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!