Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[OnSong]

If Julia believes in this so much why doesnt she call an early election and let the people decide?

Why?

John Howard took us to war on a lie, after hundreds of thousands of people marched against the idea in protest.

Thousands of deaths later, no weapons of mass destruction and no election.

She won government, it's called democracy. It's called governing and making decisions, no different to hundreds of similar instances over the course of history.

If she's kicked out when the election is due, according to the constitution, fine.

That's democracy. Responding to dummy spits isn't

If it is a good policy then it should stand to scrutiny, shouldn't it?

Damn straight.

[Squawk]

If Julia believes in this so much why doesnt she call an early election and let the people decide?

Why?

John Howard took us to war on a lie, after hundreds of thousands of people marched against the idea in protest.

Thousands of deaths later, no weapons of mass destruction and no election.

She won government, it's called democracy. It's called governing and making decisions, no different to hundreds of similar instances over the course of history.

If she's kicked out when the election is due, according to the constitution, fine.

That's democracy. Responding to dummy spits isn't

Hmmmm.

We know now that the WMD rationale for invading Iraq was false. Do we know that the Australian Govt knew any better than us (it's citizens) at the time? I think only the US knew it and sold a furphy to the UK and Australia and others. Let's not forget that Australia is in many other conflict zones around the world as well, including Africa and the Solomons, in various guises.

Also, I've never known any Australian Govt to seek a mandate at election to go to war. Or any other govt that I can recall.

Overall, there's an implication from some posters that mandates to act are never needed, they are implicit in election. Yet the GST, and WorkChoices, and signing the Kyoto Protocol (or not) are all viewed as being threshold 'mandate' election issues. If the carbon tax had been proposed pre the 2010 election, then maybe it would have been a different election outcome? In other words, it could have been a coalition govt (outright or minority) and the greens may have had more or less representation. Who knows.

[redandblack]

We've had this mandate discussion before.

In the history of Australian politics, no government with the numbers in parliament has ever had to have an election outside of the constitution rules, to seek a 'mandate'. There is no such thing.

When you say certain things are viewed as being 'threshold mandate election issues, you're half right. They are election issues, to be voted on as part of a party's platform at an election, which happens regularly ever three years. Who says they shouldn't beintroduced unless an election is held? No reputable political scholar or expert would ever say so. Mr Murdoch's journalists don't make the rules.

(Actually, they probably do, so you've got me there

Was Workchoices a mandate election issue? It was never part of any platform before an election?

To answer your question, of course I opposed the war in Iraq. Howard won the election, I disagreed with him strongly and I think those who opposed the war were proven correct, but that's just my view.

I opposed WorkChoices as well, but in neither case did I think John Howard should go to an early election over it.

We have 3 year parliaments. Many countries have four. The purpose is that governments can govern and make decisions over a period of time. That's established constitutional practice and nothing is different now.

Of course I'm but I'd suggest I'm not the only one. We all are here, but in this case I've got Constitional Law on my side.

Mr Murdoch and Alan Jones are on yours

[redandblack]

smac, I agree the carbon tax policy should stand up to scrutint, if it's good policy.

I'm only disagreeing with the calls for an election over it, which doesn't bgive it any time to stand up to the scrutiny you correctly think should happen.

As far as Abbott is concerned, I obviously agreee with you.

On a Politics forum where we're discussing a topic like this and there are only really two policies on offer, it's a bit difficult not to compare or point out inconsistencies with past governments.

However, I understand your point about Abbott

[Sky Pilot]

If the leader Bob Brown thought voters would give the Green/Labor coalition the nod if an election was called right now on the carbon tax/global warming/ climate change/ lets ditch the coal indusrty/ lets hug some trees policy he would be out there now announcing it. He'd clear the executive car parking space at Govt House and tell Julia to get over there pronto. The left knows damn well they are set to be decimated at the next election and they are merely hanging on now for their superannuation and retirement entitlemnts. I just wished Tony and his mates would shut the edited up and say nothing. Its all they have to do.

[Squawk]

Mr Murdoch and Alan Jones are on yours

Tut Tut! I'm not Andrew Bolt! I cant comprehend every standing side by side with either of them - unless I had been selected to play for the Wallabies a few years back

Opposing the war in Iraq is one thing. But no one likes to go to war and the WMD proposition was the rationale at the time. In the absence of any other information to discredit that proposition, we trusted our allies and were ultimately let down.

I personally didn't think we needed to be involved, especially without UN endorsement. I simply saw GB Jnr seeking to finish off a job his old man had not completed in Iraq1.

[Q.]

Of course they knew Squawk. And to be ignorant of it is as damning as complicity. But we digress...

[fish]

The Julia model prices carbon emmissions by the top 500 polluters. They then pass the cost on. How are they given any incentive to reduce pollution if demand doesn't reduce as a consequence of the tax? And it wont reduce as long as the costs are compensated as heavily as they are, for those households earning under $150K If they do find alternative means of production, who's to say they wont still sell the new products at a high cost resulting in no savings for consumers?

As for compensation, I think everyone should be responsible for their carbon footprints - direct and indirect. Provide compensation to those who make green choices that are promoting a sustainable environment. Encourage good behaviour in addition to discouraging bad behaviour. For example, give fish some compensation if he uses green energy after switching from coal-based energy. Or if you drive less than 10,000km a year in your car and/or use public transport for 40 weeks of the year.

Squawk I reckon that the businesses subject to the tax will immediately start to look for ways of reducing their carbon emissions so as to avoid paying the tax. If they don't then they will become less competitive than their competitors who do take measures to decrease their emissions.

As for compensation for people who have already reduced their carbon footprint - they will be rewarded by the carbon price having less impact on their expenditure whilst still enjoying the full tax cuts.

[fish]

I just wished Tony and his mates would shut the ***** up and say nothing.

For once I agree with you Sky Pilot!

Labor handled the previous CPRS scheme very badly and has handled this one poorly too - with the "there will be no carbon tax" statement before the election and the almost five-month delay between announcing the policy and providing the details - allowing a fear campaign to run a full course. They have virtually brought the poor opinion polls upon themselves.

[southee]

If Julia believes in this so much why doesnt she call an early election and let the people decide?

Why?

John Howard took us to war on a lie, after hundreds of thousands of people marched against the idea in protest.

Thousands of deaths later, no weapons of mass destruction and no election.

She won government, it's called democracy. It's called governing and making decisions, no different to hundreds of similar instances over the course of history.

If she's kicked out when the election is due, according to the constitution, fine.

That's democracy. Responding to dummy spits isn't

At least Howard had the "guts" to let the people to decide on the GST.........unlike this mob of proven liars!!!

[fish]

For those who want to know more about the carbon tax and how it works the ABC website gives a pretty reasonable overview of the proposal as well as the details and analysis.

From the ABC website:

The main features of the plan are:

Initial carbon price of $23 per tonne of carbon pollution to be paid by the 500 heaviest emitters and increasing by 2.5 per cent in real terms.

A transition to a market-based emissions trading scheme in 2015.

$9.2 billion from the revenue stream to help businesses and workers impacted by the plan.

Tax cuts and pension increases to protect people from higher prices.

A $1.2 billion Clean Technology Program to improve energy efficiency in manufacturing and to support research and development.

Australia's most polluting electricity generators will be closed and replaced with gas-fired units by 2020.

A $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation to fund new clean energy technology.

An Australian Renewable Energy Agency to manage a $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation to fund new clean energy technology.

An Australian Renewable Energy Agency to manage a $3.2 billion clean energy budget.

A target of 20 per cent renewable energy by 2020.

Agriculture excluded from paying the carbon price.

[fish]

One thing I haven't heard much about is which 500 companies will be hit with the tax?

So I had a bit of a look and found this article which sheds some light on the question.

[Squawk]

Of course they knew Squawk. And to be ignorant of it is as damning as complicity. But we digress...

Please explain? Based on my interpretation of your statement, you're saying that the US told its allies to get on board and get rid of Saddam, by knowingly using a pretext of WMD to sell the cause to the world whilst all the while, all the govts that committed to get on board knew that there were different prevailing reasons that wouldn't wash with the citizens?

[Squawk]

Also, a (traditionally) reliably informed person advised me today that apparently the Federal Government has increased the excise on gas. Can anyone confirm this? If that is true, why would they do that when gas is the cleanest form of energy production (against coal/oil energy production, but obviously not solar, wind etc)? In other words, they are going to tender to close down 2,000MW of dirty power yet they have increaded the costs associated with gas power?

[Q.]

Of course they knew Squawk. And to be ignorant of it is as damning as complicity. But we digress...

Please explain? Based on my interpretation of your statement, you're saying that the US told its allies to get on board and get rid of Saddam, by knowingly using a pretext of WMD to sell the cause to the world whilst all the while, all the govts that committed to get on board knew that there were different prevailing reasons that wouldn't wash with the citizens?

I'm saying that Blair and Howard knew the intelligence was false.

[Sky Pilot]

I just wished Tony and his mates would shut the ***** up and say nothing.

For once I agree with you Sky Pilot!

Labor handled the previous CPRS scheme very badly and has handled this one poorly too - with the "there will be no carbon tax" statement before the election and the almost five-month delay between announcing the policy and providing the details - allowing a fear campaign to run a full course. They have virtually brought the poor opinion polls upon themselves.

Here's something else fish
I think its pathetic for Abbott and the Libs to resort to calling Julia a liar about this BS that she said no carbon tax under my govt then back flipped and introduced exactly that. She didn't lie she just didnt realise that Brown would be in charge within weeks after the election and she had to come to heel. I feel sorry for her. I don't like her but I can cut her some slack on this

[Squawk]

Of course they knew Squawk. And to be ignorant of it is as damning as complicity. But we digress...

Please explain? Based on my interpretation of your statement, you're saying that the US told its allies to get on board and get rid of Saddam, by knowingly using a pretext of WMD to sell the cause to the world whilst all the while, all the govts that committed to get on board knew that there were different prevailing reasons that wouldn't wash with the citizens?

I'm saying that Blair and Howard knew the intelligence was false.

Huge call if that is the opinion you have formed. I'm not aware of any evidence that supports that contention.

[Q.]

Of course they knew Squawk. And to be ignorant of it is as damning as complicity. But we digress...

Please explain? Based on my interpretation of your statement, you're saying that the US told its allies to get on board and get rid of Saddam, by knowingly using a pretext of WMD to sell the cause to the world whilst all the while, all the govts that committed to get on board knew that there were different prevailing reasons that wouldn't wash with the citizens?

I'm saying that Blair and Howard knew the intelligence was false.

Huge call if that is the opinion you have formed. I'm not aware of any evidence that supports that contention.

The Chilcot Inquiry? Rod Barton?

There's enough information out there.

[southee]

Of course they knew Squawk. And to be ignorant of it is as damning as complicity. But we digress...

Please explain? Based on my interpretation of your statement, you're saying that the US told its allies to get on board and get rid of Saddam, by knowingly using a pretext of WMD to sell the cause to the world whilst all the while, all the govts that committed to get on board knew that there were different prevailing reasons that wouldn't wash with the citizens?

I'm saying that Blair and Howard knew the intelligence was false.

Huge call if that is the opinion you have formed. I'm not aware of any evidence that supports that contention.

Hearsay.....

[Q.]

Naive