Skip to content

Duel-plicity – Deliver us from policy


When John Howard instigated a scare campaign into Paul Keating’s idea of a GST, it shelfed much needed policy for 10 years. For 10 years the country stagnated and spurted because a reform that was much needed for the country was used as a political football to do nothing but score points. In fact, it was Howard himself who got the policy finally in place in 1998 and the economy finally got what was needed 10 years before. For 10 years people were allowed to suffer, businesses to go bankrupt, individuals committed suicide, families were broken. But hey, Howard had got to score some points.

A new year, same shit. A bill that first made itself known in 1998 re carbon emissions is still on the shelf. And if the Coalition have their way, if they win the next election, they intend to scrape it all and throw us back to first base.

Okay. Let me first address the current accusation of the Coalition. That is, the Julia Gillard mislead the public.

For the public to be mislead, they must be told something when the real situation is something else.

Try as they might, there is no, none, nada, zippo, zero, naught etc evidence in anyway that indicates that what the PM said before the election was an untruth. This was pre the new paradigm remember? When a government meant majority. There was no way in the world she could have known it would be a hung parliament nor did she know that the coalition will give a seat through preferences to a greens candidate.

IF there is proof, then make it known. Otherwise all that is happening is in the attempt to make the claim that Julia Gillard mislead the public, they themselves engage in a campaign to mislead the public.

Ah the duplicity. I found it alarming that Joe Hockey would be so disturbed by what he claims to be the untrustworthiness of the PM when from his own lips he announced to the nation that the costings were fully audited. Further, the PM had no crystal ball to help her predict a hung parliament and so made her statement in total honesty of that moment.

Joe on the other hand specifically knew that his costings were not fully audited, but still told the public they were. And Tony Abbott backed his guy to the hilt and now wants to persecute the PM for an non existing offence.


Now I understand that the government has changed its stance on the concept of carbon tax, but their stance on economic reform to a green economy remains absolutely clear.

The original plan was simple. It was designed to encourage business to change its reliance on fossil fuels. Those that did would be given incentives for doing so. Those that don’t would not, and any monies raised to the carbon pricing would go to assisting those that needed it to cope with this new direction.

The Greens though wanted a tougher system and so they voted against that ETS scheme. What they wanted was a more punitive approach to big business. That is the more you pollute, the more you pay. Then that money is what is used to assist the public and this leaves consolidated revenue (our income and other taxes) alone for health etc.

The Coalition under Tony Abbott are offering what they call carbon abatement purchasing. That is if you pollute, the government will take your pollution global marker (for business to compete overseas it will have to deal with overseas carbon pricing) and actually pay the polluter. That is if you pollute x amount of tonnes of carbon emissions, the government will buy that pollution from you. They will buy this using consolidated venue. Now you may not think this is the same as a new tax, but when 15 billion of taxpayers monies are given to polluters for polluting, then that’s 15 billion dollars taxed from the working population.

Further this scheme seems to indicate that the more you pollute every year, the more money you will make because you can sell that carbon pollution. Now presumably the opposition would buy less and less carbon pollution every year. But how does this scheme in any way create incentive for carbon polluters to shift to greener solutions.

Further it is interesting that the opposition is more than prepared to hang on to these pollution markers and trade them on the free market to attempt to recoup its losses. Interesting because they argue that a free market mechanism to price carbon is a policy fraught with danger.

The way I see it, the coalition is attempting to test the carbon market by not exposing big business to the market but instead to gamble the countries money on it. Now that is what I call economic conservatism!

So what have we got due to this new paradigm? A framework that calls for a short term period of Carbon Tax at a fixed price but then it becomes a strictly free market based mechanism.

Yes. Some businesses are going to get hurt. But they are going to get hurt either way. Some businesses will prosper. And according to a survey released by the Climate Commission report a net gain of 30,000 in the energy and mining sectors. That’s net gain.

It is in some business interests, a very small minority at that, that we do not go to a greener economy. Irony really when you think of the 99.9% of the country that will prosper and grow. Big business see it as wealth redistribution. That is taking wealth from them and giving it to the people.

Compare that with the coalition’s plan of taking money from the people and giving it to big business.

But it gets worse.

No mandate cry the coalition re carbon tax. But wait a second. They do have a mandate for the mining tax right? They did what Howard did re the GST and took that issue to the elections right?

So why is Tony Abbott claiming not only to repeal the Emissions Trading Scheme but also to repeal the mining tax?

The hypocrisy.

It is a pity. It seems we are headed for another game. Another wasted 10 years plus.

Here we go again. Unless of course we all just get on with what needs doing.

A. Ghebranious   2011  (All Rights Reserved)

  1. Jennifer Baratta permalink

    Ouch! That stinks.

  2. Excellent post. I’m intrigued by the Opposition’s seeming lack of tactical nous in moving for the suspension of standing orders on two successive days when they had members suspended for an hour which meant they could not vote on their fearless Leader’s motion. Now I know Chris Pyne is a dunce, but even he should be able to work out that this is not terribly brite. Or, could it be they do not want to win, only make noise? And, how about mainstream media journalists not recording that this happened?

    • The coalition is not seriously engaged in trying to censure the govt. They just want the APPEARANCE they are on the nightly news. Anyone who listens beyond the TV grabs knows the real truth. They are hoping many Australians do not know the real truth.

  3. “So what have we got due to this new paradigm? …Yes. Some businesses are going to get hurt. But they are going to get hurt either way. Some businesses will prosper.”

    Sounds like a winners and losers pitch in defense of Google algorithm change that’s created real pain for some, and weeded out a handful of spammers.

    Either way google wins, the bloggers continue blogging, and the crowd bay for blood.

    Next …

    • If you dont act on climate change, who will be hurt? Work out the numbers. Its huge. If we start seeing more Katrinas, more Yasi’s etc, then add the costs and lives lost. BILLIONS and thousands.

      It seems stupid that 500 cost a year (much less if compensated) is some how too big a price to pay.

      Its not just stupid thinking. It is appalling thinking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: