« profile & posts archive

This author has written 33 posts for Larvatus Prodeo.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

29 responses to ““Carbon tax” repeal: rhetoric and reality”

  1. Tyro Rex

    But you won’t see them held to their word by anyone in the media. It will all be forgot.

  2. David

    He won’t have to go to a double dissolution. The Labor party gave Abbott the senate a few weeks back by keeping Julia Gillard. We’ll get what we vote for. I for one will relish watching people get what they voted for.

  3. Lefty E

    A worthy hypothetical, but I suspect the reaility is that the post-September ALP will simply fold on it.

    They planned an ETS by 2015 anyway, and wouldnt have even had the CO2 price if not for being a minority govt in (effective) coalition with the GRNs.

    I do hope Im wrong, of course. The point may well hold for other issues, but none with as much weight.

  4. Peter Murphy

    Guy: I’m in broad agreement with your piece. The only room for pause is the line “This is the sort of pugilistic approach that wins votes”. I thought it would be more likely to piss off voters.

  5. 2dogs

    Note this wording:

    “well we’ll take the options available to us under the constitution”

    i.e. Not specifically referring to a double dissolution.

    The other option is a referendum, to change the senate, possibly for proportional representation of the states.

    Given a large HoR majority, he will have many members in normally ALP seats who will not want to face election again quickly. The possibility of just changing the senate would be very tempting.

  6. Iain Hall

    I just can’t see the ALP doing anything other than conceding the issue in the senate they are simply not going to have the heart to vote against the repeal of a scheme that they never wanted in the first place. They may just abstain in an effort to save face but they will be in no condition for a fight on the broken promise that is the foundation stone of Labor’s fall from electoral grace.

  7. Terry

    The Federal election will be timed to coincide when people receive, and pay, their winter power bills. This means that the carbon tax may be at the forefront of at least some voters’ minds when they go to the polls in September.

  8. Brian

    Iain Hall @ 6, Gillard the day before the election:

    “I don’t rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism,” she said of the next parliament. “I rule out a carbon tax.”

  9. Richard

    I think it is possible that Abbott will have a Senate majority and will wait until mid 2014 to scrap the carbon tax. Failing that Abbott could move to a clayton’s ETS, maybe raise enough to fund the tax cuts and extra welfare and achieve a cut in power prices and blame Labor and the Greens for the “mess” ?

  10. Terry

    Following from Anthony Green’s analysis that is linked in the text, it is very possible that the ALP position may not matter except in a symbolic sense. If Green is right that the Libs will win Senate seats off the ALP in Tas and SA, taking their numbers from 34 to 36, and if Madigan (DLP) can be assumed to vote with LNP on repealing the carbon tax (LNP + DLP = 37), then whether the vote gets to 39 depends on three results:

    * WA: Ludlam (GRN) or 4th Senate seat to LNP?
    * QLD: ALP/GRN or Katter Party for sixth Senate seat?
    * SA: Hanson-Young (GRN) or Xenophon?

    There is also the potential wild card of Julian Assange winning the sixth Senate seat in Victoria that the Greens would otherwise win – presumably on the basis of Green preferences.

  11. John D

    The action required to bring us close to zero emissions will require something far more direct that schemes that depend on the carbon price. From the serious climate action point of view the smart thing would be to freeze the carbon tax (too complex to dismantle) and get on with what needs to be done.
    If Tony goes to a double dissolution on the carbon tax while offering nothing more than the current LNP direct inaction plan he could be rolled because an increasing number of people are starting to see climate change as the source of a series of climate disasters.
    On the other hand, if the LNP gets on with some serious climate action before attacking the carbon tax it could well argue that they are the party of real climate action vs the complicated, not very effective action taken by their predecessors. They may even get Greens support if the Greens are convinced that real action has finally started.

  12. Iain Hall

    Abbott has repeatedly said that repealing the Carbon tax will be the first order of legislative business once he has been elected and I can’t see any reason that he would delay testing his mandate in in the house so all of the talk of waiting until mid 2014 is speculative nonsense.
    Frankly I hope that he really bites the bullet and drops the majority of the coalition ‘direct action’ edifice and instead devotes any “climate change” efforts to addressing actual problems if and when they arise rather than chasing the phantoms imagined by followers of the Green religion with an expensive edifice of very limited benifit.

  13. Hoa Minh Truong

    Carbon tax is an essential policy of Greens, a minor party just takes care for weather, animal, tree, but people is not, so Greens support the abortion but when the animal killed with unborn baby, the Greens react against.
    Julia Gillard, a top job lover who could do anything to keep the prime minister position remains, so after the election on August 2011, she had no choice to collaborate with Greens and also three independent members: Tony Windsor, Robert Oashott and Andrew Wilkie to form government, instead Labor has to accept the outsider conditions, then Julia Gillard has to broken promise, the carbon tax was born under the controversy and people react against.
    The climate change becomes reality while the world has been facing the natural disaster, the report of Prof Tim Flannery is as warning, but Julia Gillard bases and uses for her policy that is suitable for Greens requirement. The most dioxide release countries in the world are such as China, Russia, India ignore, but Australia act alone, that means harms itself.
    The Carbon tax could be considered as the CAPITALIST BEATEN, the most policy of Karl Marx’s teaching. The capitalist beaten strategy , a prime stage of socialism that succeeded in Russia on October 1917, it cost 30 million lives. In 1949 at China with 65 million killed, Vietnam since 1954 with 1,7 million killed and recently at Cambodia, Khmer Rouge killed more than 2 million people from 1975 to 1978. The Karl Marx’s theory is the most disaster in the world, there is no body want to be lost the property, jailed and descendant enslaved, so communist movement to be self destructed in Soviet Union, Eastern Europe communist Bloc. A prime stage of Karl Marx concerns is socialism then toward the communist paradise, but it will never reach.
    However, some body are still believing the socialism as Julia Gillard, so she applies into the wrong place and people by Carbon tax. The wealthy people have no fear for living cost hikes, but the low income earner, working class ( Union movement) have to be effected by carbon tax. Recently Julia Gillard attacks the wealthy people by superannuation change, so Labor lost the support and credit by the bad ever opinion poll.
    Carbon tax plus report of Prof Tim Flannery have not work, the quantity of dioxide from Australia doesn’t help climate change, but the company could move their business to the cheaper laborer countries, they evade the carbon tax, then Australian lost job, therefore, the product made in Australia and offshore release the same quantity of dioxide, the carbon tax doesn’t work, indeed it harms to national interest and people.
    The carbon tax couldn’t convince people by the Labor propaganda and little relief money to the low income earner, pensioner. People recognize the carbon tax harms much more than good.
    Labor has been self losing people support by Julia Gillard, a power lover, she ignore people and party interest. The carbon tax, mining tax, superannuation change, media reform are the keys of people react against, of course Coalition just sit down with smile and predict the landslide victory on September 14, 2013.

  14. Hoa Minh Truong

    Addition:
    If Julia Gillard and cabinet have enough the concern, actually they put the national interest and people above the power in government, top bob, they would no need carbon tax. Instead they may have the encouragement to the Australia company, whose find out the way to reduce the dioxide, they will be rewarded as tax deduction. But Carbon is as capitalist beaten, Labor government punishes the company, so they have to find out the way to survive by moving offshore.
    Under the carbon tax, the businesses have to pay for tax and also for the reduction dioxide study, it costs more. I think the government may require the company to contribute some money ( with tax deducible) and create a scientific institute for dioxide’s reduction. So every one would be happy, not carbon tax.

  15. David Irving (no relation)

    Terry, GRN / Xenephon is not an alternative. They were both elected 6 years ago, after all. Xenephon will almost certainly keep his seat, so the alternatives are GRN / ALP / LIB.

  16. Terry

    But when both were elected in 2007, the Libs only got 2 senators. If you take up Anthony Green’s point that they are on track to get three in 2013, and assume that ALP will get enough quota for 2, then it is Xenophon or Hanson-Young.

    There is now realism in the Greens camp about the prospects of holding the Senate spots in both SA and WA. In the case of WA, the state election voting trends clearly set off alarm bells.

  17. Terry

    Greens blogger Ben Raue has a good analysis of Senate contests.

  18. Moz has no blog

    Guy, you’re more confident of the ALP than I am. As I said to one ALP stalwart the other day, I think taking strategic advice from the NZ Labor party was a mistake. The pre-emptive capitulation nonsense that started under Rudd (and the NZLP do a lot of) seems all too likely to resurface judging by the behaviour of a significant number of federal ALP members.

    Don’t forget that there’s a significant deep brown faction in the ALP, and if Marn doesn’t lose or resign he’s likely to lead them into whatever the opposite of a stalwart defence is. I’m more curious about who exactly is likely to keep their seat and how that affects the factional composition than I am about the likelihood of an ALP victory. Not so much because I want that outcome, as because I fear a senate where the ALP members are dominated by the right of the party and vote with the other coalition.

  19. Fran Barlow

    To the Mods …

    OK so we’ve seen a bit of what may loosely be called Hoa Minh Truong‘s ‘oeuvre’, and let’s be clear — it fails on several levels.

    Firstly, and most obviously, large parts of it are just barely intelligible, and at best ambiguous. Even were someone motivated to unpick it and respond, there’s a fair chance they’d misunderstand Mr Truong and he them.

    Hoa Minh Truong needs an editor — someone who can recompose his text into a form that is fairly easy to follow.

    Nearly as troubling, Hoa Minh Truong seems to have mapped his own morbid fears of what he takes to be ‘socialism’ onto the utterly anodyne and anti-socialist ALP we have here without any engagement with what some call ‘the facts on the ground’. He doesn’t bring a new perspective to understanding our politics — but one that seems to be merely a linguistically eccentric rendering of ignorant far right commentary that, if we were so inclined, we could find for ourselves elsewhere. Fools contributing to the Bolt column say what he says with much greater clarity.

    Perhaps it’s time to invite Hoa Minh Truong to either post more coherent, properly proofed and better referenced stuff or take his derivative and poorly composed angst some place else?

  20. Hoa Minh Truong

    Thank Fran Barlow…I am a communist expert in Vietnam war, a POW for 6 years. So I feel enough knowledge to tell the most dangerous theory, Karl Marx, that cost 100 million lives. The most ruthless communist regimes since Lenin succeeded on October 1917 at Russia, they call themselves” socialism”, a prime stage prepares to the communist paradise.
    The Karl Mark pupil couldn’t apply the capitalist beaten into the democratic country, but the taxes as carbon tax, mining tax or superannuation tax on the wealthy people consider as capitalist beaten without bloodshed, but harm to national interest and people, that is clear message. I have lived in the socialism country in Vietnam and democratic state as Australia, so I compare which on better.
    Since 1970 I fought against communist into the both battle field: military and psychological warfare, I had enough expert about the socialism on practice and theory ( socialist keen on propaganda).
    English is not my language, in Vietnam I learned Vietnamese language, second langue is France and third is English. My English knowledge comes from the self study, actually after Saigon failed on April 30, 1975, I was among 800,000 sent to reeducation camp, and more than 100,000 never came home.
    During the period being into the hell of reeducation camp, I saw Vietcong treated prisoner as animal, they killed my friends and I was lucky as survivor. In the camp, I promised myself:” if survival, I will wrote story”. I had a risky plan to learn English, I knew outside, the socialist Vietcong who often launched the anti- counter-revolution literature beaten campaign, so all the foreign language books had to congregated and burned down on street. Obviously, I told my mother at a visit about my plan, she revealed in my house there was only an English pocket dictionary being under the bed, my mother torn off by pieces and adhered with rice glue, she created the sheets liked newspaper and wrapped the food supplied for every 3 months. I received food and learned quietly, if Vietcong discovered, I would be shot or tortured. I couldn’t read, but I used a finger to write a word by word into the pace, it was my huge board, my inmates considered me as a madman. I learned through a pocket dictionary within 5 years in jail and in 1981, I was freed by illness, in 1982 I escaped successful by a small boat ( without food in 3 days), a oil tank Panama rescued and sent to Malaysia refugee camp. In 1983 I resettled anew life in Australia. I kept my promise, then I spent the other 25 years to learn English myself, because I had to work to pay for living cost, most my bobs were laborer.
    My first book” the dark journey: inside the reeducation camps of Vietcong” released in 2010 after more than 30 years hard work and endangered. Second book:” Good Evening Vietnam released 2011 and October 31, 2012, third book” From laborer to author” released. Three books published in US, by a global publisher in New York.
    Dear Fran Barlow.
    I thank very much for your concern about my English level doesn’t like you and the English country, it is right, it is not my language, but I exchanged my life to learn for keeping promise. I have learned English at home and learned from the mistakes, so I am very happy while some one show me the mistake like you, that helps me write 3 English books.
    If you like to know how a non English speaking who wrote the books, you may read my book number 3.

  21. Lesley de Voil

    “I may not agree with every word that Mr Hoa writes, but, by God, I will defend to the death his right to say it.”
    Fran, his outlook (not to mention his command of a third language) is coloured by his experience, just as yours is. Be thankful you weathered your experience as well as you did. Surely a person with your expertise can devote a little more effort in comprehension to gain a valuable insight into someone else’s point of view?

  22. Pappinbarra Fox

    Hoa Minh Truong are you kidding – where do you get off talking about Communism in an Australian political sense? News Alert – the Communist Party is dead. It does not exist. It certainly is not disguised as the Labour Party – the issues/policies being espoused by the Labour Party are NOT communist – some might even suggest that they are right wing tory policies (just not as far right as the LOTO’s alleged policies).
    Do not mix communism up with socialist policies that attempt to redress the wrongs of an economic system designed by the fabulously wealthy for their own benefit – that is called democracy. Oh just grow up – the war is over let it go. I have many friends who fought against the North in your war – they are still suffering so don’t bring your propaganda here thanks.

  23. Fran Barlow

    Lesley de Voil paraphrased:

    I may not agree with every word that Mr Hoa writes, but, by God, I will defend to the death his right to say it

    Oh I’m not saying that Mr Hoa ought not be able to declaim as he pleases. The question here is not his right to speak but his standing to contribute to this blog. This topic concerns, ostensibly, the issues attached to carbon pricing, the feasibility of its repeal, and the likely impacts. It’s far from clear that Mr Hoa is in a position to make a meaningful contribution to this topic, much less add new insights, particularly as his offerings on matters purely Australian have proven, so far as one can understand them, to be entirely derivative renderings of cant widely inhabiting the more eccentric parts of the rightwing blogosphere.

    Surely a person with your expertise can devote a little more effort in comprehension to gain a valuable insight into someone else’s point of view?

    In this case, I don’t agree that the game is worth the candle. In this very thread we have, in the person of Iain Hall, a cultural fellow traveller of Mr Hoa’s. At least in Mr Hall’s case, his cant is easily accessible. Were I minded to respond, I’d be confident we could have exchanges of which others could make sense. Why would I put myself and others through the process of parsing Mr Hoa’s screeds merely to get to where some fan of Andrew Bolt or Piers Akerman or Larry Pickering already is?

  24. Lesley de Voil

    Well, I thought that blogging was a two-way process. How about considering that a polite analysis and reply to Mr Hoa may be able to educate him in ways far more pleasant than those he received in his native country?
    It’s too hard, too difficult? So else do political activists persuade?

  25. Fran Barlow

    Lesley de Voil

    Well, I thought that blogging was a two-way process.

    A multi-person dialog, as I see it.

    How about considering that a polite analysis and reply to Mr Hoa may be able to educate him in ways far more pleasant than those he received in his native country?

    Nothing I’ve said here ought to be compared to what is believed to have happened to perceived enemies of the post-1975 Vietnamese regime. If the regime has treated its eneimies no worse than I have done here, then Mr Hoa and many others owe the world an apology for slandering them.

    So {how?} else do political activists persuade?

    Anyone who has been a politicval activist for some time know that there are some people who, for one reason or another, are beyond persuasion. There may be a purely technical constraint — and language certainly counts as one of these. The constraint may be temporal — the time needed simply isn’t available, or would be better spent with others.

    It seems clear to me that Mr Hoa has had a difficult life — and I’m genuinely sorry to hear that. Vietnam suffered dreadfully under French rule and then the rule of the Japanese and the British, and then under a new French puppet, who was, it seems, unhinged, and then under a succession of pro-American satraps, and then as a consequence of the neo-Stalinist autarky built on the ruins of a country destroyed by foreign occupation, mass bombing, murder for hire, civil war, the poisoning of the land, and trade sanctions. Nobody could wish that on anyone, and Mr Hoa has my genuine compassion.

    It seems unlikely though that enduring his semi-intelligible diatribes here can do either him or any other person any good.

  26. Hoa Minh Truong

    Thank again Fran Barlow, I am glad to read your comment. Vietnam war likes any conflict in the world, but the anti-war movement misled public so long. The genuine history being in my books.
    The colonial France was barbarous, they occupied Vietnam and somewhere else without mankind, so France created the hatred that helped communist victory.
    I wrote my view ( also in my first book) on The Washington Post about the colonies. British has the opening mind, so after the occupied countries to be independent, the most had not fail into communist hand, instead the colonial France was not. My country was bad luck, if British came to Vietnam, it could be as Malaysia, India, Singapore…the Commonwealth proved the good heart of British, so its language to be used world wide.

    [Mod note: please take this derail to the Overflow thread. Any further comments of this nature will be deleted from this thread]

  27. Dave McRae

    Bloomberg puts the chances on repeal of Clean Energy Future at 33%
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-26/abbott-bid-to-scrap-australian-carbon-price-may-fail-bnef-says.html
    .. and for much the same reasons as Guy mentioned

    I don’t think Abbott gives a care or thought to what he would do after winning the election – that’s the only thing he wants and what happens after that, who cares, he doesn’t.

    I think he’ll allow his winged monkeys to kick the snot out of the CEF and existing policies such as RET as much they as possibly can. But there won’t be a DD .. it’ll be piddly ETS trading for bugger all by mid 2015 anyway, no longer a ‘TAX’ – not that the media will be hounding him anyway – and the thing can be quietly let be doing bugger-all.

    eg O’Farrell and NSW Carbon Trading (did you know NSW had one – it did, designed from 2001 to expire when fed kicked in, and it did then – BOF could have killed earlier it upon his election, but public didn’t know about it, so no fuss to keep it running)

  28. BilB

    What he will also do DaveM is demolish any funding of climate science . Why fund people to provide “false” evidence for something that does not exist on the one hand, where that money is “needed” to provide a “balanced” budget on the other. Rabid Barnaby Joyce will make sure that this happens.