The repeal of the carbon tax

Much has been said of the difficulties in repealing the carbon tax legislation – with the Government introducing many poison pills to thwart the intentions of future Parliaments and future generations. Partly this hinges on the creation of property rights which would be extremely expensive to repurchase (under the ‘just terms’ provision of section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution).

Both Labor and the Greens have declared that they will actively subvert the will of the people should an Abbott Government be elected with an express promise to repeal the legislation. This would, we’re told, require a double dissolution and potentially a joint sitting of Parliament.

But there is a simpler way – a Referendum.

Under section 128, the Governor-General (on the advice of the Prime Minister) may submit a referendum to the People without the concurrence of (say) the Senate if it has rejected twice (with a gap of three months) the Referendum legislation.

Hence, the Opposition could make the following promise:

  • that, if elected, it would bring to the House of Representatives a Bill for a Referendum to make unconstitutional the carbon tax legislation with no compensation
  • that if the Senate rejects the Bill, Tony Abbott would then (as Prime Minister) advise the Governor-General to submit the Referendum to the People.
At a stroke this would undermine the value of the carbon permits (whose holders could no longer be assured of compensation) and thwart the intentions of Labor and the Greens. It could also be achieved relatively quickly – within about four months of election.
While there have been relatively few successful referenda in Australia, the popular sentiment against the carbon tax is so strong that an elected Coalition Government should be able to achieve a majority of votes in a majority of states.
It is now up to Tony Abbott to promise a Referendum.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

127 Responses to The repeal of the carbon tax

  1. EJ

    That, is the best news I have read all day.

  2. ar

    In rolling back WorkChoices, Krudd/Gillard learned a big lesson in that they have to make their legislation impossible to revoke.

  3. amcoz

    My psyche was devastated today, a day, I think, democracy in Australia died.

    Juliar’s now legislated broken promise, based on lies and deceits about something man has NO control over, notwithstanding the carbon (dioxide) tax will have no impact on the climate, or humanity and that over 80% of the voters voted for parties that were not going to introduce a carbon tax. Also, more than 60% of the population do not support it, with only one MP in the House actually advocating it at the last election.

    Truly, it was a sad day for all those who believe in the will of the people being able to direct those presiding over them; the peoples’ will today was trashed by a few power-hungry individuals who have no respect for their constituents.

    Finally, a good piece of news before I go to bed. Tony Abbott, please take note and bear the flag for all of us, asap.

  4. C.L.

    Samuel, I’m not sure if it’s a good idea to use the Constitution as a way of guzzumping Senate obstructionism. What if Labor decided to do that with a WorkChoices-driven amendment? It could entrench IR backwardness into the very fabric of the law. Abbott needs to win, bring a repeal bill to the House and double-diss the Greens. Alternatively, as some have suggested, he could simply direct the ATO to cease collecting the tax. In other words, he could budget around the tax and let it sit on the books, defunct.

  5. .

    Or, we could have a citizen initiated referenda after a vote under s 128 and the ETS gets repealed a little later but with a guarantee none of this kind of crap happens ever again as the populace strikes down bad laws.

  6. twostix

    If we have a referendum can it please be to allow recalls?

    That would have saved us the entire mess as Oakshotte and Windor would have been dragged back by their constituents in chains by now.

  7. C.L.

    It’s pretty clear that Oakeshitt and the Old Lezo have no intention of even running for the next election. Oakeshitt’s shit-eating grin and deliberate smart-arsery today in the Parliament (where he praised the will of the people and democracy – knowing full well that he’d trashed both) indicated that he has made other arrangements for the future. And of course it’s more or less accepted by all that Windsor the dog will scurry off like the cur he is before the next election.

  8. Alexander

    If we have a referendum can it please be a dollar-value maximum government spending limit?

  9. daddy dave

    The advantage of the DD is that it would clean out the blockage in the Senate, paving the way for other legislation.

  10. Samuel J

    CL – I doubt Labor can win the next election let alone ever getting a Referendum up to entrench interventionist IR regulation.

    The crux of the issue is the need for extensive compensation for parties which have been clearly warned that the Opposition intends to repeal. The Referendum would repair that defect of a mere repeal.

  11. daddy dave

    indicated that he has made other arrangements for the future.

    Do they realise the furore they’ll cause if they give Oakeshott a cushy job?
    Given the reports that a groupthink mentality has coalesced around Gillard, they may not.

  12. Infidel Tiger

    If Oakeshott has found employment elsewhere I would be amazed. I think he’s intellectually disabled enough to believe he can still win Lyne at the next election.

  13. Rex

    Would it be possible for Tony to minimise the tonnage price? Say make it a nominal 0.10c per tonne and that way nullify any effect without repealing the tax? Would also leave in place the measurement systems

  14. daddy dave

    Would it be possible for Tony to minimise the tonnage price?

    No. We discussed that here as a sneaky way of neutralising a carbon tax months ago – just set it ridiculously low, as low as one cent.

    But Abbott ruled that out today with his blood pledge. It’s repeal or bust.

  15. TerjeP

    Dot is right. The smart move would be to empower the people to repeal laws they don’t like via direct initiative. I call this concept a “Citizens Veto”. The idea would be to amend the constitution and give the people the power of direct veto. Then if enough people petition for a piece of legislation to be repealed it goes to referendum and the people’s vote can repeal the legislation. This would allow us to repeal the carbon tax but would also give us the power to put a halt to any future acts of legislative tyranny.

    More here:-

    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Australians-for-a-Citizens-Veto/261318110558667?sk=wall

    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Australians-for-a-Citizens-Veto/261318110558667?sk=wall

  16. JamesK

    I think he’s intellectually disabled enough to believe he can still win Lyne at the next election

    I don’t think so IT. He’s rat cunning if not intelligent. Like Rex he’s a pest.

    I suspect his next job has been arranged by a Labor big money supporter or he will be helped to make some ‘productive investments’

    It’ll be obvious even for the necessary 6 months without a job that his lifestyle will still appear very comfortable.

    Windsor is a truly disgusting piece of work. F-cking his electorate was payment enough for him.

    Besides, he’s already done extraordinharily well from the local coal mine.

  17. Louis Hissink

    This isn’t a local issue, this particular legislation seems like a test case others are watching. Think Globally, not Parochially.

  18. Voodoo

    I think the constitutional restrictions could readily be got around. I’ll have a think. 🙂

  19. JC

    CL claims that one… It’s good one hey?

  20. I see from the video of what The Australian called “mostly middle aged” protesters in Parliament today that 60 must be the new “middle age”.

  21. JC

    Viva to navigate this site you need to know the following.

    Oakeshitt… self Ex

    Tony Windsor… old lezzo

    Julie Gillard… Duck Bum

    Wayne Swan.. Swandive or Shane Wand

    Rudd…. the little turd.

    Garrett…. Lurch

    Can’t think of others but will update when they come to mind.

  22. If a government has power in both houses all that needs to be done is to increase the cap and make the tax not exist. There could be an arguement made that then we might not comply with our agreed targets (if a future target is made internationally) but in effect they are not enforcible otherwise some countries like Canada I think would now be looking forward to trade sanctions or war.

  23. JC

    Kelly

    Abbott has said he will go for a complete and total repeal. There is now no going back unless he changes his mind before the election and tells the punters.

    All the speculation is fanciful.

  24. C.L.

    CL claims that one… It’s good one hey?

    IT’s, not mine, alas.

  25. Viva

    Oakeshitt… self Ex

    Tony Windsor… old lezzo

    Julie Gillard… Duck Bum

    Wayne Swan.. Swandive or Shane Wand

    Rudd…. the little turd.

    Garrett…. Lurch

    I’m flat out taking notes JC. One more thing – where did Old Lezzo come from? Surely that snarling dog isn’t a female in disguise.

  26. C.L.

    Wayne Swan.. Swandive or Shane Wand

    Also DC.

  27. Arnost

    Would it be possible for Tony to minimise the tonnage price?

    He could always exchange each ton of free CO2 emissions granted under the law for a certificate to emit a ton of CO2 from the Chicago Carbon Exchange… That way the claimants would fully compensated.

  28. Infidel Tiger

    Rudd and Windsor just have that look about them of very sour wizzened old lesbians.

    Their demeanour also suggests chronic thrush.

  29. Viva

    Rudd and Windsor just have that look about them of very sour wizzened old lesbians.

    Their demeanour also suggests chronic thrush.

    Got it. Rudd’s perennially pursed, prissy little mouth always reminds me of a cat’s bum.

  30. J.H.

    Yep, a referendum would be a way to go. As long as Abbott was fairly sure of the public’s mood to repeal the tax… However, a referendum would lock the coalition into accepting a Carbon tax and bring down Abbott’s leadership if he lost…. A referendum needs a double majority to win and only 8 out of 44 have ever been given a yes vote by the public.

    But if Australians were serious about it. If Abbott truely has the numbers…. Then this would be a coup for the Coalition, abject ruin for what’s left of Labor after this election and a feather in the Coalition’s hat for decades.

  31. m0nty

    Referendum, LOL. It’s the loser’s last hope.

  32. JC

    Possibly right MotnY. However it will be repealed with maximum prejudice and will be used as a club against the ALP for years. . How do you feel about that?

  33. Infidel Tiger

    Is that what you told those stupid darkies back in 1967, mOnty?

    We don’t need a referendum, we need a new government. Unfortunately we just have to eat a giant shit sandwich for 2 years.

  34. Lets just hope there is an election soon. Only need one bi-election.

  35. Gab

    It’s the loser’s last hope.

    You freaking idiot. What is this CO2 tax going to do for global temps?? Hmmm? A tax to do what exactly? How will it lower temps, eh?

    The only loser is you because you just cannot see past your leftie nose at the absolute uselessness of this tax. And you’re happy to have it. Tosser.

  36. Viva

    It’s the loser’s last hope.

    The ultimate losers in this sorry episode is in fact the Labor party and their supporters. And their last hope has now well and truly gone.

  37. m0nty

    So, let me get this straight.

    Abbott says you can’t trust what he says out of his mouth, only what he writes down.

    Now Abbott says he is making a blood oath… so we can only trust things he writes down using his own blood as ink?

    He’s setting a rather harsh bar for himself as to what the Australian people can believe of him. What next, only believe his statements made as blood oaths written in the midnight hour while strangling a rabbit?

  38. Infidel Tiger

    “Will you repeal the carbon tax?”

    “Bloody oath”.

    What is so hard to understand about that statement? It’s a quintessentially Australian thing to say.

  39. m0nty

    Possibly right MotnY. However it will be repealed with maximum prejudice and will be used as a club against the ALP for years. . How do you feel about that?

    I’d wait until that fanciful scenario ever happens to comment. Assuming the DD is a mirage, he’ll have to survive two elections. If recent Australian federal politics is any guide, two electoral cycles is a bloody long time.

  40. Gab

    Nothing you can say overrides what Gillard did, monty. And nothing Abbott does is as treacherous as Gillard’s actions and lies.

    So sprout on all you like about a trivial comment, but nothing will ever mitigate Gillard’s deceit. Tosser.

  41. blood oaths written in the midnight hour while strangling a rabbit?

    I would have suggested “throttling the [insert favourite euphemism]” as being more apt for Mr Abbott, Monty.

  42. JC

    Yea, Right MontY. It’s impossible for him to call a DD.

  43. twostix

    If recent Australian federal politics is any guide, two electoral cycles is a bloody long time.

    Only for Labor, who haven’t actually managed to make it through a single electoral term under their own steam for 16 years.

    It’s utterly suicidal though, every trick, every new “paradigm” every new sleazy way of operating that this bunch of ratbags has come up with will be at Tony’s disposal in short order: and he may well be in for 8 – 10 years.

    It’s insane that you’re ok with all that just to enjoy for a brief moment where you get to stick your finger in Australia’s collective eye.

  44. Andrew

    Why does everyone assume that carbon permits will be considered “property” under s 51(xxxi)? I haven’t seen anyone address the argument that they will be statutory property susceptible to change and therefore not “property” under s 51(xxxi) like in Health Insurance Commission v Peverill.

  45. m0nty

    Nothing you can say overrides what Gillard did, monty. And nothing Abbott does is as treacherous as Gillard’s actions and lies.

    So sprout on all you like about a trivial comment, but nothing will ever mitigate Gillard’s deceit. Tosser.

    Aww, and I thought you liked me.

    Every one of Abbott’s comments is trivial. Every one of his actions is meaningless. Every one of his big plans has failed.

  46. m0nty

    Yea, Right MontY. It’s impossible for him to call a DD.

    Impossible, no. So risky as to make it almost completely politically unworkable, yes.

    Imagine you’re a newly minted Liberal MP in the theoretical incoming Abbott government of 2013, with a margin of (say) 4% or less. Do you want to immediately give up your seat, as there would be an inevitable swing against the government in a fresh election just after the last one, just to repeal a single law? It’s easy to call for a DD now but you have to take into account the politics of the new Liberal caucus in that scenario.

  47. m0nty

    And now I am off adventuring in my last full day in New York.

  48. JC

    MONTY

    Lets imagine this scenario. Abbott has made a pledge to repeal the tax. Unlike the Alliance PM’s broken pledge he will need to do so or he will face a very angry electorate, angrier still if he breaks the pledge because they/we will go berserk if it happens again.

    Abbott wins 65/35, as looks increasingly likely.

    Abbott will go to a DD and keep his huge majority and as the PM has the right to call a DD.

    Mostly likely scenario in that case if Labor refuses to concede to the mandate?

    70 30.

  49. JamesK

    Every one of his big plans has failed.

    Like what?

    Convincing Oakshit and old lezzo to see the light?

    Convince Jools to go to an election?

    Convince Stevie the wabbit Fielding to force a plebiscite?

    What the fuc ar u talkin’ about m0nty?

    I suggest his biggest plan is to oust this government in a landslide at the next available opportunity.

    I submit his biggest of “big plans” is clearly heading for success.

    Or were you just being insolently idiotic; similar to the punch drunk pseudo euphoria from which your ideological brethern in Labor are going to awaken very soon to realise that persistent low 20% primary polling will become the new norm?

    Incidentally, I suspect your fellow comrades-in-arms of the Watermelons will be as proportionally thrilled as Labor will be miserable.

  50. twostix

    Do you want to immediately give up your seat, as there would be an inevitable swing against the government in a fresh election just after the last one, just to repeal a single law?

    You’re out of your mind, the next election will be a rout and if Labor senators defy the will of the people after it, forcing Abbott to call a DD the people will send labor back to being a rump party.

    Labor have no money, no people and no cause, all they have is the disturbing and gleeful threat of obstruction against the peoples wishes after the next election.

    Labor are dead.

  51. The current governments actions politically, will over time be much worse than the coalitions “work choices”. China could go pop at any minute (and yes could take years but not the 20 or 30 years being bandied about) from what I understand as in inflated asset values. This will lead to lower commodity prices, mine closures etc. and higher unemployment. How on earth will this government deal with that if it happens soon. Put up the carbon tax to recover revenue?

  52. C.L.

    I would have suggested “throttling the [insert favourite euphemism]” as being more apt for Mr Abbott, Monty.

    ‘I would have suggested “throttling the [Stevo]” as being more apt for Mr Abbott, Monty.’

  53. wreckage

    Basically this government has made the classic and always fatal mistake of looking out at the view from the very peak of a cyclical boom and thinking “up here I can see everything! Be anyone! Do anything! A glorious new age has dawned!”

    Anyone with the pattern recognition God granted a meat-ant can see how this will end.

  54. Marky Mark

    I think another thing that needs to go to referendum is the possibility of introducing higher standards of corporate governance, to basically set some rules that the government cannot disobey or alter without seeking another referendum. Politicians should be living in fear of defying the electorate, and not just because they’ll be turfed out at the next election.

    There must be very real consequences for the very real damage that they cause. Increased accountability is necessary, as it appears parliamentarians no longer respect unwritten and unspoken traditions of parliamentary conduct.

  55. Jim Rose

    the deregulatory taking argument again

    the constitution protects against the acquisition of property rights on unjust terms, not the extinguishment of the value of property.

    see the tasmanian dams case.

  56. m0nty

    Abbott wins 65/35, as looks increasingly likely.

    Daryl Kerrigan just called.

  57. F'legend

    What struck me (besides an uncontrollable urge to vomit) when watching Gizzard’s speech and assorted sound-bites for the brain dead regarding the carbin tax was the number of times she referred to our children’s future.

    If she has such faith, such conviction that this is the ‘most awesomest thing evR'(tm) for our children, then where the f##k are her kids?

    If you are going to gamble with the future of Australia’s children then either bring some of your own to the table or shut the f##k up about our children; find some other symbol to use as an emotional hostage.

    A year ago you knifed Krudd, yesterday you knifed the country!

  58. kae

    JamesK

    In my experience most people with rat cunning are stupid and manipulate others.

  59. wreckage

    either bring some of your own to the table or shut the f##k up about our children

    Indeed, good taste demands it.

  60. JamesK

    In my experience most people with rat cunning are stupid and manipulate others.

    100%

  61. ben

    but if the value of permits is ‘protected’ by the constitution then couldn’t someone make the argument that land release by the government is unconstitutional because it decreases the value of existing landowners property.

  62. dover_beach

    Referendum, LOL. It’s the loser’s last hope.

    Thus Spake a republican.

  63. m0nty

    Yeah, and look where your monarchy got us! Bolt couldn’t rely on a bill of rights!

  64. Adrian

    simply deny the government agencies responsible for regulating, managing and auditing the system with resources and funding. the law would still be on the books, just not implemented very well.

  65. Winston Smith

    “Abbott will go to a DD and keep his huge majority and as the PM has the right to call a DD”

    You forgot the GG, JC.
    What if Her Majesty of Frockdom refuses to grant the DD?
    Julia has so many aces up her sleeves she needs to put rubber bands around her wrists to stop them falling out.

  66. Bruce

    The other way would be to tax the carbon credits at 100%, and simultaneously remove the bureaucracy required to administer both the tax and the carbon credits.

    That would only require legislation to pass the Reps and Senate, but repealing the carbon tax would require this anyway.

  67. Peter

    Great piece Samuel and the poison pill is the property rights as you, Henry Ergas and others have been pointing out. However removing a right to compensation this way would still tick off people who were forced to acquire permits and did so in good faith. Do you see this as an issue?

  68. UB Xardox

    “I’d wait until that fanciful scenario ever happens to comment.”

    The good UB notes that commenter mOtny does not appear to wait for anything prior to making comments.

    Including thought.

  69. JC

    You forgot the GG, JC.
    What if Her Majesty of Frockdom refuses to grant the DD?

    Quentin Crisp is gone after the next election.

  70. Adrian

    If the permits are traded on a market, and if the scheme is not implemented very well with then natural corruption and manipulation that would result, the price of the permits fall on confidence and market integrity fears and this would lessen the compensation that the gov’t would have to offer.

  71. JC

    The government doesn’t have to pay a cent to buy them back.

    It could simply flood the market with credits or threaten to. This is not an issue.

  72. m0nty

    As someone said here yesterday, by going with a blood oath, Abbott has effectively ruled out such tricks and nailed himself to the cross of repealing the bill.

  73. JC

    Oh yea, Monty… the Libs will suffer catastrophic losses as a result of the repeal.

    By the way that stupid comment of yours adds another round to Fight Night.

  74. sabena

    On the issue of compensation if the bills when enacted are repealed : Part 4 of the bill provides for the issue of carbon units and s103 provides for them to be personal property,so the argument is that they cannot be acquired without compensation.Then the question follows as to whether the repeal of the Act is an acquisition (I haven’t researched this but the answer is probably yes).However if it is the Act can be repealed in part leaving Part 4 in place.The question of whether that is an aquisition is much more difficult.Similarly a new government can simply suspend the operation of the Act by proclamation.It is very doubtful that that operates as an acquisition of property requiring compensation.

  75. JC

    Sabena

    That looks about right. The could leave the property right and remove the tax etc. The property right essentially becomes worthless.

  76. GrazingGoat66

    I’m starting to become interested in some of the options that the Coalition may have regarding this abomination of an unmandated tax. Some good in-depth discussions are abounding.

    And it’s terrific that we’ve found one of Julia’s 29%. Keep punching Monty. Looks like we’re all having a good old fashioned chuckle at your unwavering support.
    By the way. Have you got any comment on Duck Bum’s latest heavily principled piece of fine work. Not even having the decency (read:Courage) to put her Malaysia debacle to a vote. Just the sort of “leadership” that you’re obviously so proud to support.

  77. m0nty

    Oh yea, Monty… the Libs will suffer catastrophic losses as a result of the repeal.

    What was it you were predicting, a 30 point lead, or was it 40? You’re in la la land, JC. All your plans to parade around under a spotlight in your underwear in front of Gab has got you overexcited.

  78. Adrian

    while i am attracted to a referendum, we are talking about trading thin air, so looking at ways to devalue the permits and undo or render ineffective all the auditing and regulation should take precedence.

  79. Jim Rose

    the fist track double dissolution option is better.

    first bill into parliament.

    DD election within a year where labor must weight up the risk of losing even more MPs

  80. Peter Patton

    The idea that Tony Abbott will even think about this issue again, once it has passed both house, is hilarious. You clearly don’t know Abbott that well. He doesn’t give a stuff about this issue. He’d rather spend his entire first term scrapping the scrapped VSU legislation.

  81. Adrian

    You clearly don’t know Abbott that well.

    and you do?

  82. Calpurnia's Cat

    JC
    thanks for the navigation tools vis a vis Duck Bum etc….
    I call Dr Craig Emmerson — Dr Brillo

  83. Andrew

    Why is everyone ignoring my post? The Commonwealth can acquire statutory property without compensation so this whole poison pill business is probably a storm in a tea cup.

  84. JC

    What was it you were predicting, a 30 point lead, or was it 40?

    MonTY… the ALP primary vote is hovering at 26% at times. Don’t tell me 60 40, 0r 65 35 2pp is impossible with the direction of the long term trend line.

  85. Calpurnia's Cat

    JC
    A while back and on another blog I saw Greg Combet described as Pecksniffian (Adjective: Affecting benevolence or high moral principles.

    Greg Combet – Pecksniff

  86. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Old House of Lords solution; flood the market. Sounds like a good idea to me JC. Referendums are always risky, best avoided if possible. People mis-understand them if they are financial and mistrust them unless they are patently feelgood, like the 1967 Aboriginal one. A double dissolution to wash out the Greens wouldn’t be bad though. Getting rid of the impact of the tax is what people really care about. Make it economically useless. The repeal can be done with all the usual legal guys wrangling, and there will be a legal solution once Abbott gains full legislative power in both Houses (give lawyers their due, they are Houdinis), but fewer will care in the short term as long as the screws of the tax are no longer tamped down on them. Eventually it must go, whatever the cost, as it’s too dangerous to leave as legislation.

  87. m0nty

    MonTY… the ALP primary vote is hovering at 26% at times. Don’t tell me 60 40, 0r 65 35 2pp is impossible with the direction of the long term trend line.

    As you well know, JC, polls drift about to outrageous levels mid-term when people can make statements about voting intentions with no danger of them actually voting any time soon, but they always pincer back when the election looms.

    What would you say the over/under would be on the 2PP, assuming a full term? I’d venture nothing higher than 55:45.

    Might I remind you that we haven’t had a 2PP result over 55:45 since 1975 (55.7:44.3), and only one other time (Holt in 1966 at 56.9:43.1) since the post-war two-party system was instituted with the forming of the Liberal Party.

    I don’t think Abbott is going to better Holt’s performance. Although if he does, he’d better watch out while surfing in those Speedos… 😉

  88. No Monty: a carbon price for which most households will be compensated is going to result in the permanent destruction of Labor forever. The country will then proceed from greatness to greatness under the 1000 year glorious reign of the Coalition parties, and Tony Abbott’s speedos will have their own mausoleum in Canberra, as the founder of the golden age.

    That’s how Catallaxy envisages it, anyway.

  89. Infidel Tiger

    The country will then proceed from greatness to greatness under the 1000 year glorious reign of the Coalition parties, and Tony Abbott’s speedos will have their own mausoleum in Canberra, as the founder of the golden age.

    A more likely outcome than a carbon tax lowering the earth’s temperature, you brainwashed poofter.

  90. Ran out of moisturizer and have irritated skin today, hey IT?

  91. Infidel Tiger

    I do actually. It’s flared up quite badly.

  92. Gab

    What I can’t figure out is people like m0nty and Steve who seem relatively cognisant of worldly matters actually believe that a tax on a paltry amount of CO2 will lead to climate stability, or lowering temps, or whatever they think the perfect climate should be. It’s like they just don’t want to deviate from Green Labor propaganda. Guys, it’s okay to change your mind.

    —-

    m0nstar – did you go out for dinner? I hope you didn’t just stay in your room with the air con on. Think of all those toxic CO2 black balloons you let off into the atomoshpere.

  93. JamesK

    The country will then proceed from greatness to greatness under the 1000 year glorious reign of the Coalition parties, and Tony Abbott’s speedos

    Leftist perennially come up with pie-in-the-sky new scemes and ideas. and , ironically, that’s never new.

    Redefinition of marriage, public monies for a national FTTH broadband on a continent, Carbon tax change of a market economy to a crippled command economy enriching lawyer firm donators to AlP, lesbian rights to publicly funded test-tube babies etc etc, pork-barreling on scales never previously witnessed etc etc

    Club Sensible say: Woah! let’s look at these carefully….

    Leftist: Denier! Negativist, Fascist! (irony is never a lefty’s strong suit)

    Then when tellingly critiqued leftists then holler:

    “The country will then proceed from greatness to greatness under the 1000 year glorious reign of the Coalition parties”

    Which of course apart from being a lie, has nothing to do with the argument that the leftist steve has no answer for.

    Steve you are a shameless reprobate and I, for one am tired of of your inane drivel.

    Can’t you make an argument or provide a sensible counter-argument?

    Traditional Labor voters hate the Carbon Tax despite the sugar on offer because the understand robbing Peter to pay Paul.

    Something that a numbnut condescending and yet thoroughly ignorant t0sser like you pretends the they don’t.

  94. Tillman

    My psyche was devastated today, a day, I think, democracy in Australia died.

    What hysterical drivel. Grow a pair and get over it.

  95. Gab: stop acting dumb. If possible.

    You know perfectly well what the moral and practical reasoning is as to why a rich, high emitting country should try to reduce emissions if they want other countries to do so too.

    You just disagree with it, because you think rich, high emitting countries will have no influence on poor, high emitting countries.

    But please stop pretending there is no “logic” in the arguments of Monty and me.

  96. Driftforge

    Interesting how over the last couple of years the Greens have become Reds, Labor has become Greens, and the Liberals have become Labor.

    There is no right party yet, but it sure looks like they are making space for one.

  97. Gab

    Steve: stop being a dumb idiot.

    Our 1.5% CO2 makes no difference whatsoever to the climate. USA, China and India are the largest emitters. We could turn off all electricity in Australia, curtail all production and transport and it would still do jacks**t to lower the temps globally. We are turing ourselves inside out for nothing as this tax will do nothing to lower our emissions.

    Stop being a nasty name-calling moron.

  98. Nanuestalker

    PeeTiddy trying to act superior…

    What hysterical drivel. Grow a pair and get over it.

  99. JamesK

    What hysterical drivel. Grow a pair and get over it.

    Yeah! Git over it losers!

    Your PM lied to you and so stole the election.

    She then forced thru’ legislation that 80% of the population were LOUDLY opposed to.

    She has made the largest change to the econmy possibly in our history against that will.

    She then said: you can’t repeal it. So fuc u!
    (I’m paraphrasing but the drift is accurate)

    Now be good dunbfucks and take it up the klaker from the likes of the poisonous Tildicks and stevietwits of this world.

    Apparently Tildick and sob can’t work out why you should be angry, you ingratiate rednecks!

  100. m0nty

    m0nstar – did you go out for dinner? I hope you didn’t just stay in your room with the air con on. Think of all those toxic CO2 black balloons you let off into the atomoshpere.

    I did. I walked a couple of blocks down to Little Italy to Lombardi’s, the first pizza place in America. I had a sausage, pepperoni and mushroom pizza. As I waited for it, I counted five Sinatra songs in a row over the tannoy… then someone else started singing… it was Nancy Sinatra. So yeah, very Italian.

  101. I think JamesK is nearly reaching Homer-ian levels of inaccuracy with his keyboard.

  102. Gab: we know our emissions alone don’t count for much.

    You can stop repeating that now, because carbon pricing supporters know it/strong> but argue it is right for other reasons to reduce emissions anyway.

  103. Gab

    I had a sausage, pepperoni and mushroom pizza.

    You’ve just redeemed yourself a tad. Good to see you’re not of the poncey pineapple pizza set.

  104. Gab

    carbon pricing supporters know it/strong> but argue it is right for other reasons to reduce emissions anyway.

    Emotive and illogical claptrap.

    Interesting choice of words, Steve. You appear to be distancing yourself from “carbin pwicing supporters”.

  105. m0nty

    You’ve just redeemed yourself a tad. Good to see you’re not of the poncey pineapple pizza set.

    Pineapple on a pizza is an abomination before God.

  106. Gab

    You still up, m0nts. Aren’t you flying back soon?

  107. Emotive and illogical claptrap.

    And you’re spouting utter bullshit seemingly based on the idea that international co-operation will occur naturally via all countries acting as selfishly as possible for as long as possible.

  108. Gab

    You need to read more than just beatorg.com, Steve.

    LUXEMBOURG – European Union environment ministers — responsible for only 11 percent of global carbon emissions — said they would commit to a new phase of the Kyoto climate change pact, on the condition that nations blamed for the rest join up too.

    “What’s the point of keeping something alive if you’re alone there? There must be more from the 89 percent,” EU Environment Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told Reuters.

    The European Union stated the need for a road map that would indicate when the biggest emitters — led by the United States, China and India — would sign up. The milestones on the way, however, were imprecise.

    A first commitment phase of the Kyoto Protocol — the only global, legally-binding contract on tackling climate change — ends at the end of next year and analysts say time has run out to get a new world-wide deal in place before then.

    Any bullshit being uttered is solely from your gob.

  109. JamesK

    I think JamesK is nearly reaching Homer-ian levels of inaccuracy with his keyboard.

    Point out the innacuracies sob.

    Assume the last two sentences are opinion. Tellingly on the mark but opinion.

    Sentences 2 to 5 should be easily falsifiable according to ‘stevietheory®’.

    Go right ahead champ.

  110. Viva

    you think rich, high emitting countries will have no influence on poor, high emitting countries.

    So you think we should be telling poor high emitting countries to halt their march out of poverty to please middle class alarmist bedwetters such as yourself and Monty. Get over yourselves.

  111. Rococo Liberal

    This is all very silly. The Coalition will be able to repeal the CO2 tax, without providing compensation, because no-one will acquire the so-called property rights by virtue of the repeal. In other words, those rights will be extinguished, but the Commonwealth will not acquire them. Destruction and acqusition are, as Charles I would have said, clear different things.

    In Newcrest Case, the Government tried to take mining rights away from a miner leasin commonwealth by decalaring that the Commonwelaths fee simple would extend to 1000 meters under the land surface. The Commonwealth thus acquired to itself the mining rights, even though it did not attend to use them. This meant that sec 51 (xxxi)of the Consitution applied.

  112. Abu Chowdah

    The Liberals should spruik that they won’t honour the property rights…

  113. m0nty

    You still up, m0nts. Aren’t you flying back soon?

    Flying back? Pfft. Still got a long way to go. Tomorrow, New Jersey. Friday, Chicago.

    This is a 4-week holiday, Gab. That’s how I roll.

  114. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    No worldwide deal coming up because there’s no worldwide consensus that the science driving Kyoto stacks up anymore or that ‘carbon’ markets are anything but a scam. Take it from there pizza guys and assorted warmie croaking toads. This carbon dioxide tax is just another Australian cultural cringe from a pathetic and dated intelligentsia acting as per usual – catching up two years too late on a trend that’s down the toilet elsewhere. Unfortunately, this time the lunatics control the parliament, not just the universities. For those who remember the fab theoretical discredited lunatic rave of the 70’s: Althusser anyone? Thought not. So why attach yourselves to the discredited IPCC?

  115. Exgratia

    Section 128 of the Constitution provides for an amendment to the Constitution: not for the repeal of or the amendment of an enactment.
    To amend or repeal the suit of legislation providing for the carbon tax any future government would have to have the amending or repealing legislation rejected twice by the Senate thereby permitting the government to go to a referendum on the rejected legislation and if successful permitting a joint sitting of both houses to vote on the legislation. The likely and more acceptable outcome would remove the majority that the Greens with Labor and independents have and deliver a majority or workable majority for an Abbott government.
    This would take some 8 to 12 months to achieve.

  116. wreckage

    You know perfectly well what the moral and practical reasoning

    Moral AND practical, eh? Do go on.

  117. samuelj1912

    Exgratia – a successful Referendum to make a carbon tax unconstitutional would be sufficient. For example, a subsection could be added to the Constitution which specifically prohibits the Parliament from enacting laws relating to CO2.

  118. Exgratia

    True but unlikely as the amendment would need to be retrospective to have the desired outcome: a new Lib/Nat government still needs a majority in the Senate for reasons that go beyond the Carbon Tax and a double dissolution election is I think likely to produce a workable parliament whereas a single issue even if effective on that question will not. It would also potentially end the power of the Greens and produce a parliament that is not hamstrung by the socialist green agenda for a decade or more. A Carbon Tax constitutional amendment is though nonetheless sufficient to end probably for all time the implementation of a Carbon Tax, however, the inventiveness of the Greens and Labor to come up with another like mechanism to tax the air we breath not to be underestimated.

  119. m0nty

    New Jorsy ?

    Why?

    Meeting a couple of friends there.

    Then getting the hell out of Dodge.

  120. Gab

    New Jorsy ?

    No. JC doesn’t pronounce it with the right accent. It’s Nu Joisey.

  121. samuelj1912

    Exgratia – the referendum doesn’t need to be retrospective. As soon as the Constitution is altered, any legislation to the contrary and instantly unconstitutional.

Comments are closed.