Story submitted by Richard Abbott
At the last Australian federal election the incumbent government lead by prime minister Julia Gillard’s Labor party stood with a “no carbon tax policy”. To form a minority Labor party government three elected independent members sided with Labor and to ensure upper house control of legislation change the Greens offered their solidarity provided a carbon tax was introduced.
Currently Australian parliament is debating the carbon tax bill, which has emerged with a rather bitter and poisonous pill. The carbon tax legislation’s emission right is to be treated as conventional property rights, therefore making it almost impossible to repeal once enacted, because of the enormous compensation that the Australian government of the day would be required to pay to the 500 polluting companies being forced to purchase carbon emissions permit credits.
Sadly Labor accepts the Gore camp theory and leaves no chance for repeal when global climate change is found not to be caused by industrial man. The poisonous pill added was to prevent the Liberal opposition party repealing the carbon tax legislation at the next federal election in 2013. Not surprisingly the prime minister’s popularity at the last media poll was 28% and with this announcement today likely to drop further. Sadly because of the Independent’s own personal guaranteed agendas and Greens with their agenda Australia is now guaranteed a carbon tax far removed from climate change.
Prime minister Gillard said when she announced her change of mind that we would now have a carbon tax, as Australia needed to set an example for the world to follow. (Albeit Australia contributes 1.4 % of the total global emissions.)
Yes, we will be the laughing stock of the world, seen jumping head first off a cliff into a shark infested sea, as we will have no way back, because we were sold a tax that has nothing to do with climate change, instead introduced purely for egotistic governance.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“…and leaves no chance for repeal…”
But wouldn’t a future Australian government be able to reduce the tax to a peppercorn amount?
Regress Australia, fear…
Get rid of this woman Australia! Get an election and VOTE HER OUT. Remember Labour did severe economic damage to the UK and the Australian Labour Party is no different.
If you don’t Australia will become a third world country for no reason.
With the media inquiry, the internet filter, bloggers mentioned as being targeted its not just prosperity of our nation that is being targeted but also our free speech
Who’s suprised? The second rate politicians of today care not a jot about the good of their countries but only about their own political opportunism. Like the others, Gillard will do anything for power.
The obvious questions. First, are there constitutional objections to wrangle with, if this passes? Second, what if the value of the “rights” falls through the floor? (The carbon trading market in Chicago closed last year; only EU mandates have kept Europe’s open, as I understand it.)
Unfortunately an Australian federal election can be theoretically delayed until November 30 2013.
Tony Windsor said on Channel 10 news last night that he’d been overseas and was pleased
to see the carbon abatement operating there? Ay? It’s a disaster. Maybe one can’t repeal this legislation but you could amend it? I mean we did get rid of capital punishment. John Marshall
we been trying get her out and the Independents. But this might – make it worse we have had the Convoy of No confidence and even so many objections to this carbon tax that the three out of the four independents last night – oh so weak and trivial, said it was a step forward, etc., and Tony say he was pleased with the carbon abatement occurring overseas.
Rural and Regional councils are some of the 500 polluters. does any one know who else are going to pay the tax?
Great to see this posted here on Watts Up With That, Anthony.
I’ve been posting links to this Australian article everywhere I can post this item, all day.
Most of the Australian public appear to be blissfully unaware. (dumbed down ?)
Thank you for posting it.
Condolencies to the Ozzies. Who would have thought that these no-nonesense people could have been so easily neutered. To be taken in by something reasonable is one thing but to dive headlong into something everyone know will do no good to the country or the planet is just incredible. Of course, as we say, “it’s an ill wind that blows nobody any good” – I don’t see who will really gain in Oz from this one.
If we’ve got rid of the “green boy” here in Portugal, why don’t the Australians get rid of their “green girl”?
Ecotretas
There’s no doubt she will be voted out next election but she will do a lot of damage on the way out the door. We will have to pay OTHER COUNTRIES for the right to mine our own resources because industry will be forced to purchase Carbon Credits overseas through Carbon exchanges.
All this after promising NOT to introduce a Carbon Tax as part of her campaign before the last election.
Her views are promoted by the powerful ABC network in Australia which is dominated by lefty Climate Change fanatics.
Matters are indeed turning serious in Oz. There is Union thuggery, including a case where the female head of the Health Services Union was left a shovel on her front porch (as in … dig you own grave). Unions align with this colour of Government; several Ministers are former Union officials.
There is a media Inquiry being planned, with the Minister in Canberra refusing to say if media, including blogs, will need to be licenced under the proposals. He’s the guy with the $36 billion compulsory national Internet monopoly proposal, which his folk will filter for inappropriate content. Name is Senator Conroy.
Then there’s this misnamed “Carbon tax” that carries the poison pill. Australians do not need it nor want it, so the Government is proceeding against the wishes of the people. That’s grave.
Even one of my sons was moved to blog on Andrew Bolt –
“Well, if you can’t express yourself in a blog you can always start leaving dirty shovels on peoples’ front doors. Sorry, forgot the country needs a media inquiry, not one into the conduct of unions… “
I wonder if this “pill” was inserted in the bill in order to give one of the Independents or Labor back benchers a justification for breaking ranks and voting No, claiming it is Too Much. Gillard would thereby be off the hook of supporting this policy, which she only agreed to in order to get support from non-Labor members, but in a way that gives her plausible deniability of breaking her pledge to them.
Bye bye Australians, it was nice knowing you. Although there is still little hope.
Look at Egypt and Libia: they did get rid of their government, so:
Get your people on the street!
Fight for your right to live warm, happy and prosperous!
Make them run and hide and take back the country that is being stolen from you!
If that’s the case, the bill ought to have a sunset clause whereby it goes poof if the world doesn’t start to follow its example within three (say) years.
DaveF,
I thought that too, but the fear is that such a reduction would amount to seizure or reduction in value of an asset by Government, for which compensation must be paid under Oz constitution. There is another poison pill in this that requires, without a parliamentary agreement, an annual CO2 reduction of 10% – we seem to have found ourselves in a national (economic) suicide pact that very, very few of us actually signed up to (Greens voters were the only ones).
Madness….
“Get rid of this woman Australia! Get an election and VOTE HER OUT”
How? There isn’t another election for almost 2 yrs.
There’s a ratchet mechanism at work with all taxes.
No matter how reviled the tax, no matter how virulent the protrests
the incoming government/party will NEVER cut a source of revenue.
Why would they?…someone else has done the dirty work for them.
Watch this happen in Australia.
Do they want blood on the streets ?
Clarke and Dawe – It’s All Going Beautifully in Australia
http://youtu.be/UVChkuZNlxw
http://youtu.be/NU-Ldvnxzfo
The Prime Minister appears to have have little personal interest in the issue, the main drivers are the policy makers of all the federal parties. I think an emissions tax and carbon reduction are still opposition policy. The Australian Liberal and Labour are two peas in a pod.
This “carbon tax” is really just a socialist wealth redistribution tax. Take from the rich, give to the poor. The whole “Clean Energy Package” will have no effect on the climate.
I think the conventional property rights bit might be inaccurate as well, sounds a bit wierd to me. Our Parliament can pass any damn law it pleases, we have no constitutuion as such.
The proposed carbon tax is also designed to generate sufficient funds such that approximately $AUD 5 billion PER YEAR of Australian taxpayers funds is to be “exported” to “overseas countries” so that Australian taxpayers (industry) can “purchase” CO2 offsets from these “overseas countries” each year from the time of introduction of the tax. This is to be mandatory under this tax instrument: our erudite governing class has decreed that Australia meets its IPCC-driven imperative through this instrument. I am not sure which countries will benefit from this largesse, but as an Australian, I am aghast at such a deliberate attempt to impoverish our own country, all in the name of politics, and for no practical useful end: the imposition of the tax will result in a 0.003 degree C reduction in GMST as Australian CO2 output is reduced 20%, under the tax regime, AND assuming the projections of the various IPCC AGW models are “valid”. If a more realistic AGW scenario from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 load (i.e. to 800ppmv) is accepted, the reduction in GMST which will result from imposition of the Australian tax is of the order of 0.001 degree C.
Is not a better option one which ensures that Australia is robust financially so that it can manage and adapt to future climate change? The impoverishment of this nation as a result of the proposed tax will make such adapatation more demanding of our resources, with consequent greater difficulties for our descendants. Furthermore, as IPCC-modelled climate sensitivities to an increasing anthropogenic CO2 load are so uncertain at present, should we not be insuring for future contingencies by generating as much national wealth as possible to buttress us against any future climate shock? Of course, it need hardly be noted that such a future (anthropogenically-mediated) climate shock is now appearing increasingly unlikely because the negative feedbacks of aerosols, for example, clouds, up till now largely unknown in the climate research fraternity, appear likely to reduce the impact of such a CO2 increase, with a benign 1 degree C increase in GMST now seeming likely from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 load to ~ 800ppmv.
In short, our erudite governing class is proposing the impoverishment of our nation for no valid reason.