So what's going on with the Carbon Tax?

millsy

4x4 Earth Contributer
Well I know one chap went to jail in England for the phone bugging. Maybe no laws to match in America? Just waiting. I reckon it's not over yet.
 

chris_stoffa

4x4 Earth Contributer
gdgggsgsgg

Obviously way too much Merlot by this time of night ..... I generally stick with shiraz , doesn't seem to interfere with my typing anywhere near as much as it does with you Millsy :D

Cheers ( which I believe is quite appropriate in the circumstances )
 

chris_stoffa

4x4 Earth Contributer
Well I know one chap went to jail in England for the phone bugging. Maybe no laws to match in America? Just waiting. I reckon it's not over yet.

Phone bugging in the USA - haven't you heard of the NSA and its little capers, something about a little thing called First Amendment Rights infringement - it won't be the Director of the NSA that does time should that ever go legal.

Besides its a National Government sponsored pastime - the game the whole country could play and corporations have been doing it for years :D

Here in Oz its a federal offence but people rarely get done for it.

Sorry Millsy, but there will always be a lower echelon fall guy who will take the rap for a shyte load of dollars and other inducements. Murdoch may not be your idea of a squeaky clean corporate citizen but he is no fool by any stretch of the imagination.

Just check out his political affiliations , donations and associations in the US since he went over to the Dark Side and became a Yank. The Republicans would have more chance of impeaching Obama than Murdoch has of being done for something as simplistic as phone tapping.

He has been covering his ar$e with political clout, connections and influence from the moment he first set foot in the US.

Cheers
 

millsy

4x4 Earth Contributer
Phone bugging in the USA - haven't you heard of the NSA and its little capers, something about a little thing called First Amendment Rights infringement - it won't be the Director of the NSA that does time should that ever go legal.

Besides its a National Government sponsored pastime - the game the whole country could play and corporations have been doing it for years :D

Here in Oz its a federal offence but people rarely get done for it.

Sorry Millsy, but there will always be a lower echelon fall guy who will take the rap for a shyte load of dollars and other inducements. Murdoch may not be your idea of a squeaky clean corporate citizen but he is no fool by any stretch of the imagination.

Just check out his political affiliations , donations and associations in the US since he went over to the Dark Side and became a Yank. The Republicans would have more chance of impeaching Obama than Murdoch has of being done for something as simplistic as phone tapping.

He has been covering his ar$e with political clout, connections and influence from the moment he first set foot in the US.

Cheers

No, have not heard of NSA. Will have to look it up. My knowledge of US politics, and laws, are sadly lacking. But what you say about Murdoch in the US just confirms my thoughts about him. The world, and apparently the US, is a far more corrupt place than I thought it was. Makes you wonder how far behind Australia is, with all these politicians getting paid for favours; DEMOCRACY FOR SALE - Four Corners
 

millsy

4x4 Earth Contributer
OK, NSA - National Security Agency. Edward Snowden etc.

Lateline - 31/10/2013: NSA Under Fire Again.

Yes, looks like ASIO is wanting to increase it's powers to tap into phone calls and collect data too. Something in yesterdays paper about it. Apparently there are tens of Australians who have fought with the anti-government forces in Syria and now are back in Australia. But the interesting thing is that the article said that ASIO could collect data on sender and receiver of messages, phone calls, other data such as time and place, but that they could not record the actual content of the data! Does not make much sense to me. Surely the content is just as important - where, when, how, might a terrorist attack take place. A bomb goes off, people are killed . . . If they knew before hand where and when and how, they could have prevented it. Another mystery into how the world works!

But Murdoch collects private information form peoples phone calls, so that he can put some juicy headlines up on the front pages of his newspapers. Do these stories benefit the nation? Are they moral? Murdoch was doing this for one reason - to increase his bank balance. He is not a rich man after all! Or, if I have got that wrong, he is a rich man because of his immoral deeds.

ASIO and NSA have a nation's security in their best interests. Our people's safety. Or so we hope.

There is a slight difference!
 
Last edited:

chris_stoffa

4x4 Earth Contributer
There is a suggestion that a new tax on Kms traveled be implemented

Now that will go over like a lead balloon in a country that is 4000 km wide and 3000 km high

Unless they scrap all other taxes on fuel ............. which is not #%&8# likely

Carbon Tax or No Carbon Tax they is gunna get ya one way or the other :rolleyes:
 

millsy

4x4 Earth Contributer
And I see Murdoch is trying to buy out Time Warner, the largest media company in the world apparently. He is offering $86Billion. But Time Warner is worth $160Billion apparently. Makes our Australian deficit figures look very small in comparison. Yes, maybe he can afford a a few lawyers to keep him on the right side of the bars lol!
 

chris_stoffa

4x4 Earth Contributer
^^^

One of the bigger players trying to become even bigger by buying the largest Media company in the single biggest industry in the world , the Media industry itself.

At that level it might as well be monopoly money to you and me with a Bill here and a Bill there

I wonder will Rupert be the first to buy a small country :D

.
 

richardlnsw

Moderator
^^^

One of the bigger players trying to become even bigger by buying the largest Media company in the single biggest industry in the world , the Media industry itself.

At that level it might as well be monopoly money to you and me with a Bill here and a Bill there

I wonder will Rupert be the first to buy a small country :D

.


Clive Palmer beat him.:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::D:D:D:D:D
 

chris_stoffa

4x4 Earth Contributer

millsy

4x4 Earth Contributer
Damn. I would like to read that, but as soon as it comes up it is covered over and The Australian wants me to subscribe! And I am not going to do that. Can you copy paste a few of the pertinent quotes form the article?

Would be interesting to see how the Clean Energy Bill was constructed. How much input the Greens had to it. And what Milne's 'beef' is of course.

I see, hear, that a lot of renewable energy companies are getting a bit toey about the governments RET plans. They are letting everyone know the billions that are at risk in lost projects. But no 'Carbon Tax' means no money for the government to hand out to them. Simple accounting I think. They are 'stuffed' and so are we greenies! Three years to wait before the wrongs can be undone.
 

chris_stoffa

4x4 Earth Contributer
Extract from Sydney Morning Herald - same article basically except that there was a direct quote from Milne that the Carbon Tax "was the price of Government with the Greens" or very similar.

I wonder why it has not included ??


Julia Gillard was not across the details of climate change policy early in her prime ministership and should bear some responsibility for the demise of a price on carbon, Greens leader Christine Milne says.


Ms Milne said the former prime minister made a "disastrous" political decision when she conceded her carbon pricing scheme constituted a carbon tax.

The carbon price was abolished last Thursday with the support of all Senate crossbenchers, but the blame game over who brought it down continues. Last week, Labor senators tied the scheme's demise to the Greens' decision to vote against Kevin Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in 2009.

"A fundamental error occurred when Julia Gillard went on television and conceded that an emissions trading scheme with a fixed price was a tax," Ms Milne told Sky News on Sunday. "That gave Tony Abbott everything he needed to ramp up his campaign on a tax.

"It was always about a carbon price and that concession to the idea of a tax was disastrous. I can't tell you [what I thought] when I saw that happening, unfolding in front of me."

Ms Milne said she believed Ms Gillard made the concession early in her prime ministership because she did not understand the crucial difference between a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme.

"She had opposed Kevin Rudd continuing with carbon pricing in early 2010 and I don't think she was across the policy detail," Ms Milne said.

Ms Gillard has acknowledged the decision not to contest the carbon tax label was a mistake.

"I feared the media would end up playing constant silly word games with me, trying to get me to say the word 'tax'," she said in an article for The Guardian last September.
"I wanted to be on the substance of the policy, not playing 'gotcha'. But I made the wrong choice and, politically, it hurt me terribly."

The Gillard government's carbon pricing scheme included a three-year fixed price period before moving to a flexible price from July 2015. Mr Rudd's CPRS – commonly known as an emissions trading scheme – included a fixed price for one year.

Ms Milne maintained the Greens were right to block Labor's CPRS in 2009. Because of the scheme's generous handouts to polluters, the CPRS was a "dog of a policy" and "worse than nothing", she said.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has said Labor will take an emissions trading scheme to the next election – a policy the Abbott government insists would amount to a reintroduction of the carbon tax.

Coalition House leader Christopher Pyne told Mr Shorten in Parliament last week the government would "hang this around his neck like a rotten, stinking carcass right through to election day".

"We can now tell the Australian public with great confidence that if they vote Labor at the next election the carbon tax will be reintroduced," he said.
 

chris_stoffa

4x4 Earth Contributer
This extra bit was from Milne

"I absolutely take responsibility for negotiating with her (Gillard) the price of government was to achieve a carbon price to be implemented on the July 1 2012 and we brought in a policy that is leading the world ............ But Labor had credibility difficulties in that regard.

By that comment it is very clear that it was a Green Initiative and Labor to get into power implemented the policy as the "price of power"

Seems JD was far from the idealist some would have you believe.

Maybe it was Power at any price.

(Initial article and this Extract found on "Fast News" Android App - Its FREE !!! )
 
Last edited:

millsy

4x4 Earth Contributer
Extract from Sydney Morning Herald - same article basically except that there was a direct quote from Milne that the Carbon Tax "was the price of Government with the Greens" or very similar.

I wonder why it has not included ??


Julia Gillard was not across the details of climate change policy early in her prime ministership and should bear some responsibility for the demise of a price on carbon, Greens leader Christine Milne says.


Ms Milne said the former prime minister made a "disastrous" political decision when she conceded her carbon pricing scheme constituted a carbon tax.

The carbon price was abolished last Thursday with the support of all Senate crossbenchers, but the blame game over who brought it down continues. Last week, Labor senators tied the scheme's demise to the Greens' decision to vote against Kevin Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in 2009.

"A fundamental error occurred when Julia Gillard went on television and conceded that an emissions trading scheme with a fixed price was a tax," Ms Milne told Sky News on Sunday. "That gave Tony Abbott everything he needed to ramp up his campaign on a tax.

"It was always about a carbon price and that concession to the idea of a tax was disastrous. I can't tell you [what I thought] when I saw that happening, unfolding in front of me."

Ms Milne said she believed Ms Gillard made the concession early in her prime ministership because she did not understand the crucial difference between a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme.

"She had opposed Kevin Rudd continuing with carbon pricing in early 2010 and I don't think she was across the policy detail," Ms Milne said.

Ms Gillard has acknowledged the decision not to contest the carbon tax label was a mistake.

"I feared the media would end up playing constant silly word games with me, trying to get me to say the word 'tax'," she said in an article for The Guardian last September.
"I wanted to be on the substance of the policy, not playing 'gotcha'. But I made the wrong choice and, politically, it hurt me terribly."

The Gillard government's carbon pricing scheme included a three-year fixed price period before moving to a flexible price from July 2015. Mr Rudd's CPRS – commonly known as an emissions trading scheme – included a fixed price for one year.

Ms Milne maintained the Greens were right to block Labor's CPRS in 2009. Because of the scheme's generous handouts to polluters, the CPRS was a "dog of a policy" and "worse than nothing", she said.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has said Labor will take an emissions trading scheme to the next election – a policy the Abbott government insists would amount to a reintroduction of the carbon tax.

Coalition House leader Christopher Pyne told Mr Shorten in Parliament last week the government would "hang this around his neck like a rotten, stinking carcass right through to election day".

"We can now tell the Australian public with great confidence that if they vote Labor at the next election the carbon tax will be reintroduced," he said.

I would say that the quote from Milne that the Carbon Tax "was the price of Government with the Greens" was not included because The Australian’s article was trying to tip a bit of dirt on JG, using Christine Milne as their messenger.

If the ‘carbon tax’ was another way of saying a ‘fixed price on carbon’ (for three years, instead on 1 year under Rudd’s plan), then it is egg on Milne’s face rather than on Gillard’s. Because, according to Milne herself, with that quote, it was the Greens that insisted on the 3 year fixed price.

No Chris, The Australian was up to its dirty grubby ‘trawling the bottom’ again. Trying its best to to besmirch lovely Julia - best politician with the biggest heart and highest morals that we have had for many years!

Julia stuck to her principals. She could see the tactics that Abbott was using, and as she said, decided to try to short circuit the play on words – carbon tax / carbon price, to get it over with. And to move on with the real debate – Climate Change, and what had to be done about it. She knew that whether she used the word tax, or didn’t, that it would be a tough battle.

Well she lost that battle. Abbott had free advertising, free dog whistling, free spruikers ( Jones, Bolt, and the rest . . )

Shorten has principles too. He has three years to review the original Clean Energy legislation, with the help of the countries experts, and fine tune it, fix up any glitches, and present it again. He will also have three years of people re-thinking their stand on Climate Change. Will they still believe Abbott and his spruikers, that there is no man made climate change occurring. That it is just another cycle in nature.

Three more years of watching global weather statistics. Of watching global, and local, extreme weather events, species extinctions and rising sea levels. Three more years of counting the $billions being spent in re-building flooded cities, towns, and districts. Repairing burnt out farms. Three more years of weighing the costs – pay a bit extra to help fix these problems (a price on carbon) or pay a huge amount extra in taxes and insurance policies to repair the ongoing and worsening damage. These repair bills will just get bigger and bigger the longer we ‘stuff around’.

Having said all that, Abbott has three years to show us his Direct Action plan and convince us that it is a better one than an emissions trading scheme.

A very interesting three years, both politically and scientifically. Not to mention watching the circus we call the media! And the other two circus rings – the Lower House and the Senate!
 

chris_stoffa

4x4 Earth Contributer
Sorry Millsy, she sold her soul to the Greens to gain and hold power and couldn't carry it off.

Blame the media all you want on this one, Gillard did the deal with the Greens ( not the Media) the deal was the "Carbon Tax" and she ultimately shyte in her own nest with it.

Can't put lipstick on a pig in this case and call it a stunner , it is what it was, a deal done for her rise to power not her principles.

If they are her highest morals , as you alleged, then I would hate to have her revert to simple political expediency

Cheers ;)
 

millsy

4x4 Earth Contributer
This extra bit was from Milne

"I absolutely take responsibility for negotiating with her (Gillard) the price of government was to achieve a carbon price to be implemented on the July 1 2012 and we brought in a policy that is leading the world ............ But Labor had credibility difficulties in that regard.

By that comment it is very clear that it was a Green Initiative and Labor to get into power implemented the policy as the "price of power"

Seems JD was far from the idealist some would have you believe.

Maybe it was Power at any price.

(Initial article and this Extract found on "Fast News" Android App - Its FREE !!! )

Well we all know that it was a hung vote Chris. What do you expect. Would either JG or TA go to the Greens and say - "Look, we don't really care who governs. You just team up with the other guys and we will go and sit on the opposition benches for three years" I don't think so!

So how do you think Labor should have negotiated with the Greens, if they said somethiing like "If you want our support to form government then this is what we want. Take it or leave it!"

I really don't know why The Australian is still talking about the wheeling and dealing that went on to form a government. You could argue till the cows come home as to what he should have done, what she should have done. It is history. You could also discuss around the camp fire, night after night, whether Julia has high principles or not, whether she lied, whether Abbott is a good prime minister, whether . . .

Really, The Australian just won't give up. I have seen their headlines as I walk past the paper stand in the shops, over the last 6 months. They bleat on and on about the personalities within Labor for the last three years, doing their 'they are a mob of losers' routine, and they seem to be stuck in the groove. They are still stuck in the groove over the Carbon Tax!

We are OVER IT! It is getting BORING! The Carbon Tax is finished. Over. Gone.

All I can say is - go out and find TODAY'S NEWS. Not last years, and the 3 years before that. Look to the future. We want to know what MIGHT happen tomorrow.

Sorry, getting a bit carried away again! You know how to stir me up Chris!:D

Anyway your "Maybe it was Power at any price." could well be applied to the wheeling and dealing that has, and will, go on in the Senate over the next three years. And we will see how good the Coalition is at negotiating. A lot of observers have marked them down pretty badly for their performances so far. JG seemed to have the skill to get legislation up successfully, and quickly, despite having a hung parliament. So that will be a fun activity to watch - Abbott dancing with Palmer! Palmer walking his PUPS. The PUPS being taken to doggy school. Who will pass? Who will fail? Who will sit in the corner?
 
Top