conversation had moved away from the general principle

            Cool, I have the advantage of using multiple monitors on this pc (terminal emulation being it’s primary role and personal being secondary) so each thread stays up on one of them where I can track that particular conversation. My bad, I sometimes forget that most folks aren’t setup the same way I am and don’t mean to be dismissive.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            Cool, I have the advantage of using multiple monitors on this pc (terminal emulation being it’s primary role and personal being secondary) so each thread stays up on one of them where I can track that particular conversation. My bad, I sometimes forget that most folks aren’t setup the same way I am and don’t mean to be dismissive.

            And modest boot.

            Is there no end to your attributes?


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Is there no end to your attributes?

            Is there no end to your idiocy?


            Report this

            00

        • #
          memoryvault

          If that were the case then we would have Rudd/Turnbulls ETS, Rudds MMRT and every other half-arsed thought bubble he came up with.

          You mean we HAVEN’T got an ETS or a mining super profits tax?

          Thank God for that. I must have been having a bad dream.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          memoryvault

          For example, many that believe we should have CIR’s think that there should be referenda held whenever is is proposed to deploy our troops overseas be it on peacekeeping or offensive deployments?

          OMG!!! What a terrible thought!!! Just imagine the frightening concept of the people of a nation actually having some sort of say in whether their country goes to war against another nation or not.

          After all, the people of the nation only supply the taxes to fund the war; the men and women, husbands, wives, sons and daughters to go off and die in the war, the labour to produce the materials consumed in waging the war; and suffer the deprivations, shortages and rationing that accompanies involvement in a war.

          Why on earth should they have any say in the matter?

          Far better, far more “democratic” to leave it up to the political tribal elders party politicians who we elect to “decide what’s best for us”, and who will invariably implement whatever is in the best interests of the banksters and multi-national corporations who bankroll their elections, and incidentally, profit handsomely from war.


          Report this

          30

          • #

            In this response to a single example lies all the proof as to why getting involved with any convesation with you is pointless wasted minutes that can never be regained.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            In other words, even with your clever “multiple monitors” you can’t go head to head with an old guy on a 12 inch laptop.

            Go on, have a bash.

            Tell us why it would be so terrible for a nation to have some sort of say in whether they go to war or not.

            I appreciate it will be “minutes that can never be regained” but let’s face it, it’s 9.15pm on a Saturday night and you’re sitting at home, alone, battling wits with an old guy.

            .
            So it’s not as if you’ve got anything better to do.


            Report this

            01

          • #

            Look at Syria for example, you prefer a referendum on wether we should deploy our troops into a situation where innocent civilians are being slaughtered, in full knowledge that what is happening there is against everything we as a nation stand for. Whilst the months pass as your referenda question is debated and finalised and a referenda held, thousands more die.

            Me, I prefer having a government with the ability to deploy the troops and stop the killing.

            We failed as a nation to protect East Timor from invasion through a lack of political will, you want a situation where that sort of failure becomes systemic.

            From the content of your original rant I would guess you would much prefer the Taliban still be in control in Afghanistan than we have troops there to fight for the innocents who are unable to fight for themselves.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            .

            Look at Syria for example, you prefer a referendum on wether we should deploy our troops into a situation where innocent civilians are being slaughtered, in full knowledge that what is happening there is against everything we as a nation stand for.

            Perhaps you could direct me to the UN resolution calling for peace-keeping forces to be in Syria. That would be a start, even before we consider whether it should be subject to a referendum or not.

            Ditto for Iraq, where the best we could come up with was a “coalition of the willing”.

            full knowledge that what is happening there is against everything we as a nation stand for

            If that is the criteria for militarily intervening in another country’s affairs, what about China? What about Burma?, What about North Korea? What about Saudi Arabia? Things are happening in each of those countries (to name but a few) which are “against everything we as a nation stand for”.

            So where are our “peace-keeping forces”?

            And so to Afghanistan. Could you please tell me where and when and how a meaningful portion of the Afghan population requested that we rid them of the Taliban? Or perhaps even some link to when freeing the country of the Taliban was the reason we went there in the first place?

            The “official” reason we went into Afghanistan was to apprehend Osama bin Laden. He’s dead now. Why are we still there? And who asked us to be there?


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Winston

            Paul- how do you know those “innocents” are so innocent, that they are indeed even being slaughtered, or that intervening in Syria you are helping the “good guys” and not the bad, or ousting one “bad guy” in favour of another “bad guy”?

            Paul, you are absolutely correct however to mention Timor, an utter disgrace how we first abandoned them to Indonesia in the 70s under the snivelling cowardice and malfeasance of Gough Whitlam (when many of Timorese died at the hands of the Japanese defending our soldiers in WW2), and possibly the best thing John Howard ever did as PM was to intervene and send Australian peace keepers to restore East Timor to independence- something ironically which garnered respect with the Indonesian leadership that Gillard couldn’t buy. Yet we still neglect the genocidal ethnic cleansing going on right now on our doorstep in West Irian (est. 400,000 dead), again with people who defended our soldiers welfare in WW2.

            As to the Taliban, they would not have been in power at all without American and CIA involvement and training and weapons in the first place, a minor detail of course. Gone are the days when Australians should buy into wars on the other side of the globe, and ignore or tacitly allow what goes on in our region right under our noses. If those reasons for intervening locally were put transparently and accurately to the people, then I see no reason why the majority would not agree if the reasons were morally and ethically sound. To intervene in something that was none of our business would, I’ll admit, be substantially harder. But, then it should be, now shouldn’t it?


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Winston

            There are innocents being slaughtered on both sides, and by innocents I mean non-combatants, they are the only good guys in that conflict.

            If we are to be members of the International Community and if the International Community is to hold sway amongst nations then the UN must change from a peace keeping body to a peace enforcement body.

            I simply used Syria as an example of where the consequences of waiting for the running of a referendum in the hope that the people will support the deployment of troops can be countged in the lives lost whilst the world procrastinates.

            I don’t agree with your comment on Australia intervening in conflicts, purely because we are a Member of the UN. If we as a nation don’t want to be involved in conflicts then we should repudiate the UN Charter and Treaties and withdraw our membership of the organisation, otherwise we should be willing to step up and defend the principles that we have agreed to through the treaties we have signed and ratified. UN Membership makes it our business.

            I agree, going to war should never be easy, and should always be the last option, but once conflict has started diplomacy should be of the gunbarrel type until such time as both parties have been forced to the negotiating table where the various International bodies and the International Courts can take over and sort it out.

            Afghanistan is a good example of where the UN idea has gone so wrong. If ISAF was not so hamstrung by bleeding heart ROE’s and bodies constantly second guessing the priorities of the conflict. If the military forces had been given the mandate required this conflict wouldn’t have gone more than 5 years and alot less civilians would have died.

            Bush got it right with Kuwait, the shock and awe campaign helped break the will of the Iraqi’s to fight a sustained conflict, but then the UN got involved and stopped the coalition forces short of Baghdad, left Saddam in power and many suffered because the UN failed to enforce the will of the International Community.

            There are some areas in life where there should never be gray areas, if nations want the benifits of UN Membership then they should comply with all of it’s treaties. If they don’t want to then they should not be welcomed at the table. Any nation that won’t ratify the basic charter and key treaties of the UN should not be a member nation and should not be given equal status on the world stage let alone have access to US support be it humanitarian or economic.

            Either the world steps in or the people rise up, the status quo as it stands only fosters destabilisation and the spread of conflict and is unsustainable.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Winston

            I actually agree with much of what you say, noting that one of the greatest obstacles to peace and prosperity is despotism, and how to best deal with this problem through some supranational mechanism. As seen with Pol Pot’s regime, Idi Amin, Burma and various other examples too numerous to mention, the UN has been at best ineffectual, at worst complicit. You assume that the UN is benign and fair and democratic- it is not. Even other supranational organisations such as the World Bank and IMF, have arguably entrenched poverty, stymied growth and development in the 3rd world, and handicapped struggling economies with debt actually designed IMO to keep them firmly impoverished. There is nothing wrong with the idea of supranational organisations for these purposes you advocate, but the model currently used with the entrenched monopoly of leftist and fabianist ideology and thinking among the globalists, and the lack of UN accountability and transparency has killed the concept stone dead. It needs to be rethought, completely disbanded and then restructured in another format that allows it to be effective in achieving stability without destroying sovereignty or evolving into some monstrous totalitarianist model which I fear and believe is its ultimate goal (perhaps a regional version- the America’s, the Pacific region, Asian region 1 and region 2, etc). So it is arguable whether the UN has even remotely fulfilled the function you believe it has, whether it has actually worsened most situations it has been involved in, and whether it is capable or trustworthy enough to engage in those responsibilities? I think not, and the proof of that particular pudding so far weighs heavily in my favour I believe.

            As to Afghanistan: if you believe 9/11 was Al Qaeda induced (which I do), this was an unavoidable approach for the US to act (even unilaterally) both symbolically and economically, and at least the implementation of it has been marked by a degree of determination and resolute application to engendering some self-sustaining change- though I admit it is likely doomed to failure. The lives lost are indeed regrettable and hard to justify really as a “noble aim”, though just how one defeats a terrorist organisation is necessarily scattershot if you don’t attack the source. The alternative being to cop it on the chin and rely on defending against insurgents by forever reacting to them- I don’t believe a society could continue to function this way and thrive. Btw Bush senior did squib it in the first Iraq campaign and should have finished the job he had begun, a lot less casualties would have ensued. However, once again Saddam was entrenched in power by the US in its fight against Iran and again made their collective bed and were forced to lie in it. That is their most egregious fault, and makes the US a poor exemplar to lead the implementation of any global mechanism, IMO.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            PaulM

            You assume that the UN is benign and fair and democratic

            I assume no such thing. I agree it isn’t, more importantly it shouldn’t be, and you are spot on, like its failed predecessor it needs to be disbanded and rebuilt.

            So it is arguable whether the UN has even remotely fulfilled the function you believe it has

            I can’t see how you get that from my post, I think the UN has been an abdject failure, both through a lack of will and because of the way it holds the view that all nations are equal.

            As far as Afghanistan and 9/11, Al Qaeda was the tool used but I think there is a much broader base to that attack than AQ alone. No conspiracy theory, rather a more realistic view that AQ can’t have risen and flourished simply because of OBL, combat logistics is way to complex for that to have been the case.

            There were very good reasons that we changed the way we train for war from theatre level engagement to low level engagement, and they had nothing to do with changes in tech, changes in geopolitics and economic pressures as academics like Hugh White would have people believe.

            Bush Jr made one significant mistake, 9/11 was an act of war, he shouldn’t have waited for a UN mandate, he already had a mandate for immediate unilateral action under the Geneva Accords and the Articles of War. The role of the UN should have been to support that action and work to secure the peace, not hamstring ISAF, resulting in a conflict that has gone longer than it should have.

            I think what happend in Gulf War 1 was more the fault of Russia, China & France in the Security Council than it was Bush Snr, although his equivocation in the leadup created the circumstance that allowed it to happen and is I believe a failure both by the US and the UN that has emboldened Iran.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    pat

    26 Oct: Der Spiegel: Joel Stonington: Is Europe’s Emissions Trading System Broken?
    Emitting CO2 into the atmosphere is dirt cheap in Europe these days. At just 8 euros per ton, the low price is undermining the European Union’s effort to establish an effective cap and trade system. Implementing necessary fixes to the system, however, won’t be easy in the face of industry opposition…
    Europe’s carbon market is in deep trouble and it’s not just environmentalists sounding the alarm. Back in April, the CEO of Shell said that the European Union’s system for trading allowances for the emission of greenhouse gases was “in danger.” But that’s about as direct as anyone will get in this world of bureaucratese. Most simply talk of “price weakness” (meaning that emission credits are absurdly cheap), a desire for “long-term policy certainty” (the system needs a fix!), and the need to “restore confidence” (and the fix has to come fast!)…
    “The emissions trading system is not very credible,” said Jo Leinen, a Social Democratic member of European Parliament from Germany, in a recent phone interview. “It doesn’t look like it has credibility in the near future. So we need to give it back its real function to be an incentive for low carbon investment and low carbon technology.”…
    But the ETS blueprint calls for the third phase, which will run from 2013 to 2020, to be much more rigorous, making it more expensive for major emitters and generating large amounts of revenue for member countries through the increased auctioning of credits.
    Yet the huge surplus of credits handed out early in the program has largely undermined the teeth that the launch of the third phase was supposed to show. The proposed solution for the short-term is to take some credits out of the system early in the third phase of the program and put them back in at the end. The idea has been called back-loading…
    European Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard called this “an administrative thing” in a recent phone interview, though it’s more controversial than that, with some opponents calling the plan a form of market manipulation…
    According to Mark Lewis, a carbon market analyst at Deutsche Bank, the market is betting that back-loading will happen, with the only question being how many credits should be taken out. Without the back-loading plan looming, Lewis estimates that emissions allowances today would be worth just two or three euros. “The only value that these allowances have at the moment,” said Lewis, “is the value of the political option.”…
    “On backloading, this is a no brainer,” Hedegaard said. “This is an overflooded market. Would it be wise to continue to overflood it?”…
    Proposals for such larger fixes include a tighter cap on emissions, canceling credits outright or lowering the total number of credits issued, according to Reuters. Indeed, the United Kingdom recently called for 1.8 billion credits to be permanently removed from the system to spur prices higher…
    “We’re sort of in no mans land at the moment,” said Deutsche Bank’s Lewis. “You’ve got a price out there that is costing the consumer an extra seven or eight euros a ton. Power is really what is affected. We’re paying a higher power price than we would be otherwise because of the carbon market but we’re not getting the advantage of renewable investments.”
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/europe-looks-to-fix-problems-with-its-carbon-emissions-trading-system-a-863609.html

    so keep working on making the CO2 price higher & the cost of electricity higher! great idea?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    27 Oct: Gold Coast Bulletin: Martin Rasini: Financiers take control of Ecovillage
    FINANCIERS have taken control of the Ecovillage in the Currumbin Valley, initiating a campaign to sell the estate’s remaining 20 home sites.
    News of the fortunes of the iconic estate comes just a day after Gold Coast landmark, the Soul tower in Surfers Paradise, was placed in the hands of receivers…
    Jason Bettles, of Worrells Insolvency, said yesterday that, with financiers in control of the estate’s assets, the company appeared to be little more than an empty shell.
    “On the face of it there are no assets,” he said…
    The estate — described as inspirational by the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency — is designed to be autonomous in energy, water, and wastewater and some 80 per cent of the site remains as open space, with more than 50 per cent of it environmental reserve.
    Dogs and cats are banned from the estate where many homes have won awards.
    The Ecovillage itself has taken out two Urban Development Institute of Australia awards for best small residential subdivision and best ecologically sustainable development…
    http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2012/10/27/440642_gold-coast-business.html


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Streetcred

      The Ecovillage itself has taken out two Urban Development Institute of Australia awards for best small residential subdivision and best ecologically sustainable development…

      Pity it wasn’t financially sustainable as well ;)


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Angry

    THE STUPID BLOODY COALITION ARE PUSHING THIS RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGET OF 20% – WTF IS WRONG WITH THEM !!!!!!!

    This is the major cause of why electricity prices are so high and if this bs continues they will be totally unaffordable !!!!!!

    Clearly the coalition are nothing but lackeys and sychophants for the communist united nation !!!!!

    Bloody traitors to their fellow australians and no better than the alp (australian liars party) !!!!!!!

    Quote:-
    “Opposition climate action spokesman Greg Hunt said the coalition would consider the recommendations and seek a briefing in December.

    The coalition has provided bipartisan support for the 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020.”

    WHY DON’T THEY ASK THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE IF THEY WANT THIS BULLSHIT ??????

    Full article here……

    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/renewable-energy-target-to-remain-stable/story-e6frfku9-1226503913725


    Report this

    22

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      For the life of me Angry, I don’t know what you’re so angry about. The RET has been part of Liberal Party policy since at least 2010. Here’s the direct quote from their Environment Policy Summary:


      Boosting Emerging Renewable Technologies

      The Coalition supports a 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target. As part of that target, the Coalition will create a band within the Renewable Energy Target for emerging technologies such as solar fields, geothermal, tidal and wave projects expected to generate over 10 megawatts of electricity.

      The band will be for up to 6000 gigawatt hours by 2020. Implementation terms will be determined with the Clean Energy Council and other representatives from the renewables sector.

      If you don’t like the RET policy, then how about $1 billion solar roofs policy?

      Solar Continent Policy

      A Coalition Government will build on the Direct Action Policy and will establish a
      $1.1 billion Solar Continent Policy, over 10 years.

      This vision for the future of Australian clean energy will comprise:

      • A $1 billion ‘Million Solar Roofs Programme’ for Australian homes, including a Community Solar Programme. This will allow Scout Groups, sporting clubs and other not-for-profit groups, such as church groups, to access the Solar Roofs Programme for up to 10% of the available panels (or 100,000 rebates through the life of the programme).

      • The $100 million Solar Towns and Solar Schools Programme.

      If you’re not keen on those, try these:

      Establish at least 25 Solar Towns and 100 Solar Schools

      Recognising the potential for solar power generation at a community level, the Coalition will allocate $100 million to a Solar Towns and Solar Schools initiative. Grants will be available on the basis of the greatest savings of CO2 per dollar of funding.

      The programme will produce a minimum of 25 new Solar Towns and 100 new Solar Schools.

      Create at least 25 new Geothermal & Tidal Towns

      The Coalition will provide $50 million to a Geothermal and Tidal Towns Initiative to support additional renewable energy opportunities at community level.

      The programme will produce a minimum of 25 new Geothermal and Tidal towns.

      Full policy here

      If you’re wondering where on earth a “conservative” political party could possibly get such ideas from, consider this little gem, also from their Environment Policy:

      The Coalition will work with a range of industry groups including the Clean Energy Council, the Energy Efficiency Council, the Green Buildings Council and the Property Council to develop complementary energy efficiency measures.

      You might like to check out the websites of those erstwhile bodies listed above.


      Report this

      61

      • #
        Angry

        And you support this Bullshit ????


        Report this

        00

        • #
          AndyG55

          I have emailed my local Lib member and told them that I cannot vote for the Liberals while they have a RET in place.

          Heck, I may even vote Labor, even if Gillard and Swan are still there !


          Report this

          11

          • #
            Mark

            Hey Andy, I think I know how you feel.

            I’m far from satisfied that the Coalition will fully carry out the repeal of the ‘carbon’ laws. That sense that they will weasel out of the ETS bit still lingers.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            Mark,

            They don’t need to “weasel out of the ETS bit” because they have made no commitment whatsoever to do anything about it.

            Written Coalition Environment policy still supports a commitment to an ETS WITH a floor price of $15.00 a tonne (which even the government has backed away from), PLUS an ongoing commitment to an RET, which is the REAL elephant in the room causing power prices to double every four years.

            The Coalition can meet both their stated policy AND Abbott’s “signed in blood” commitment to scrap the carbon tax, simply by bringing the date forward for the transition from a tax to an ETS from 2015 to the first available sitting of Parliament after they are elected.


            Report this

            21

          • #
            Mark

            Hey mv, I really think we have to maintain some optimism here. Yeah, it’s hard at times but if that day back in ’09 happened once, it can happen again. The coalition ‘bedwetters’ really are as weak as, well, you know what.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          memoryvault

          .
          I knew I should have put a \sarc tab in there somewhere.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Angry

        Where do Australians get a CHOICE in this BS??

        This is no better the the alp (Australian LIARS Party) !


        Report this

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          This is no better the the alp (Australian LIARS Party) !

          Actually Angry it could get a whole lot worse.

          At least JuLIAR is restricted by being in a minority government, limiting what she can do.

          The Coalition, on the other hand, are likely to be elected with an overwhelming majority, which they will then claim to be a “mandate” to do pretty-much whatever they want.

          Yes, Gillard and the ALP are quite frightening, even in a minority government.

          But the thought of a Coalition, with their current written policies, with a strong majority, led by the Member for Goldman Sachs, is truly terrifying.


          Report this

          41

    • #
      Mark

      Angry, for christ’s sake fix the Shift and/or Caps Lock keys on your keyboard or buy a new one.

      Don’t you know that using caps as liberally as you do is the equivalent of shouting at people. Bad etiquette no matter how ‘angry’ you might be.


      Report this

      22

    • #
      Chris M

      Hmmm, the successive replies here are adding up to a pattern of sockpuppetry methinks. Don’t be fooled folks by alleged skeptics who bash the Coaltion at every turn. Current policies were forced upon the Libs by a rabid CAGW media before and after the 2007 election, when the ‘science was settled’ and those who said otherwise were mocked and pilloried. The Howard govt knew it was probably gone and was susceptible to bullying. What short memories people have!

      Long story short, current climate/renewables policy can and will be easily changed to better reflect the will of the people. If you want to get rid of the carbon tax and other green BS, you know what to do. Don’t listen to closet Laborites like MV. Despite his protestations to the contrary, his own words indicate that he is rusted on, and always will be. If the present govt isn’t enough to change his ideology, nothing ever will.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        Long story short, current climate/renewables policy can and will be easily changed to better reflect the will of the people.

        And naturally we have your absolute, signed in blood guarantee of this, anonymous Chris M?

        Don’t listen to closet Laborites like MV. Despite his protestations to the contrary, his own words indicate that he is rusted on, and always will be.

        Funny how things change over time. Back in the Eighties I was described by Laurie Oakes, no less, PLUS National Party Senator Ron Boswell, PLUS the entire Labor Party and their sycophant media, as the “most extremist right wing threat this country has ever seen”. I was also claimed to be “influential” in the League of Rights, and the “secret” head of the Ku Klux Klan in Australia.

        Keith Wright, the then LABOR member for Capricornia in QLD (who I subsequently helped send to jail for serial child rape), described me in Parliament as “the most dangerous, extremist, right wing threat to the delicate thread of democracy this country has ever seen”, to the rapturous applause of Labor, Liberal and National Party politicians alike.

        And now I am merely a “rusted on Laborite”. How things change. Obviously I am losing my touch.

        .
        Or maybe nothing has changed. Maybe, just maybe, I still detest ALL party politicians with the same vehemence that I had a quarter of a century ago, and maybe, just maybe, all that has changed is a new guard of party faithfuls have been sent to attack me with new versions of the same old crap.


        Report this

        21

        • #
          memoryvault

          .
          What say you, Chris M?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Chris M

            An anonymous poster calling me anonymous? A bit rich don’t you think? For a start MV, I am not and have never been a member of any political party. I make up my own mind about the issues of the day, on the basis of my own perception of what is good, fair and just. Ultimately I believe in the democratic system, with all its flaws. The alternative you seem to be proposing is close to anarchy.

            Perhaps a personal anecdote is in order. I recall the time an Ockerish middle-aged individual approached me (I was a youngish man at the time) in a tourist information centre when I was attending a professional conference, and struck up a conversation. He seemed to be an early retiree, perhaps one of those people who thinks himself ‘entitled’ to retire with a hefty super payout after three or four decades of industrial employment in a government-owned enterprise, never having been required to exert himself greatly along the way.

            Anyway after a few initial pleasantries he twigged that my educational and working background was different from his, even though as Aussies our similarities should have outweighed our differences. And he asked me what electorate I then lived in (an odd question I think). When I replied “Bennelong” he said with a truculent sneer, “Ah Little Johnny Howard’s electorate”, as if that disrespect said all that needed to be said about Howard (the opposition leader at the time) and about me.

            And MV you have indeed used that tired old Howard slur yourself in one of your posts. The degree of cynicism you display is not at all helpful, I think. We are all in this together in our opposition to the CAGW scam, and working within the democratic system (clearly preferable to the alternatives) is the only realistic option we have.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            memoryvault

            An anonymous poster calling me anonymous? A bit rich don’t you think?

            There’s nothing anonymous about me on this site, Chris M. The “MemoryVault” tag is but a personal “in-family” joke. I have stated my identity several times here.

            I am Peter Sawyer, author of several best-selling books, including “Dole Bludging – A Taxpayer’s Guide”, and “The Green Hoax Effect”. For several years prior to the advent of the internet I published “The Inside News” magazine. In 1987 and 1988 I had the dubious honour of being the most named non-politician in the federal parliament. I am generally credited with having spear-headed the anti-ID Card Movement in this country.

            And MV you have indeed used that tired old Howard slur yourself in one of your posts.

            Yes, I have used the derogatory term “Little Johnny Howard”, and in retrospect that is somewhat unjust. After all, I suppose the man who managed to implement the two most crucial steps towards turning a country into a dictatorship – the concept of retrospective legislation, and the disarmament of the civilian population – is deserving of some measure of grudging respect.

            Henceforth I shall refer to him only as “The Prime Traitor”. How does that sit with you?

            But let’s be fair – it’s not as if I’ve been partisan in my name-calling. I coined the phrase “Little Gnome From the West”, for then LABOR crook Premier crooked Premier, Brian Burke.

            I also once described then LABOR Prime Minister Bob Hawke as a “Fascist dictator, hell bent on deliberately bankrupting the country”, on my then weekly spot on the Ray Martin Midday Show. Which, alas, brought an abrupt end to my weekly spot on the Ray Martin Midday Show. Who’d have guessed Bob and Alan Bond were such close friends?

            The alternative you seem to be proposing is close to anarchy.

            So here we are, right back where we started with Wes George – the old Boswell / National Party / Assembly of God concept, that allowing citizens some small measure of involvement in the democratic process – CIR – will inexorably lead to anarchy – mob rule. You know, just like it has in Switzerland, 23 states of the USA, and dozens if not hundreds of municipalities in Europe, from France to Spain to Germany to The Netherlands.

            .
            Chris M, sometime in the not too distant future there is going to be an election, and, failing some enormous error of judgement, the Coalition are going win with a landslide.

            They are also going to win with a commitment to an ETS, a commitment to a continuation of the RET, and a commitment to a billion dollar solar and wind energy program, all as part of their written, published Environment Policy.

            Now I know we fellow gentle readers have your personal, absolute, signed in blood guarantee that despite going into the election with these stinking albatrosses hanging around their necks (a Liberal backbencher’s description, not mine), they will nonetheless ditch these policies immediately upon winning office.

            But here’s the thing, Chris M. What if they don’t?

            What will be your advice to our fellow, gentle readers then, Chris M?

            Wait three years and vote Labor?

            Australians have been alternately voting for Tweedledum and Tweedledee for 46 years now Chris M – ever since the end of the Menzies era – and for 46 years we have been getting progressively screwed over in favour of the banks and the multi-nationals by ALL the major political parties.

            And your sage advice is to go on doing the same thing and hope for a different outcome?

            .
            Isn’t that the definition of insanity?


            Report this

            61

  • #
    pat

    madness personified, meet DeWayne:

    24 Oct: PR Web: Population Control and Fresh Water Resources Should Be Top Global Priorities Says Former NASA Climatologist
    Economic Growth, and Human Survival Depend on Water and Population Control.
    Special Report by DeWayne Cecil, PhD, on Sharon Kleyne Hour Radio Talk Show
    That was the conclusion of DeWayne Cecil, PhD, in an interview on the Sharon Kleyne Hour Power of Water radio show, October 15, 2012.
    Dr. Cecil was a researcher for NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and currently works for the National Climatic Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina…
    According to Dr. Cecil, Earth’s climate has definitely evolved in the last 50 years but if you examine the record of glacial ice cores, lake sediments and ancient tree rings, weather pattern are naturally cyclical. How much of the current global drying and warming is human caused, and whether it is cyclical or permanent, remains be determined.
    “The study of weather and climate is not just about whether to wear a coat,” says Dr. Cecil. “It’s about our survival as a species.” According to Dr. Cecil, Earth can only sustain a half-billion people in a “Western” consumption oriented lifestyle whereas Earth’s population recently passed seven billion. According to Dr. Cecil, there are only enough resources on Earth to sustain about a half-billion people in the current “Western” lifestyle…
    Sharon asked about the difference between “climate” and “weather.” According to Dr. Cecil, “climate” is “weather” averaged out over a long period. In other words, “climate is what you expect and weather is what you get.”
    “We can predict weather fairly accurately to about ten days in advance,” says Dr. Cecil, “but our ability predict weather over two to 20 years is less accurate…
    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/10/prweb10050733.htm

    DeWayne Cecil
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dewayne-cecil/36/346/5a1


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Angry

      I believe that this anti human imbecile “DeWayne Cecil” be voted off the planet to help reduce the population……

      Surely “he” wouldn’t object, otherwise “he” would be a hypocrite !


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Father of Josh

    I thought it was about the ETS.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Allan

    Carbon tax/ETS due to negotiations with the Greens?
    RUBBISH. The Greens were NEVER going to support the Coalition, so the “Great Negotiator” failed miserably giving us a carbon tax if that was the price. Gillard/Swan etc saw the money they could get from a carbon tax as even by then it was obvious that the Big 3 miners had made them look stupid in the MRRT negotiations and there were huge shortfalls expected from the mining tax.

    All Gillard/Swan had to do was buy-off the independents – which they did.

    To quote Graham Richardson (The Australian Oct 12, 2012) “There can be no excuse for the long list of errors of judgement.When the crunch comes, she (Ms Gillard) is just not good enough for the office she holds.”

    When asked by an 18 year old the other day if I thought Julia Gillard would win the next election, I said probably not but if she did you and your mates and your kids will be paying for it for many years to come.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    klem

    So if she knew it was unpopular and she knew it would mean the end of her political career, why did she push the ETS through?

    Something does not add up here, it does not pass the sniff test.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Grad

    I have problems with this article

    Apologists dissembled on whether the carbon tax is a “tax” or a “fixed priced scheme for an ETS” pretending that a lie was not a lie, that Gillard was doing what the people wanted and not breaking her word.’ A lie means to deceive. She said honestly before the election there would be no carbon tax, situations changed, and then there was. There was no deception, so it is not a lie…it’s a backflip….which is almost justifiable in a hung parliament.

    ‘In 2010 eighty percent of Australians voted for parties promising no carbon tax’.
    Im guessing you mean state govenments, hardly the one’s running ‘price on carbon’ policies for an election.


    Report this

    00