Carbon tax

[cartoonbirdhaus]

Ha ha, the federal government have "pledged to retain black-coal operations"... just like Julia Gillard pledged not to introduce a carbon tax?

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Carbon tax gougers face $1m in fines

[ozbob]

Courier Mail --> Voters still oppose Prime Minister Julia Gillard's carbon tax

[curator49]

While I do not subscribe to the man-made climate change and the hysteria that has been raised by single issue political parties, I do subscribe to the idea that we should be trying (and encouraging) people to reduce their waste and the pollution they cause. The motor vehicle is a major factor. If people can be persuaded (encouraged) to use their motor vehicle less and to use public transport instead that would be a significant leap forward. But no, this new tax specifically exempts the petrol used in private motor vehicle and punishes those who do use public transport by focusing the tax on these methods of transport which will force up fares (yet again) and thus promote the use of yet more private motor vehicles. I understand the Feds have also exempted road transport fuel for a few years because the truckies were kicking up a stink. Where is rail's exemption?

Now the State Government has announced the "flood-proofing" of the Bruce Highway and 4-lanes all the way to Bundaberg as well as 4-laning other sections of the Highway and major deviations around several towns. Some improvements are needed but if anything is designed to entrench the motor vehicle in our environment this is. Yet, in the same breath the Government says it is pushing back even further the Cross River Rail and other rail projects and there is certainly no talk of "flood-proofing", duplications or deviations of the main North Coast Railway. They just don't get it do they?

Because of the lack of commitment to rail transport infrastructure and a commitment stating a lack of interest in the transport of bulk grain, livestock and containers by a certain major rail freight company then we could look forward to more heavy road transports as well as motor vehicles on our highways.

[ozbob]

The motor vehicle is a major factor. If people can be persuaded (encouraged) to use their motor vehicle less and to use public transport instead that would be a significant leap forward. But no, this new tax specifically exempts the petrol used in private motor vehicle and punishes those who do use public transport by focusing the tax on these methods of transport which will force up fares (yet again) and thus promote the use of yet more private motor vehicles. I understand the Feds have also exempted road transport fuel for a few years because the truckies were kicking up a stink. Where is rail's exemption?

Now the State Government has announced the "flood-proofing" of the Bruce Highway and 4-lanes all the way to Bundaberg as well as 4-laning other sections of the Highway and major deviations around several towns. Some improvements are needed but if anything is designed to entrench the motor vehicle in our environment this is. Yet, in the same breath the Government says it is pushing back even further the Cross River Rail and other rail projects and there is certainly no talk of "flood-proofing", duplications or deviations of the main North Coast Railway. They just don't get it do they?

Because of the lack of commitment to rail transport infrastructure and a commitment stating a lack of interest in the transport of bulk grain, livestock and containers by a certain major rail freight company then we could look forward to more heavy road transports as well as motor vehicles on our highways.

Well put curator49!

[ozbob]

From The West Australian click here!

Higher fares to put more cars on road: expert

Higher fares to put more cars on road: expert
KENT ACOTT, The West Australian July 12, 2011, 2:49 am

The carbon tax will discourage public transport use and increase greenhouse gas emissions from cars - the opposite of its desired outcome - according to a transport expert.

John Stanley, from the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies at Sydney University, said the decision to exempt petrol from the tax was "understandable in political terms" but would produce "the wrong outcome".

Under the carbon pricing regime announced by Julia Gillard, petrol will be exempted and heavy vehicles - including buses - will have a two-year moratorium until 2014.

Before the announcement, Professor Stanley warned that public transport would be the scapegoat of the Prime Minister's carbon tax plan.

Yesterday, he said State governments would need to consider an increase in public transport fares to offset the impost of the tax.

This would mean fewer public transport passengers and further increases in the costs of road use, including congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.

The State Government would not comment yesterday on the likely impact of the carbon tax on public transport in WA.

A spokesman for Premier Colin Barnett said: "WA Treasury is currently modelling what impact the carbon tax will have on WA now that the Federal Government has released some more details. The WA Government is not releasing any modelling at this stage."

Writing online, Professor Stanley said all Australian governments were seeking to attract more public transport passengers because it could combat the costs of road congestion, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support social inclusion, improve air quality and lower the road toll.

"Putting a price on carbon should support this aim. However, it fails this test when petrol is excluded from the carbon price," he said. Professor Stanley said the $23 carbon price would add 6¢ a litre to diesel prices when it is introduced for heavy vehicles in 2014. Just over half of Perth buses run on diesel.

Nationally, he said the tax would add $40 million to the cost of running bus networks.

The leader of the Nationals and shadow minister for infrastructure and transport Warren Truss said the tax would add 10 per cent to the electricity cost of running public trains.

"These cost increases can only mean reduced and more expensive public transport services in the cities," he said.
"It is ironic in the extreme that, under Labor's tax, there is more incentive to drive to work in untaxed petrol cars than take public transport."

[justanotheruser]

While I do not subscribe to the man-made climate change and the hysteria that has been raised by single issue political parties...

Could you or anyone else who has mentioned single issue political parties tell me who you are talking about please? I know you aren't talking about the greens because any clown can look and see they are not a single issue party and have not been for some time. There are parties that are single issue but none that I am aware of that have the enviroment as their single issue.

[frereOP]

A car tax would p%ss off marginal swing voters

Maybe for  short while but when the sky doesn't fall in, they will forget about it and move on.  Remember how the world was going to end when the GST was introduced or the fuel subsidy was removed in Qld a couple of years ago.  6 months down the track people have gotten all about it, gotten over their anger and moved on to something else.

Tony Abbot's biggest enemy is not the Carbon Tax or the government but the reality that with a year between the implementation and the election, people will become apathetic about it.

Now once it is introduced, the lure of money will be too great so the Opposition will tell everyone that it is so deeply entrenched that it is impossible to recind it.  That's politics.

[Jonno]

While I do not subscribe to the man-made climate change and the hysteria that has been raised by single issue political parties...

Could you or anyone else who has mentioned single issue political parties tell me who you are talking about please? I know you aren't talking about the greens because any clown can look and see they are not a single issue party and have not been for some time. There are parties that are single issue but none that I am aware of that have the enviroment as their single issue.

Well said justanotheruser

[Fares_Fair]

While I do not subscribe to the man-made climate change and the hysteria that has been raised by single issue political parties, I do subscribe to the idea that we should be trying (and encouraging) people to reduce their waste and the pollution they cause. The motor vehicle is a major factor. If people can be persuaded (encouraged) to use their motor vehicle less and to use public transport instead that would be a significant leap forward. But no, this new tax specifically exempts the petrol used in private motor vehicle and punishes those who do use public transport by focusing the tax on these methods of transport which will force up fares (yet again) and thus promote the use of yet more private motor vehicles. I understand the Feds have also exempted road transport fuel for a few years because the truckies were kicking up a stink. Where is rail's exemption?

Now the State Government has announced the "flood-proofing" of the Bruce Highway and 4-lanes all the way to Bundaberg as well as 4-laning other sections of the Highway and major deviations around several towns. Some improvements are needed but if anything is designed to entrench the motor vehicle in our environment this is. Yet, in the same breath the Government says it is pushing back even further the Cross River Rail and other rail projects and there is certainly no talk of "flood-proofing", duplications or deviations of the main North Coast Railway. They just don't get it do they?

Because of the lack of commitment to rail transport infrastructure and a commitment stating a lack of interest in the transport of bulk grain, livestock and containers by a certain major rail freight company then we could look forward to more heavy road transports as well as motor vehicles on our highways.

well said curator 49!
except that the greens also support other equally unimportant minority issues, not to mention their get rid of all coal policy.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Zoiks]

The Gillard approach to the Carbon Tax has clearly destroyed her re-election chances and rightly so.  The mindless rant of "man-made climate change" is simply not proven and the entire matter seems now to be nothing more than the latest meal ticket for single-issue-obsessives to spin around the world on the public purse.

I am actually really dismayed that you, faresfare and curator do not believe the abundance of science out there that is in support of anthropogenic climate change. Now I am more then happy to discuss this but only if everyone is open to changing their opinion at the end of the day.

It may well be that in the years ahead - all nations and that's the key - all nations - do need to develop responses that may, in time, possibly take the form of something generally like a carbon tax, who knows!  However, this political ego stroking nonsense of "Australia leading the world..." HAS TO STOP!     We are a modest size economy, heavily dependant on the resources sector to PAY THE BILLS and we should in NO-WAY make moves until the "gorillas-in-the-global-room" have!  Australia is NOT, repeat NOT, going to lead anyone, anywhere on these issues, as former short-lived PM and world leading obsessive "Dudd" found out in Copenhagen a few years back.  Remember, he went over there, with about 1/2 the nation in his support-party, all self-set to lead the world toward the environmental new dawn, only to find some "upstart" called...uhhmm the President of the United States hit town and suprise-suprise, had more pull with other nations! WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT!!!

I agree with you saying Australia is not leading the world, because we are not. We are making modest improvements and even with this price on carbon we have a LONG way before we could be considered world leading. We have a pretty decent economy that is heavily dependent on resources for export. The elephant in the room is this:
Population ranking: 50th
GDP ranking: 13th
Emissions ranking: 16th
Emissions per capita ranking: 7th
We are punching well above our weight when it comes to GDP, Emissions and Emissions per Capita. As such, how are we supposed to convince any other country to take substantiative steps if we ourselves cannot even try and limit our emissions. This carbon pricing is not about reducing emissions in Australia, it is about limiting the growth of them at least initially.
The President of the United States, tried to get an emissions trading scheme through the system. Why? Because it is the cheapest way of dealing with emissions. He was blocked by republicans, the same republicans that refuse to believe in climate change. The same republicans that are handing money back federal grants because they do not want to increase public transport.
As a country that is so heavily invested in emissions intensive products and services, we have to start to ween ourselves. The sooner the better. Every year that we postpone it, is going to make it harder and more expensive to change in the future.

Now we have a Green Party driven administration, determined "to close every coal and iron-ore mine in the country" (what the ) - in the process destroying our nations economy, putting millions out of work - why?  In a week, a month, EVERY modest carbon "saving" we achieve - others will pump out and thank "Aussie" in the process for helping them become 1st world, whilst we dive to 3rd world status!!!!!!!!  

I hate it when people say the greens are driving the parliament. Yes they have a major influence, but there is a big reason for that. The opposition leader. The opposition had the chance to have its say on carbon pricing, the carbon pricing it has before endorsed. But no, they proceed to oppose everything and thus force the government to negotiate with the greens and independents. Now I do agree with a lot of the greens policy but I do not agree with them on shutting down all the coal mines. I think we should use them more intelligently but thats about it. Thats the best thing about a multi party parliament, the crazier bits of all parties get stripped out.

Luckily of course, with an ALP Government, an AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY Government, such a UTTERLY STUPID plan will never be announced, because an AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY would  N E V E R  put millions of jobs at risk - and soon I'll rollover and wake from this Terrifying Nightmare!

ALP - STOP THIS MADNESS NOW!

What madness are you speaking about?
What I call madness is ignoring all the scientists and then telling all the economists that they are wrong.
I also call it madness to exempt cars and punish public transport. But I have already made that clear to the greens, independents and labor. I hope this is something that gets changed before it is voted in.

[justanotheruser]

While I do not subscribe to the man-made climate change and the hysteria that has been raised by single issue political parties, I do subscribe to the idea that we should be trying (and encouraging) people to reduce their waste and the pollution they cause. The motor vehicle is a major factor. If people can be persuaded (encouraged) to use their motor vehicle less and to use public transport instead that would be a significant leap forward. But no, this new tax specifically exempts the petrol used in private motor vehicle and punishes those who do use public transport by focusing the tax on these methods of transport which will force up fares (yet again) and thus promote the use of yet more private motor vehicles. I understand the Feds have also exempted road transport fuel for a few years because the truckies were kicking up a stink. Where is rail's exemption?

Now the State Government has announced the "flood-proofing" of the Bruce Highway and 4-lanes all the way to Bundaberg as well as 4-laning other sections of the Highway and major deviations around several towns. Some improvements are needed but if anything is designed to entrench the motor vehicle in our environment this is. Yet, in the same breath the Government says it is pushing back even further the Cross River Rail and other rail projects and there is certainly no talk of "flood-proofing", duplications or deviations of the main North Coast Railway. They just don't get it do they?

Because of the lack of commitment to rail transport infrastructure and a commitment stating a lack of interest in the transport of bulk grain, livestock and containers by a certain major rail freight company then we could look forward to more heavy road transports as well as motor vehicles on our highways.

well said curator 49!
except that the greens also support other equally unimportant minority issues, not to mention their get rid of all coal policy.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

yeah education really is unimportant isn't it!!!!

[Zoiks]

yeah education really is unimportant isn't it!!!!

If the greens have got their basic economic views wrong,then so do the textbooks, IMF and Ken Henry.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Judge me when you've lived the regime, Gillard tells voters

[ozbob]

Courier Mail --> Prime Minister Julia Gillard faces Courier-Mail-Sky News People's Forum to sell carbon tax plan

[ozbob]

From the Courier Mail click here!

Carbon tax bad for buses: O'Farrell

Carbon tax bad for buses: O'Farrell

    From: AAP
    July 14, 2011 10:11AM

THE Federal Government's carbon tax will encourage Sydneysiders to drive their cars rather than catch public transport, NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell says.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has promised motorists will not pay more for petrol under the tax, but large commercial vehicles, including buses, will not be exempt.

"In a city in which we have congested roads ... the federal government's carbon tax scheme puts in place an incentive to drive a car, not catch a bus," Mr O'Farrell told Sky news today.

Schools, hospitals and other services would also suffer, he said, as the NSW Government was set to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in dividends from the state's mainly government-owned black coal power generators, which have been denied compensation for the tax they will pay.

"It could take up to half of the dividends provided by the state energy companies to State Government," he said.

"That means we are down a couple of hundred million dollars that would otherwise be going into schools, into hospitals, into policing and the other services that we provide."

[somebody]

Well said Zoiks.

[ozbob]

The Converstation --> Public transport – collateral damage of our new carbon price

[Fares_Fair]

It really is oxymoronic to include one (public transport) and exclude the other (motor vehicle).
How is that better for the environment ? (rhetorical question only).

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[ozbob]

http://beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020 Zero Carbon Australia 2020 is something that I do broadly support.  Electric rail is an essential part of the reduced carbon emission environment.   I have no doubt that this movement has pushed the Federal level carbon tax initiatives in part.  The problem with the Federal Labor Carbon Tax transport policy is the serious flaws, flaws which everyone here can identify.

I am hopeful that the Government might see sense before legislation is enacted.  I think making all transport modes non-exempt is fine.  The sheer environmental advantage of rail will then come to the fore.  Artificially advantaging cars and trucks is very counter-productive to a sound basis for a sustainable transport future.  It is a political con trick to try to get the masses to roll over, eg. 'compensation and we will exempt fuel for your car.'

Far better to be equitable and balanced, and honest. 

[Zoiks]

I agree, so that is why I have written to all the people I can think of:
Independents
Greens
Labor

And told them if they exclude petrol they should be excluding public transport.
Other then that, the policy is fundamentally sound and much better then the other policy on offer

[ozbob]

 

[somebody]

I agree, so that is why I have written to all the people I can think of:
Independents
Greens
Labor

And told them if they exclude petrol they should be excluding public transport.
Other then that, the policy is fundamentally sound and much better then the other policy on offer

Is it better than just putting up the price of the fuel excise?  There is electricity generation, of course.

[Zoiks]

Personally my preference would be to cut the excise by 6c/litre and then apply the carbon price to it

[somebody]

Personally my preference would be to cut the excise by 6c/litre and then apply the carbon price to it

My understanding is that could not be done in a single bill.  But what is wrong with putting up petrol by 6c/L?  Little Johnny abolished indexation, and I think may have also reduced the excise, which was a poor policy.

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Carbon price may hit southeast Queensland commuters

Carbon price may hit southeast Queensland commuters
Daniel Hurst
July 15, 2011 - 3:00AM

Higher public transport fares for southeast Queensland commuters, as a result of the federal carbon pricing scheme, have not been ruled out by the state government.

The Victorian Liberal government said this week the carbon tax would increase electricity costs for the state's public transport system by $13 million, about the price of one new train.

RMIT economics professor Sinclair Davidson estimated that Victorian commuters faced seven per cent annual rises under the carbon price announced by Prime Minister Julia Gillard on Sunday.

Yesterday Queensland Rail, TransLink and the Department of Transport and Main Roads confirmed they were trying to work out the carbon price's impact on their costs ahead of its introduction next year.

Facing a budget estimates grilling yesterday, Queensland Transport Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk did not rule out passing increased costs onto commuters through higher train and bus fares.

Southeast Queensland public transport fares are already a controversial issue, with commuters previously hitting out at TransLink's five-year fare strategy involving 15 per cent annual increases until 2014.

But the federal government last night sought to play down fears over increases to public transport fares, saying any rises would be small.

The federal government announced a $23 a tonne carbon price would be introduced next July and apply to the nation's top 500 polluters, with more than half of the money going back to compensate low and middle income earners.

Ms Palaszczuk yesterday did not directly answer two opposition questions on whether the government would pass on increased public transport costs as a result of the scheme.

But she said the nation needed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and the federal government had unveiled an assistance package to help households cope with the carbon price.

"We have a clear ticket price system set out over the next five years," she told opposition frontbencher Scott Emerson at the hearing.

"In relation to your question, we do not know the details of the impact of the carbon price in relation to public transport.

"Everybody knows that we need to do some modelling on it.

"We need to take it into account, but, as I have said to you previously, the Prime Minister announced a package to householders to take into account the impacts of the carbon price."

Queensland Rail chief executive officer Paul Scurrah said it was not yet clear how much higher the organisation's power bills and costs would be.

"We're still working on the modelling," he said.

However, Mr Scurrah said there would be no costs from the carbon tax this financial year as the scheme would not begin until July next year.

Robert Dow, from commuter lobby group Rail Back on Track, said increased power costs would hit Queensland Rail and potentially push up fares.

Mr Dow said sustainable transport modes were being put at a disadvantage, given the government's decision to exempt household and small business motor vehicle fuel use.

"If you're going to exempt cars you really should be exempting public transport," he said.

"At the moment it just seems illogical to encourage cars at the disadvantage of public transport. Isn't the aim to encourage people onto public transport?

"If public transport looks like having fare increases due to the carbon tax, people will vote with their feet and go to cars and cause more congestion and more pollution."

Mr Emerson said last night the minister had failed to say whether fares would go up because of the carbon tax.

"The evidence shows already that this is going to cost public transport and it is a great concern that the minister in estimates refused to rule out increasing fares for the carbon tax," he said.

A spokesman for Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said an effective carbon price would apply to the fuel used by urban public transport rail providers from July 2012.

"But this will have little impact on the cost of a train ticket," he said in a written response.

"For example, the 'carbon calculator' on the NSW Government's CityRail website estimates it will add just two cents to the cost of a journey between Bondi Junction and Bankstown."

The spokesman said the carbon price would not apply to urban bus services until July 2014.

"Buses powered by cleaner fuels – CNG, LPG and LNG – will be permanently excluded from a carbon price," he said.

The Gillard Government says nine in 10 households will receive compensation through tax cuts and assistance payments in order to cushion the carbon price impact.

It argues the carbon price will send a signal to the nation's biggest polluters to cut their carbon emissions, but it is struggling to win public support for the measure.

The federal opposition says the plan will hurt the economy and should have been taken to an election.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-price-may-hit-southeast-queensland-commuters-20110714-1hfvn.html

[ozbob]

Courier Mail --> Carbon tax, flood levy scare shoppers away

[ozbob]

Courier Mail --> Carbon tax will mean rates rise of 2 per cent in 2012, says Lord Mayor Graham Quirk

[ozbob]

From The Daily Telegraph click here!

Carbon tax plan to hit bus, train commuters

Carbon tax plan to hit bus, train commuters

    EXCLUSIVE by Simon Benson
    From: The Daily Telegraph
    July 15, 2011 12:00AM

COMMUTERS could be hit with public transport fare increases of up to $150 a year when the carbon tax kicks in, confidential state government figures show.

Fears of fare rises came as retail giant David Jones' boss Paul Zahra yesterday blamed consumer concerns about the carbon tax, the high Australian dollar and the federal government's flood levy for a record 12 per cent sales slump.

The federal government claimed the overall cost-of-living impact on prices from the tax would be only 0.7 per cent of CPI.

However the NSW Treasury estimated that the potential fare rises for all modes of public transport in NSW alone - due to increased electricity costs for trains and fuel costs for buses and ferries - could be expected at an average 3.4 per cent. Some fare increases would be expected to be hit from the date of the carbon tax, July 1, 2012 - while others would start in 2013 and 2014.

Commuters travelling longer distances to the city from places such as Blacktown, Penrith, Campbelltown, Gosford and Heathcote would be worst affected.

The Treasury document assumed that the full cost of the carbon tax would be borne by commuters rather than by taxpayers.

It is understood that Mr O'Farrell wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard last night, asking for a full briefing on carbon tax impacts on state government services - in particular public transport.

Mr O'Farrell said yesterday it was "crazy" that public transport would be hit by the tax when petrol for cars would be exempt: "This will create more pollution and defeat the whole purpose of a carbon tax.

"The federal government is crazy if it thinks this tax is going to reduce carbon emissions when it will lead to higher public transport fares and create an incentive for people to use their cars."

Public transport fares are set by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal.

An inquiry into the carbon tax impacts on fares would need to be held before fare rises could be approved.

[Zoiks]

Personally my preference would be to cut the excise by 6c/litre and then apply the carbon price to it

My understanding is that could not be done in a single bill.  But what is wrong with putting up petrol by 6c/L?  Little Johnny abolished indexation, and I think may have also reduced the excise, which was a poor policy.

It would have to be a 'linked' bill of sorts.

In any case, the reason why I support that scenario is that it would be more palatable to the electorate. I think everyone here sometimes lives in a little bit of a public transport utopia where you can increase taxes on petrol, put tolls on roads and not expect a political backlash.

I see the Carbon Price as the BEST chance of skewing widespread investment towards rail in the near future. It has flaws yes, but they are fixable. None of this will matter however if the Government gets smashed at the next election. There is a chance it will be repealed and an unscientific and uneconomically efficient method will be put into place. Remember Abbott believes that Public Transport cannot play more then a minor supporting role in Australias transport future.

[ozbob]

Yes, rail is environmentally superior.  Once the trucks are properly levied there will be a shift.
Electric rail - light and heavy, powered by renewable energy is the way forward.  Some application for electric buses as well.

Public transport needs to be treated as the same as cars, otherwise perverse outcomes.  If the Feds fix that, a lot of criticsm from groups such as ourselves, who are broadly supportive of the Carbon tax initiative but don't want public transport punished will ease off.  The other states are all ready lining up to bash it, needs to be neutralised.

====================

Media release 15 July 2011

Australia: Call for public transport to be exempt from Carbon Tax levy

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has said that as cars are exempt from the proposed Carbon Tax levy, public transport must be afforded the same concession.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"A Carbon Tax that exempts cars, but not public transport will simply mean increased fares for public transport which will in turn drive people back to cars, with the massive flow on cost impacts of increased congestion, worsening pollution and increased health sector costs from road trauma."

"All State jurisdictions are increasingly becoming concerned with this perverse outcome of the proposed Carbon Tax plan (1)."

"We call on the Federal Government to ammend the Carbon Tax so that public transport is exempt, in the same way that cars are."

Reference:

1. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6359.0


Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[Zoiks]

Only suggestion I can make to that is replace Carbon Tax with Carbon Price.
The fixed price element of the ETS (Carbon Tax) is only slated to run for 3 years before transitioning to a proper ETS

Not that what you said was wrong, just I think the above is 'more correct' 

[somebody]

It would have to be a 'linked' bill of sorts.

I'd think any linking would cause the bill to be struck down in a high court challenge.

Most you could have would be a "gentleman's agreement" that we'll pass the bill you want if you pass our bill.  Yeah, right.

[Zoiks]

Im almost positive that I heard a bill being passed the other day that was linked to another bill. The commentator mentioned something about the first bill only taking effect if the second bill passed.

Could be wrong though

[somebody]

Im almost positive that I heard a bill being passed the other day that was linked to another bill. The commentator mentioned something about the first bill only taking effect if the second bill passed.

Could be wrong though

Was it a tax/excise bill though? That would be the only time there would be a problem

[ozbob]

Premier of Victoria - Media release click here!

Julia Gillard's carbon tax hits Victoria first and hardest

Monday, 11 July 2011
From the Minister for Energy and Resources

After telling Victorians there would never be a carbon tax under her government, Julia Gillard has once again damaged the interests of Victorians by cobbling together a carbon tax deal with the Greens which treats Victorians harshly and unfairly.

Victoria will be hit first and hit hardest by the Gillard Government's carbon tax. Even the Commonwealth Treasury's modelling indicates that Victoria will suffer the most compared to other states.

Victoria was not consulted in the development of this package, but the Victorian Coalition Government will be continuing to stand up for the interests of Victorian families by analysing the Gillard Government's carbon tax scheme closely and releasing detailed assessments of its impact in coming weeks.

Lack of compensation for SMEs and regional Victoria

There is virtually no compensation for the small to medium enterprises which make such an enormous contribution to Victorian communities and our economy. What assistance there is requires businesses to spend $3 for every $1 from the Gillard Government.

The Gillard Government's scheme provides less compensation for regional Victoria than Kevin Rudd proposed under the CPRS. Kevin Rudd proposed to provide $200 million to regional Australia over five years, while Julia Gillard proposes to provide the same amount over seven years.

This is a shameful insult to regions like the Latrobe Valley, Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo.

It is also clear that Victoria's critical food manufacturing sector – much of which is based in regional Victoria – has been forgotten by Julia Gillard and her Greens partners. This includes areas such as the Goulburn Valley, the Murray, the north-east, western Victoria, the south-west, the Mallee and Gippsland.

Threat to Victorian jobs

The carbon tax increases the threat of job losses for Victorians employed in the power generation sector.

The Gillard Government's carbon tax is intended to shut down the Latrobe Valley's brown coal generators, which will immediately cut the number of jobs in the Latrobe Valley.

Any replacement power plant – likely to be gas-fired – will not offer anywhere the number of employment opportunities provided by the existing coal-fired power stations.

The carbon tax also increases the uncertainty across other regions in Victoria such as the Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo regions which have a strong manufacturing base.

The manufacturing sector is vital to the Victorian economy and jobs. In 2010, the sector employed 305,000 Victorians, and contributed about $31.1 billion to the state economy. This contribution, and the future of the sector, is being put at risk by the miserly assistance measures on offer from the Gillard Government.

Threat to security and reliability of Victoria's power supply

Julia Gillard and her Greens partners have provided no certainty for the security and reliability of power supply to Victorians. There is no plan for how to replace the 25 per cent of baseload power generated by Hazelwood. This represents a threat to Victoria's capacity to be able to generate sufficient supply for our needs and increases the likelihood of power blackouts.

The Gillard Government has not disclosed what will replace Hazelwood. If it is a gas-fired power station, there are a number of questions the Gillard Government needs to answer, including where will the gas come from, how much it will it cost, what additional infrastructure will need to be built and who will pay for that.

Shortchanging Victorians on basic services

There is no compensation in the Gillard Government's carbon tax scheme for Victorian Government services which will be affected by the carbon tax.
For example:

    the Coalition Government provides assistance to 844,000 Victorians via its energy concession scheme, and the Gillard Government's carbon tax will increase the cost of delivering this scheme by more than $25 million;
    electricity bills being paid by Victorian public schools will rise by around $5 million under the carbon tax;
    the carbon tax will cost Victoria's public hospitals around $11 million in higher electricity costs, which represents just over 2400 fewer operations; and
    the carbon tax will increase electricity costs for Victoria's public transport system by $13 million, which represents just under one new train or about 1.4 million fewer passenger trips per year.

Denying Victoria a key competitive advantage

There is zero funding available for clean coal technology from the Gillard Government's $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a huge blow for Victoria which generates more than 90 per cent of its electricity from coal. The antipathy of the Greens towards clean coal technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) means that the Gillard Government has excluded CCS from this package, in contrast to the Victorian Coalition Government which has invested $30 million in this important technology.

Brown coal has underpinned the Victorian economy for the last 90 years, and the Victorian Coalition Government is determined to stick up for Victorian jobs and the competitive edge Victoria has gained based on supplies of low-cost, reliable energy. Victoria's brown coal is a world-class energy source, yet the Greens are determined to lock it up for ever.

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

How the carbon tax turned into Gillard's Gallipoli

How the carbon tax turned into Gillard's Gallipoli
July 15, 2011 - 2:22PM

As a supporter of action on climate change it brings me no joy to declare the battle for approval over the carbon tax has been fought. And lost.

The government has failed to convince the public at large of the merits of its scheme. The debate is still dominated by talk of Ju-liar, and Australia's relatively small overall carbon output. Try as the ALP might to change the conversation to the details of its package, this particular fight for hearts and minds is over.

The government now faces a choice. It can continue to pour money and manpower into a lost cause, or it can accept and learn from its defeat and focus on the war at large. Think of it as their semantic Gallipoli.

Because the war will extend beyond the next opinion poll, beyond even the next election. If you believe the science on climate change this issue isn't going away any time soon. To get on the front foot the government must change the point of attack.

So let's play war historian and establish when and where the current battle was lost.

First off, they had a possibly insurmountable obstacle in the legacy effect of Gillard's "no carbon tax" pledge before the election. A timely reminder for politicians to never say never. The reason this has caused the government so much heartache is not just by creating the significant trust issue (where Gillard's either a liar or her agenda has been hijacked by the Greens - both of which are manna for conservative shock jocks) but also because this locked the phrase "carbon tax" into the public's - and media's - vernacular.

In a complicated debate, the terminology has been crucial. I would hazard a guess that at least 50 per cent of the population would not be able to explain the difference between a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme. Both of them are systems of pricing carbon. And both would involve an increase in prices from a consumer's perspective.

But one sounds far less palatable to an uninformed voter. Where an ETS seemed accepted as inevitable in 2007 (both parties took such a policy to the election, after all), the emergence of the word 'tax' made a lot more people sit up and take notice - and ring Alan Jones to voice their displeasure.

This, combined with the trust issue, has been a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of Abbott. Throw in a long delay between announcing plans for the scheme and the details of it, and opportunistic opposition had slain bold, direction-changing policy before the latter had even unsheathed its sword.

The government's other strategic Achilles heel - and the one likely to be more damaging long-term - is their failure to effectively answer the legitimate question of how this policy won't negatively affect Australia's competitiveness internationally. Being early adopters of a carbon price might be ''the right thing to do" but not everyone gets that warm fuzzy feeling inside that so motivates Green voters. And if we just end up buying more goods from China (who can increase their own carbon footprint without penalty) then it's legitimate to ask: what's the point?

This is where some wartime rhetoric might actually come in handy. How do you unite a divided country? Come up with a common enemy, of course. Australians will feel a lot more comfortable doing the right thing if there's someone demanding the rest of the world take action too. The government has spent recent months talking up  the countries who are taking action in an effort to reassure voters we aren't acting in isolation. It's time they stopped glossing over the countries who aren't doing enough and instead turned up the rhetorical heat on them.

The government has so far been quick to rule out the idea of tariffs to ensure a level green playing field. Tariffs have become a dirty word in a modern, free trade world. But how else can responsible countries, looking to curb emissions, pressure recalcitrants such as the US into taking action? Just like Gillard (rightly) says: money talks when convincing people to change their habits. The same argument can be applied to governments.

Of course tariffs mean that goods imported from China (read: pretty much everything we buy) will get more expensive. Another hard sell. But this will play to Australian sense of a fair go. And by ramping up the rhetoric against the likes of the US and China, all of a sudden Labor isn't the bad guy.

Green tariffs should at least be an option that's on the table. The carbon tax has the numbers to become law - better to spend the next two years taking the debate further than trying to reiterate points that people have already stopped listening to. It won't make any friends in Beijing or Washington, but for a PM under siege, all's fair in love and war.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/blogs/for-arguments-sake/how-the-carbon-tax-turned-into-gillards-gallipoli-20110715-1hh45.html

[#Metro]

The carbon tax is very clever- it works by only charging 500 companies, but the effect of this then is felt around the economy as downstream producers and businesses incorporate the cost from using the products of these 500 companies.

Prices will increase- that is the whole point of a price on carbon / carbon tax, but much of that money will be refunded in other ways.

The money collected from taxes does not disappear!!!!

The idea is to get the information around the economy about each product and how green it is without having to catalog every single thing ever sold.
So it is pretty smart in that regard.

So there is a good case to launch that any taxes collected in this way should be spent on a federal subsidy on public transport / PT capital works to make up for the unfair standing that motorists have now gotten through their sheer numbers. That money should go to IA I think.

[justanotheruser]

yeah education really is unimportant isn't it!!!!

If the greens have got their basic economic views wrong,then so do the textbooks, IMF and Ken Henry.

ok so curiosity has gotten the best of me. What the heck do you mean by this? It does not seem relevent to my post.

[justanotheruser]

It would have to be a 'linked' bill of sorts.

I'd think any linking would cause the bill to be struck down in a high court challenge.

Most you could have would be a "gentleman's agreement" that we'll pass the bill you want if you pass our bill.  Yeah, right.

any idea how the introduction of the GST was handled? After all that required all the states to make changes to their laws and changes to existing federal laws as well as introducing the GST legislation.