July 12, 2011

Did Julia Gillard promise no carbon tax?

Just before the 2010 Federal election, Julia Gillard said “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”, and critics have been calling her a liar ever since the multi-party committee on climate change released their statement on the plan to price carbon. The issue here is that what has been announced is not really a carbon tax.

It is an emissions trading scheme with a fixed price on permits for the first three years. Permits are still able to be bought and sold, but at a fixed price. A carbon tax implies that the government would simply tax companies for their carbon emissions, and is not the same as a system where permits are tradable, and in some cases provided for free.

While we’re discussing the topic of a carbon tax, this little video might be of interest to some:

Reference: Gillard’s imperfect carbon plan is just that little bit better, SMH

  • Drunk Guy

    Gillard has admitted that she has lied, she has apologised and claimed circumstances have changed, that’s good enough for me, I don’t need more nitpicking over definitions of what this “Carbon Tax” (as she herself is calling it) actually is. Semantics and clever wording will not change what it actually is.

    My guess though is that this playing with the wording is coming about for two reasons, 1) it will never revert to an ETS where permits will be able to be bought and sold, or 2) revenue raised from the tax will not be used for compensation 100% it will be used to try to put the budget into surplus; then she can say well it was never really a tax so we weren’t obliged to actually follow through with the policy developed for a “Tax”

    Either way we cannot trust her and her party, or the greens, or Abbott so what are we supposed to do, the best days of this country are long gone. 

  • Anonymous

    Honestly, Drunk Guy, I don’t know what you’ve been listening to or reading, but no-one is seriously contending that the revenue raised is going towards the budget. Don’t you think that if this were the case, Tony Abbott would be saying so? The simple fact is that the price on carbon is actually going to hit the budget bottom line as compensation is more generous than they had originally anticipated.

    As for your argument that they are framing it as a tax on purpose – you couldn’t be further from the truth. Julia Gillard never refers to it as a carbon tax, but as her plan to put a price on carbon or price on pollution. The legislation will include a clear provision to move towards an ETS scheme by 2015. 

    Show me one piece of credible evidence that what I say is false.

  • Drunk Guy

    That’d be TV and the newspapers mate, if you actually read and comprehend before putting your keyboard warrior hat on you’ll clearly see where I start with “I Guess” so it’s meaning my personal guess as to why.  Of course I understand why you’re commenting on my comment rather than the OP, because you have nothing, Gillard is calling it anything and everything, hell she’s even crying about it now, but the reality is we could do so much better than a Tax which reverts to an ETS which we shouldn’t call a Tax because it reverts to an ETS if she stays in government and the greens still have the balance of power in the senate and even though it starts out as a Tax we should focus on the reversion to an ETS so that in either function or form by the time it does revert it will have acted as a tax but not been one only because of the reversion to an ETS.

    your last line shows you to be a troll, but I’ll humour you and play; I’ll show you if you show me one peice of credible evidence that what you say is true. Oh wait you already misrepresented what I wrote, so bzzzzzzzzzz  Wrong.
    You are the weakest link.

  • Proactive

    Yep….drunk guy you said it all when you said you get your information from the TV and newspapers…hahaha!! You gotta be kiddin man, what are you doin on this site and what are you actually on dude. It’s doesn’t sound like just a a drunken mishap. You are no doubt one of the very people who should be supporting Gillards tax on these Multi billion dollar ccorporations. Abbott wants us to pay thru the national budget, without any contribution from these huge corporation, that’s right absolute zero contribution from these companies who have over exploited us for too long. He also wants to provide them some pocket money to develop renewable energy. The tax will be pocket money to them anyway. When you sober up and come down from your high, make sure you read this site thoroughly Cheech…or is it Chong????

  • Julian Taylor

    Julia Gillard has herself called it a carbon tax, so I don’t see how it is inappropriate to construe it as such – and thus by her own omission she has broken her word.

    Of course there are other quibbles on technicalities, such as: “JULIA GILLARD WAS ONLY MAKING THAT PROMISE ON THE PROVISO THAT THE ALP WERE ELECTED, SO SEEING AS SHE NOW LEADS A MINORITY GOVERNMENT, HER PROMISES ARE NOW BOTH NULL AND VOID” . You can certainly make such disingenuous arguments, but whether or not the punters choose to buy into this shifty logic is quite another thing.

    There are many justifications that can be made for Gillard’s backflip, but every single one of them is TRICKY.

  • Julian Taylor

    Nice site BTW.

  • Fraser Tustian

    Did she promise no carbon tax? Correct.Did she lie? No… I haven’t heard anyone seriously suggest that she went to the polls knowing she was going to go back on her word. Apart from anything else, the election was in August and the decision to adopt a carbon tax model was made by the climate change committee the following February.But she did break a promise, right? Yep. But “Jupromise Breaker” doesn’t roll off the tongue like “Juliar”, so the “liar” tag has stuck for simplicity.

    So because she broke a promise, this whole thing is invalid, right? Well, no… the current government went to the polls saying they were going to set up a community committee for climate change. That promise got dropped with a week once minority negotiations started, but people didn’t march in the streets complaining about it. Ultimately, the “she lied” complaint is a shield for “I don’t like this carbon tax thing” which is fair enough… but can also be used as an excuse to not ask the question “is this a good idea or not?” We need to debate the merits or otherwise of this system, so let’s accept that a promise was broken – continue holding that agains the government if you want – and move on. Ultimately, when politicians break faith with the people they have to answer for it at the next election. The current government has broken faith with Australia and, under our system, they now have 2 more years to show that it was worth it.

  • A Guy who hates Fraser Tustian

    your a faggot

  • BunnoDavid

    Bottom line is that we should be factoring in the cost of carbon into what we produce.   It seems that every country is looking to put a price on carbon, the only difference is how far they have progressed in establishing the framework to do so.  With this in mind the countries that are least progressed are those in the 3rd world.  I guess if we want to be identify ourselves with those latter countries fine, but to me Australias strength has always been in it’s ability to recognised as a stable and sophisticated economy.

  • Bobdrake

    GST was 2.5% of GNP and was $6B, Carbon tax is meant to be .7% of GNP but raises  nearly $50B. Maths is not correct so what is govt telling us true.

  • Guest

    This is something that should go to the Australian public at a referremdun. And let the Australian Public decide.

  • Whowantstoknow?

    So from the comment above the carbon tax is not really a tax. Is that the same as saying “I’m pregnant, but only a little bit pregnant”. She specifically stated no carbon tax, not emissions trading scheme, the commentator is clearly an apologist for Gillard and company by trying to rewrite what is was clearly reported in the media and therefore untrustworthy. Face up to the fact that she lied to the nation (not as the pc brigade would report as a backflip) and in doing so you are propagating a lie. No doubt you are well versed in political correctness and one that supports the revisionist approach to sanitising and obilterating the truthwhat does not suit. Gobbels would be proud afterall he said a lie often repeated with conviction eventually becomes the unalterable truth.

  • Fran Barlow

    It’s clearly not a carbon tax. Abbott conceded in October of 2009 that the structure of the CPRS disitnguished it from “a simple carbon tax”. He cannot now claim that the CEF package (which in all structural respects is identical to the CPRS) is a tax.

    Abbott is the one lying for advantage. While the title of this website is unfortunate, the reality is that this is merely the first phase of an ETS. Gillard said she’d regard a win in the election as a mandate to introduce “a CPRS” and it was very clear that if the Greens won the BOP in the senate and the ALP controlled the reps, that is what would happen.

    The public voted for a minority government in which the BOP was controlled by people favouring a price on CO2e. A clear mandate exists to price CO2, both in seats and in votes.

  • Uyhnikj

    The reason Tony Abbot is going against this is for an advertising himself. He just wants a reason for peoplew to root for him and vote for him next election. No matter what Julia Gillard says he says the opposite and acts like what shes doing its wrong. I think that the parliment should focus more on helping the issues instead of paying for advertising promoting themselves. If they made a difference then people would be able to make there own mind up instead of what the tv and news paper says.

  • Noel

    Did Julia Gillard say there would be no Carbon Tax? Yes she did.  

    Would the election had a different outcome if she hadn’t said there wouldn’t be one? The election was so close, of course it would have been.  This is the part many people for who agree with the carbon tax don’t get, Miss Gillard stole votes from many people….

  • MickG

    I remember when we were building the ‘smart nation’, here is our opportunity to lead the world. 

    People didn’t vote for carbon tax? They didn’t vote for Julia, they want Kevin back? What did they vote for? Lets face it, ask any Labour voter and they will tell you they voted Labour. Ask a Liberal voter who they voted for, and they wont comment. Weak!! Oh, Liberal lower and Greens upper?? That should set Australia back ten years.

    We need leaders, not softies like Rudd. I’m a Labour man, and I believe the next best leader for Australia is Malcom Turnbull! Dump “lets prey for rain” Abbott.

  • Graham

    She hasn’t “admitted that she lied”, she’s split hairs over exactly what she said and what we have now. When have the Greens ever been untrustworthy?

  • Lopezjohnston

    liar, liar, pants on fire.  Don’t treat me like an idiot.  I would not have voted labor, if the PM had not lied to me and all of  Australia!

  • SAM

    I HATE U JULIA GILARD GO KILL URSELF U GETTING TO MUCH MONEY U RICHER THAN BARROKA OBAMMA

  • Trillianita

    I don’t really understand why this website is called ‘carbontax.net.au’ if the carbon tax is not a carbon tax? Am I missing something?

  • The Truth Fairy

    Wow Sam – you’re so erudite. And almost literate!!
    A bit of work on anger management and they might even let you out into civilsed society one day, where you can disagree with someone without threatening to murder them.
    Loser.

  • Sam

    There will be no carbon tax, however there will be an emotions trading scheme… That’s like saying “I won’t kill your children, I’m just going to stop them from breathing”

  • matsee

    I am no Gillard admirer but there is no evidence that Julia Gillard lied about the carbon tax at the last election.

    For her to have lied was for her to have her had intentions to introduce the tax when she said there wasn’t going to be one.

    The carbon tax was only decided when Gillard was reaching an agreement with the Greens.

    The only thing that events has proved is that Gillard simply broken a promise not to introduce the tax and a broken promise is not always the same as a lie.

    So to prove that she lied about the carbon tax one has to prove what was on her frame of mind when she made that pledge and not by the evidence of events.

  • Handr06

    I do not give a stuff whether she lied or not, ALL politicians LIE. But she did mislead the electorate by introducing the CARBON TAX without allowing the populace to make the decision. She, has I believe, with all her back stabbing, & political intrigue put the Labour Party into the wilderness for many years to come.
    She knows the majority of Australians are opposed to the Tax.
    She knew the majority of Australians were more in favour of Rudd as PM despite the fact he is a foul mouthed bully.
    She knows the majority of Australians would prefer her to spend money on Australian schools rather than Indonesian schools.
    She knows the Coalition Policy on boat people worked.
    We, the populace, know she is an inept Greens puppet 

  • The Truth Fairy

    You “don’t give a stuff whether she lied”, but you’re outraged she “misled” us? Are you John Howard’s son? Talk about semantics!

    I’d just make a couple of points in reply here – firstly, most people seem to have conveniently forgotten that Rudd’s slide in the polls began the moment he backed away from pushing for his Emissions Trading Scheme, (“the greatest moral challenge of our time”, remember?) a scheme that was a MAJOR deciding factor in Labor taking office from the Liberal/National Parties – of that there can be no doubt. Howard scrambled pathetically in his last days (as he finally glimpsed his political future) to convince us he’d changed his mind and believed in climate change after all, but we knew he didn’t. (And neither does Abbott, despite what he wants us to believe now)
    Polls have been consistently showing for years that about 70%
    of Australians want action on climate change, whether you personally like it or
    not. The result of the ’07 election is, on it’s own, undeniable proof of the fact that they do. You can insist all you like that the majority of Australians want nothing done about carbon pollution, but that doesn’t make it
    true.

    What Gillard DID say was that she favoured a market-based mechanism like an ETS rather than a Carbon Tax. Of course, none of her oponents want anyone to REMEMBER she said that (and for the life of me I don’t know why she doesn’t hammer this fact home), but it’s a salient point. So it’s important to remember that it’s not as though she vowed to not do anything about climate change.

    In having to come to an agreement of support with the Greens in order to take office she agreed to COMPROMISE (and I know the concept of compromise is difficult for many supporters of Tony Abbott to understand) on going straight to a market-based mechanism by starting with a price on carbon, CHANGING TO A MARKET BASED SCHEME in 2015. So in 2015 this “carbon tax” ceases to exist.

    To my mind, the “CARBON TAX LIE!!!” is no bigger a deal than Howard’s “non-core” promises. We knew there was going to be a price put on pollution – for God’s sake, Rudd was SACKED because he didn’t push for it hard enough! But Abbott wants us all to be distracted by word games. It helps put off the day he has to give us some policy details of his own.

    Secondly, after the stripping of billions out of education funding and R&D over a dozen years, Labor DID start putting money back into Australian schools. I don’t know what the hell you’re on about there – they spent billions extra through the BER. Something like 97.5% of schools were more than happy with getting something more than a flagpole, which is all they got from 16 years of Howard. Of course, Abbott would have you believe that a 97.5% success rate means “COMPLETE AND MASSIVE FAILURE”. Hah! Tell that to private enterprise, buddy! They’d be rolling in bonuses if they had a project that big with a success rate like that. Why not do what I did – find out for yourself. Ring 5 local schools and ask them if they’re happy with what they got from the BER rather than relying on opposition spin for the truth.

    As far as making a contribution to funding for Indonesian schools, there’s a LARGE group of very wise people from both sides of politics who believe the fewer kids in Indonesia being schooled by the likes of Abu Bakar Bashir and the more being schooled in the Western tradition, the better for ALL of us in terms of both education and security. But if you have a deep enough hatred of all those people (who you’ve never even met) you’ll never be able to see the other side clearly – it’ll be hidden by the fog of racism.

    Lastly, as far as Labor going “into the wilderness for many years”, 18 months is a hell of a long time in politics. It’s like picking the winner of a game of footy based on the score at the 5 minute mark – only a fool would do it. EVENTUALLY Abbott will have to put forward something of substance in the way of policy, and it’s a cold hard fact that his sums already don’t add up. I’m looking forward to seeing the blowtorch being applied to HIS midsection – which hasn’t happened yet. It might well be we see significant change in the poll numbers then….

  • The Truth Fairy

     Correction – 3rd last paragraph should read “Something like 97.5% of schools were more than happy with getting
    something more than a flagpole, which is all they got from ELEVEN years of
    Howard”.
    Sorry – typo!

  • Marko

    GNP is now bigger

  • Marko

    More Commas please I ran out of breath.

  • Marko

    Her party was never elected so all deals were off it is a mixed government and she was right and infact clever to get this policy up and running on the back of Green and independent support.  Well done Julia.

  • Marko

    Yep they should channel more money into teaching, spelling and literacy.

  • azulene

    A post as long as this and full of information is unlikely to be read by Lib supporters. They have a very small and selective attention span. Don’t get me wrong though, they do have very big emotions, rational or not.

    Dot points, sound bites.

    Short and sweet.

    They are more likely to read it…

  • azulene

    A post as long as this and full of information is unlikely to be read by Lib supporters. They have a very small and selective attention span. Don’t get me wrong though, they do have very big emotions, rational or not.

    Dot points, sound bites.

    Short and sweet.

    They are more likely to read it…

  • azulene

    Video up top.

    Abbott went all over the country touting what a great idea the Carbon Tax is.

    The above interview is one of MANY where he gives this carefully scripted speech.

    Julia said one sentence, ONCE.

    Now Abbott tells us the Carbon Tax will end Australia. Why did he have the initiative to so vigorously sell it before? (even suggesting it be put on motorists petrol)

    Because it was DIFFERENT to what the government at the time was proposing.

    Abbott has to be different to distinguish himself. And that is the full substance of all of his arguments.

    People freaking out about implications is what Abbott wants, the Carbon Tax is merely a tool to him.

    Who wants to be Abbott’s tool?

  • Frustrated Australian

    Absolute stupid bias idiot! Get off this page its for peaple with brains only.

    Either learn to think past political parties as being brand names/sports teams to blindly follow or keep your mouth shut, nobody here cares who you voted for in the election. People like you are whats wrong with our voting system.

  • Shane

    I haven’t looked into the carbon tax in detail, but on the surface it seems like a great idea. Big polluters will have to pay, 9/10 households will receive compensation, and our economy will be more competitive in the future.  What’s not to like?

  • Nina

    Nope. Abbott lies every time his lips move. He is a total stranger to the truth. The Labor party made certain promises before Rudd got in and all they have done since then is roll up their sleeves and try to get everything done. Clearly had this been another Liberal regime – nothing would have been done at all, everything the government did would have been heavily censored and just like little Johnny, Tony would be basically refusing to take responsibility for anything at all and would be ripping money out of essential services in order to run a slick and incredibly expensive PR campaign to muddy the waters and hide the fact that nothing was being done (except maybe a few more taxes here and there – we all know how much Liberals love taxing things. 

  • Mr Freak

    So every contentious / controversial / tough / non-LNP approved policy needs to be taken to a referendum? Great idea! Let’s spend billions on a ref about something that will probably make less money than the ref itself. LNP logic for you right there. By that logic, Howard should’ve dismissed the GST, as he lost the popular vote over it. Did it happen?…no…

  • Mr Freak

    Such unequivocal intelligence. Such a way with words that would make  Shakespeare himself grimace with jealousy. Such a grasp of what is happening in the political economic world.

    Such a candidate for a Federal Police investigation.

    Such a tool.

  • Jmarsh5

     An ‘emotions trading scheme’? Wow. Hope I don’t get yours!

  • Nina

    No it isn’t. How do you work that out? The two things are completely different.

  • Nina

    What drivel. She said there would not be a carbon tax – however she always said that there would a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme – which is a different way of putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions. When she went to the election it was not under false pretences at all – and if you are realyl upset about a carbon tax I suggest you take it up with those on the other side of the house who created a situation where it was not possible for a CPRS to proceed. In any case the carbon tax is only an interim measure until the Emissions Trading Scheme is put into place.

  • Nina

    Heaven forbid – if you educate the people, then nobody would vote Liberal :)

  • Nina

    If the majority of Australians are against the carbon tax where do they live? I don’t know anybody who thinks it is a bad thing, but then I have just been out there talking to Australians. I suspect you have been reading the papers and believing what you read you little scamp.

  • Nina

    I doff my hat to you – clearly you have done your homework and arrived at all of this through looking closely at what has actually been happening and not through taking the media as gospel. It is heartening to know that at least some people like to think about their politics. Australia truly needs a lot more people as conscientious as you clearly are.

  • Nina

    Why are you Liberal tub-thumpers always so SHOUTY?

  • Nina

    If you are voting based upon a single issue, then you are wasting your time. What you should be doing is voting based upon the nature and overall goals of the party you vote for and what that means to you. Historically Labo(u)r parties have been committed to trying to create a fair country for people. They value the provision of decent healthcare and education, things which people value and need to live from day to day. Capitalist parties (Republican, Australian Liberal, Conservative) are committed to trying to ensure that the working people stay poor so that they have an abundant supply of cheap labour for their capitalist friends to use in the production of their goods and services. They do not value the provision of public healthcare because they are trying to ensure an abundant supply of cheap workers and therefore if a few die through natural wastage or ill health there are always plenty more where they came from. They are not keen on ensuring that a decent standard of education is available because if people are properly educated, they know enough to realise that voting for capitalist parties is a very bad idea. Why would anyone vote for regimes that treat people as mere commodities and therefore expendable.

  • Mail

    According to The Australian just before the election, PM Gillard said, 
    “I don’t rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism … I rule out a carbon tax.”

    There is a major difference between the two. I can imagine that someone who had been immersed in the complexity of policy development work for years would see the two quite differently.

    This ceaseless ‘Julia Gillard is a liar’ chant is itself
    among the most dishonest pieces of political propaganda I have ever witnessed.

    There is a major difference between lying and not keeping a
    promise. Hands up anyone who has ever found themselves in a position of being
    unable to keep a sincerely made promise? (Hands up all you divorcees, for
    starters). Now put your hand down if you can fairly be described as a liar. Not
    many hands left up, are there?

    A lie requires an intention to decieve: promises are broken
    when circumstances change. Howard continually made statements when he had
    denying evidence in his possession - 
    about children overboard, Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction,
    Australia’s plans to fight in Iraq, taxpayer funded political advertising, the
    balaclava-clad Patrick’s strikebreakers and a host of other issues. This was
    indistrial-scale lying, across multiple portfolios.

    Gillard has found herself unable to keep several promises
    for reasons generally outside her control. No-one has established she had an
    intention to decieve. She is widely considered by those who work with her to be
    an ethical and honest person.

    I
    agree with JM Keynes who said, ‘When the facts change,
    I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’ 

  • Trish Hunt

    I don’t see Julia riding a bike or patrolling the beach. Not that much in touch with nature I guess…

  • Trish Hunt

    If everyone was in support of the carbon tax then the popularity of Labor would be where it was before Rudd was advised by Gillard not to have a double dissolution/referendum on the ETS. She lied to Rudd and has brought the Labor party into disrepute.

    As for the carbon tax, 78% of the reduction by 2050 is going offshore. This means that for that 78% we aren’t changing our habits or creating green jobs. The money should not be going back to low income earners like an income tax but rather should be used LOCALLY to insulate homes better, infrastructure investment in renewables, and green jobs.

    This scheme needs some serious improvement!

  • Trish Hunt

    I am against the manner in which the carbon tax has been implemented as 78% of the reduction by 2050 will actually be offshored and that a mere 2% of local emissions will be reduced by 2050. I don’t call that a well-thought out program. We are supposed to be changing our habits with this tax. The tax should be used for local green jobs, local green infrastructure, and weaning us off coal/oil, and local emissions reductions, not offshore jobs.

  • Trish Hunt

    Why are you afraid of a referendum? This is a democracy.

  • Trish Hunt

    Federal Labor canned the $9,000 payments for exceptional teachers while at the same time giving themselves big pay rises. So much for investment in education, which is supposed to be one of their pillars. This was meant to be the big relief for the teachers for with the LNP party in power in the States they won’t be getting pay rises…Labor is now like LNP! Greed and no education spending. Good that the Greens are around to vote for.

  • Trish Hunt

    Why be defensive? So what if there was a lie or not? What is material is the policy that has been implemented, and my issue with it is that 78% of the reduction is offshored. Yet this has been promoted on the platform of Australians reducing Australia’s GHG emissions by 80% by 2050. Offshore = no local green jobs, but plenty for foreign countries. Let’s hope that they don’t get a carbon tax/ETS either because if they do then we won’t be able to offshore any of our CO2 emissions.

  • Trish Hunt

    Then why did the ALP give themselves a hefty pay rise a week after canning the $9k for exceptional teachers? Why did Labor vote against greater transparency in the identification of their lobbyists? Labor unionists are so in lockstep working with the CEOs day in day out that they become like the CEOs. You are mixing the Greens with Labor.

  • Isut3391

     If the carbon tax is so popular ,why is every one against its introduction, Qld election was partly lost on the carbon tax and the lies told by Anna Bligh about not selling the assets of QLD,
    The same fate awaits Julia the next federal election will be the same as QLD and with a 28% approval rating she will be lucky to hold a few seats in QLD,
     Why should Australians pay a carbon tax, at the moment we are exporting 300% more coal to Asia  than we were under Howard  ,this coal will be burnt and the carbon will be emitted  into the atmosphere  causing more carbon than before yet we are told Australia must reduce our use of fossil fuel  to save the planet, if Julia was fair dinkum she would stop all exports of coal ,thats the only way this so called carbon can be reduced , and there’s china going to introduce a carbon tax 10 yuan
    or in Australian terms $1.50 per ton while we send our manufacturing  industry into bankrupcy.

  • Nige

    There is no bicycle seat big enough for her big lying arse…..  

  • GC – secular party voter

    I am yet to meet a single person in the entire country who has said “I wasn’t going to vote for Julia Gillard and Labor but when she said a few days before the election that there’d be no carbon tax I decided to vote for her”. The people beating up her Howard-style non-core promise are universally people who never would have voted for her in the first place and want to rubbish her now because they prefer Tony Abbotts approach to climate change of cutting school and hospital funding or raising taxes to pay 10billion dollars into programs that experts say will be less effective than a climate tax.  Utter stupidity.

  • Nina Booth

    Riding a bike or patrolling the beach? She has a JOB – these Are things people do when they aren’t working. What are you on about?

  • Nina Booth

    If that were true then Abbott would have a much much bigger problem.

  • Nina Booth

    peaple with brains? ‘Nuff said

  • here’s to Tony!

    A job.. She’ s a lying lawyer who cares only for her own power base. Do some research on her accounting ability with union funds, or her sleazy little tryst with Emmerson. She wouldn’t know what a job was if it bit her on that fat ass. Tony Abbot is a rhode scholar (just like ‘old Hawkey), and has more community and family involvement than bollards entire unionised family. I’m yet to see anyone provide evidence other than innuendo and hate speech from the greens, that support any case that he is anything other than an MP like any other, and I ain’t saying he’s a saint, just a better alternative than the halfwits in the labour government who couldn’t organize sex Ina brothel if Craig Thomsons credit card depended on it!

  • Nina Booth

    Intelligent people would never vote for a person. Saying one is better than the other is pretty silly. Basically you either vote for the party that was founded to support people (as a person that’s just being smart) or you choose to vote for a party that has no interest in people other than a very tiny rich minority who can help them line their own pockets. Thus it is and thus it has ever been. Since I am not a greedy self-interested sociopath, it’s an easy choice, as indeed it is for intelligent people everywhere.

  • Big Green Al

    Well said!! & in case anyone is missing the point – non-sociopaths vote Green, or Labour at a pinch ;) Let’s weed out the narcissists & look after our fellow humans, animals & the planet (not necessarily in that order).

  • Nina Booth

    Agreed. The Greens have some of the most intelligent people in politics.

  • William Tyson

    “The issue here is that what has been announced is not really a carbon tax.”

    Well I agree and the hysterial response of some Australians is a national embarrassment. But this does make the name of your website a bit odd.

  • Jonyjohn

    yes mate, people will be trading carbon offsets. Some
    companies have announced that they will be buying up to 450mil of carbon
    offsets to deal with their carbon footprint and to compensate their increased
    costs of operation, the carbon price amount will not be reclaimed back in the
    price of electricity, so they must have some offsetting measure. That means if
    someone buys a carbon offset, the market has been created, therefore an
    emissions trading scheme has been created, as people are trading assets, buying
    and selling, then enter the speculators, the investment banks. Here is a list
    of some of the products that are available at this stage, Emission Reduction
    Units (ERUs); Certified Emission Reductions (CERs); Verified Emission
    Reductions (VERs); Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs); and NSW Greenhouse
    Abatement Certificates (NGACs), I am sure in the future there will be more once
    all the big IBs are involved, the ones that planned it, this has the potential
    to be the biggest derivatives (scam) market ever created. Considering these
    assets have a payoff correlated to emissions, one would assume that this is
    trading emissions, therefore an emissions trading scheme. Say the LME (London
    Metals Exchange) where most of the metals derivatives/assets are listed
    worldwide. Would you call this a metals trading market/scheme or what?

    This will be fixed price for 3 years, then it will be
    market, price discovery, in other words the big players will have a field day
    making trillions of dollars while nothing actually happens but PR campaigns on
    the Television, China pollutes more than anyone else in history in the next 20
    years, they want our coal as does Japan, so we shift to LNG, well that seems to
    be the direction.
    As far as I am aware, Howard tried an ETS but failed, Kevin I believe was
    ousted because he didn’t push hard enough for an ETS and basically backed down
    on is global agreements and the seriousness of his claims. So Julia is only
    continuing a globalist policy with the help of Bob Brown and the Greens party,
    exactly the same as the liberals would have done, perhaps different concessions
    to different groups, but still an ETS.
    This is a sham; trading derivatives among the rich will not do anything, but
    raise the costs for the poor and make big bonuses for the traders of these
    certificates once they are able to manipulate an integrated world market. The
    EU already has an ETS, in the United States Al Gore and his cronies were the
    principal players in the failed ETS through CME/NYMEX (funny coincidence, the
    American ETS fails then Al gore travels round the world selling the Carbon
    scare, perhaps he does miss those extra millions). A price on carbon has been
    established in the UK, Congress has had those serious budget concerns as we
    know, with their languishing industrial economy they have been unable to
    establish much at this stage, however 3 states that I am aware of have passed a
    carbon price, including California!
    There is a distinct possibility that we will change to LNG for power production
    (wind is a current sham), wow what a coincidence. With significant investment into
    Natural Gas (Methane) over the last ten years, it is no surprise that the major
    shift will be converting/building power plants to take advantage of this next
    cheap fuel mega profit industry created by the same old oligarchs, and the new
    fresh faces from Asia. Methane? Does anyone see a problem here, if not I
    suggest checking some of the potential problems with Methane, these by all
    accounts far out way anything that coal can create! Perhaps China and Japan
    want our coal for a cheaper price; maybe they want to buy coal fields owned by
    our power plants. AGL is has already written down the value of some of its plants,
    making the coal fields also worth less, due to higher cost of extraction. Or
    perhaps there is truth in that CIA rumour being siphoned about, Japan is our
    biggest coal export, and they have massive investments in natural Gas in WA as
    does China, signing a $50B AUD deal. At the moment they are burning mostly oil,
    therefore the world oil price has risen. From all accounts, the conversion
    there will be to LNG like everywhere else. Is there a pattern here? Why the
    attack on the Australian coal industry, who would benefit economically. Maybe
    the USA, they have significant gas reserves and are located in close proximity
    to Japan, they have cited our coal exports to Japan as a potential problem.
    Sorry to write so much, but I hope you understand what I say here, the carbon
    tax/ETS is a scam, globalist policy. Unfortunately Australians are too uneducated,
    ill-informed, close minded, to understand the direction of the world, to
    understand global trade, global politics and to know what it all means, they
    would prefer some nice looking person on the TV to tell them how it is, rather
    than finding out for themselves, a very sad state of affairs.

  • HopefulTeen

    I think we still have hope. I’m 16 so I guess you could say my opinion is a pretty weak one, but I’ve studied PLENTY of geography to know that a carbon tax is probably the most effective way to combat climate change. I just wish the other massively producing nations would jump on board too.

  • HopefulTeen

    You go Big Green Al!

  • Sepic61

    I wanna vote on the never ever GST.

  • Bravokarl

    In response to your fucking comments, to even ask who the fuck you think you are is obviouly beneath the dignity of all decent people. Knowing you as a pig with nauseating smell therefore, asking further questions about what you are doesn’t make sense. It’s also not uncommon to see your sorts in the society. The sorts from  dysfunctional family backgrounds with undignified upbringing. Your sorts usually project the traumas of thier ignoble upbringing not only in public spaces but also on issues which demand intelligent discussions like the Carbon Tax issues being discussed here.

    Ha!ha!ha! Progenies of drug addict families like you are doomed forever in a deepest dye of turpitude and moral deprivity. You hid your identity as a mark of your mephestophellian nature. Primary school-dropout like you wouldn’t give a shit about history anyways. If not I could have referred you to do your home work to figureout which country you are in and how did you come to be Australian – this country belongs to people you and I both well know and not pig like you.

    Finally, God Almighty Himself doesn’t have any respect for your race which is why He did not raise any prophet from it. The reason is that your race was made by God to be used as fuel for the Hell Fire. How’s that? Could you get it any better than this, mother fucking punk?

    Pan-Africanist

  • Bravokarl

    The comments below are in response to Chrisanto’s.

  • Jordancrawford_3

    u are so incredibly wrong

  • Yehalon

    Funny. If any of the above were even remotely true I’m sure the liars party, sorry, the labour party would have taken full advantage and not called it a carbon tax. It certainly is interesting trying to see someone spin this right around and say ‘the carbon tax isn’t a carbon tax’. If you and your cohorts told me it was raining outside, I’d have to go and check for myself.

  • Call a spade a Spade

     A spade is a spade , a lie is a lie and this is a Carbon Tax…stop hiding behind dishonest semantics.

  • John

    fail carbon tax is a fail.

  • Dr Ben Dover

     Ummm…medication not working ?

  • Young Dad

    I will be over $500 worse off per year as a result of the LIE that Juliar made. I am not wealthy and have a young family with an average combined income. The fact that hoseholds would be adequately compensated is just one more LIE that Juliar and her incompentant band of Federal Labor nitwits are propogating.

  • Itguy98

    What? Its not really a carbon tax?! So why is the website called http://www.carbontax.net.au and not http://www.emmisionstradingscheme.net.au. ? Australians are not that gullible . 

  • Jeanleeson

    You’ve obviously forgotten Howards broken promises, oh I forgot, they were core & non-core promises, & heck, he didn’t lie did he?? Children overboard!!!

  • Nina

    You I suspect are so incredibly gullible. The basis of party politics is well established. Capitalist parties never prioritise the wellbeing of the population as a whole.

  • Nina

    Well China are doing a hell of a lot to address the problem – and unlike stupid dilettante westernised countries, once they set their mind to something it takes shape very quickly indeed.

  • Nina

    It is and will be. There are a huge slew of government initiatives out there right now hiring for jobs specifically connected with the reduction of carbon footprints and greener lifestyles. These are the forerunners, but this trend is growing rapidly.

  • Nina

    Last time I looked education spending was not just about teachers’ pay. It is also about provision of resources and suitable premises, clothing and equipment for school attendees. The investment in education by this government has been significant and broad spectrum. This time teachers didn’t get a pay rise according to you. That is not unheard of, but it doesn’t mean they will never ever get one again. 

  • Tucker

    Why are you Labor numpties always so condescending and so foolishly self-deluded that you have to try and justify every lie and backward step that your party takes?  Even Labor party heavyweights see that it’s not black and white.  Why can’t you… Nina (Julia)?

  • Joe

    Nina. Why do labor voters always try to drag in Liberal when defending their Carbon Tax??  This is a labor initiative and your party should take all the credit!? It has nothing to do with Liberal. They will remove it as soon as they get in office. Why can’t you comment on the topic without dumping a scare campaign of your own.  Seems to me that you are just another delusional labor supporter.  I deal in freon gas used in car air cons. The wholesale price of a container of gas is currently $100K.  As of July 1, this same container costs $1.5 million. If I were you I would go and re-gas my car cause the $50 gas will cost $750 soon. How will the govt compensate for this?? 

  • Sam hemphill

    Yes, it is supposed to drive change in the economy, if putting a price on carbon has that much effect on the price of your gas it must b dreadful for the environment. When CFCs were found to b devastating for the ozone layer, it was quickly replaced with something less devastating.
    What seems to missing from most of this debate is scrutiny of the alternative. Normally the coalition would b the ones pushing for the market mechanism as John Howard and Malcolm Trumbull did when they were coalition leader. Tony Abbott supported it also as a coalition member, but he needed a point of difference so he decided to oppose it because, damn! The labor party already has that one. So he cobbled together the direct action plan, which credible, unaffiliated economist simply Scoff at

  • Samwhemphill

    Abbott will never repeal the carbon tax. It will b too expensive to do so and his alternative direct action plan is not credible. When he gets elected wait for the excuses.

  • Fadi Chadayda

    I hate Julia Gillard ! GO LIBERAL !
     
    Gillard is a Liar

  • B Rhyno9

    Once a liar always a liar. She said it purely to lure voters, to get the Australian public on her side…..Get rid of the damn liar and put the swearing Kevin Rudd back in. I really don´t care if a guy swears, but to have a filthy liar leading the country shows how stupid we are in Australia…………..

  • Bob

    Your a fuckwit

  • Misterarto

    Bob, your spelling shows you are self fulfilling prophecy!

  • Dr.VK

    Politians should put the interest of the nations’ citizens first in developing policies or debates.  Stop back-biting and pointing faults at one another.  Remember you are a leader because citizens of your nation voted you in followed by the Westminister system of government.  We want results that will benefit all citizens of this country that you as leaders represent.  Care for your citizens first!

  • Mark R

    Trish, The point of the ETS is to turn the “oil tanker” around, it takes a long time for this to happen. The ETS is the first baby step in changing the trajectory of our emissions. It sends a message to business rather than hitting them over the head and adversely affecting our standard of living.  
    As consumers we should be able to choose green energy product at a cheaper rather than a premium price. This will drive investment in infrastructure and as this gathers pace we will see our emissions falling faster. 

    So I don’t think there is any need to worry now about the 2050 position because as more and more countries implement carbon pricing, carbon prices will increase which will make green investment more attractive than non-green options and we will be firmly on the path to saving our planet (well in this area at least)    

  • Voice of the youth

    Why can’t people just accept the fact that the government is addressing climate change, which is in itself one of the important economic issues needed to be solved in order to maintain a sustainable environment for future generations? I understand that the older generations wouldn’t care less about enviro degradation and rising sea levels, since they’re going to die out anyway; but what about future generations??!
    Australians need to stop being so selfish and understand that although it might seem bad now, it will provide everyone with benefits in the LONG TERM!!!

  • Rod Russell

    Julia Gillard apologized for lieing, John Howard never apologized nor was he ridiculed for his lie ” there will be no GST under a Liberal Government” or words to that effect. Then but it on the table when he knew he couldn’t lose. 

  • Had. E. Nough

    Julia will
    not be the prime minister next election and the greens have lost their votes as
    well. (Just ask the people struggling to live.)

    The only
    people in the end that will be paying the tax is the people that use the
    products as the organisations that cause carbon will pass it down.

    I would
    rather pay higher prices for something if the government forced the factories
    to clean up their act. But no it’s a money grab to pay for the stupid
    treasurers blunders.

    I have a
    relation working at a grocery store and the prices are rising. I think that
    idiot treasurer miscalculated again.Signed – New world order without idiots.

    Julia will
    not be the prime minister next election and the greens have lost their votes as
    well. (Just ask the people struggling to live.)

    The only
    people in the end that will be paying the tax is the people that use the
    products as the organisations that cause carbon will pass it down.

    I would
    rather pay higher prices for something if the government forced the factories
    to clean up their act. But no it’s a money grab to pay for the stupid
    treasurers blunders.

    I have a
    relation working at a grocery store and the prices are rising. I think that
    idiot treasurer miscalculated again.

    Signed – New world order without idiots.

    At the
    moment I’m cutting down trees so it doesn’t shade the solar that i have to put
    on my roof.

    IDIOTS run
    this county and they are controlled by minority

  • jack

    She does need to die and there’s countless number of Aussies who think that !!

  • Voiced

    Shouldn’t we all be worried that the only way Australia was ever going to have a ‘Carbon Tax’ was for a politician to go back on their word? Is this really what Australia has come to? The Carbon Tax is a great thing, and it really should have been brought in soooner. Australians are worried that they will have to pay a few cents more each month, rather than worry about our environment and what we are doing to it. Sure, the Carbon Tax is not going to fix all these problems, and it is only the first baby step towards change. Atleast Gillard felt it her responsibility to go back on her word to protect what no one else would.

  • Streetscape

    For those who think that carbon-based pollution should be reduced effectively over time there are two tragedies in Australian politics that should be remembered:
    T1: That a permit trading scheme was not enacted when there was bipartisan agreement. That failure gave Opportunist Abbot the break he was waiting for, and the issue is for the foreseeable future a political football.
    T2: That Julia Gillard did not want to fight the semantics and the detail of this: it is *not* a tax, it is a permit trading scheme. A huge mistake, an opportunity lost to actually educate the wavering public and to be a contrast to Mr Abbots simplistic three word formulations.
    So the argument in favor of the policy in this country has been lost. The rest of the world carries on. Australia will become less relevant and engaged as a result.