104 replies to this topic

[Andrew]

For QANTAS, they were actually about to be subject to a "carbon tax" charged by European airports when landing because they weren't subject to one in their home nation - we're not flying solo when it comes to charges like these. Other nations will catch up - in the meantime there's some excellent wealth redistribution going on.

As for the lightbulb example, the company with the lesser market share won't be importing from China (and won't be absorbing costs as they won't be paying any extra) as they'll be on their way to having the greater market share - they'll be able to compete more freely as they'll finally be on equal footing with their competitor. This policy isn't a brainfart squeezed out over breakfast - a lot of work has gone into it; a lot of research, analysis, and re-writing by some of our best MPs (Combet, Wong, Milne) and the hard-heads at several Federal departments. I don't expect people to suddenly fall in love with Carbon Pricing, and I do expect Abbott to be PM by the end of next year. But I know that ten years from now people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

When slavery was outlawed in the US, a lot of big businesses went bust - their sole trade, passed from generation to generation - gone. Saving a few jobs doesn't justify NOT acting to do the right thing.

You need to realise that everything reported about this policy and every other action of this government is filtered through the prism of them having massive forces against them - they've picked fights with the biggest and baddest of the big bad guys; it's quite a challenge - but for the most part they're sticking with it, and they'll lose the election if it means doing the right thing. Even when Abbott wins next year, even if he manages to repeal the Carbon Pricing legislation - it or something like it will be back two terms later; it's an inevitability, especially when the primarily elderly opponents are dead and buried.

Edited by Andrew, 25 April 2012 - 11:04 AM.

[jamon g]

bit harsh comparing australia post to slave traders.
still haven't answered why they exempted most of the economy, especially agriculture and petrol.
why do you refer to our biggest manufacturers and service providers as all bad guys? which of the 500 companies targeted specifically are using outdated manufacturing and processing technology leading to high emissions?

they're not going to lose because they're picking a fight with big business - they're going to lose because people didn't vote for the greens, they voted for labor.

[Andrew]

bit harsh comparing australia post to slave traders.
still haven't answered why they exempted most of the economy, especially agriculture and petrol.
why do you refer to our biggest manufacturers and service providers as all bad guys? which of the 500 companies targeted specifically are using outdated manufacturing and processing technology leading to high emissions?

they're not going to lose because they're picking a fight with big business - they're going to lose because people didn't vote for the greens, they voted for labor.

Certain industries were exempted to minimise the impact on consumers.

Our biggest polluters are the bad guys - maybe they do good work, maybe they employ thousands of people, but they've had decades to invest and innovate - with no incentive to do so, and no punishment for not doing so they've sat on their hands. No more.

People didn't vote for the Greens? An ETS was Labor and Liberal policy in 2007. People stopped supporting Labor when Rudd "shelved" the ETS. The "Carbon Tax" is in effect for a short period of time, after which an ETS is launched. The Greens garner more support than the Nationals nationwide, yet the Nationals leader is the Deputy PM in any Liberal PM's Government. Despite the "Carbon Tax" brouhaha the Greens' vote hasn't shifted down in any major opinion poll over the past two years. Bob Brown is consistently regarded as one of the most honest, trustworthy people in Australia.

They're going to lose because people have been misinformed constantly, consistently since 2007. The BER still gets a bad rap, it's still seen as a massive mess and waste of money despite all evidence to the contrary (part of the most successful stimulus package in the Western world) - it only became a story because a Sydney talk-back radio host made it so. Same with the home insulation scheme - a huge success, with thousands of homes saving money on their power bills every Winter, and thousands of people employed who otherwise wouldn't have been during a worldwide economic downturn, yet it's viewed now as a big bungle.

There are parts of Sydney where poker machines swallow 30% of the average local (relatively poor) citizen's paycheque - yet a massive fraudulent campaign by wealthy clubs who were set to lose money saw the end to a piece of legislation that would help minimise the damage wrought by gambling addiction. No-one ever bothered to mention that in WA clubs survive without pokies - they still manage to fund their local sports teams, provide a secure, fun place for communities to enjoy a meal and a drink of a night, and support local charities. Picking a fight with the Clubs cost the government support.

Mining companies literally dig up parts of Australia and ship them overseas - at the same time their overseas shareholders receive the benefits - the government sought to capture a chunk of those profits for the benefit of us all. Somehow this was turned into a "the government is hurting the average worker" meme, and cost them support.

The National Broadband Network is the biggest piece of Federal infrastructure to occur in my lifetime - it's long overdue and will see the vast majority of the nation brought up to speed in terms of telecommunications - somehow this has been turned into a negative, not least by Murdoch who stands to lose the most as a result - every report on the NBN in the Daily Telegraph features a doctored photo of the Communications Minister with his eyes crossed!

There's no reason for the majority of people to oppose any of the measures I've mentioned there - you then have, as Jess Irvine mentioned in her front page SMH column today "Low unemployment. A budget in balance. Inflation under control. If that doesn't sound like good news to you, you'll never be satisfied." (she didn't mention that interest rates are lower, taxes are lower, unemployment is at a historic low, and wages are higher.)

Looking at the FACTS, there's no reason for people to be unhappy - we've a government keeping everything on track, and bringing in sensible reforms. The only explanation is misinformation.

Edited by Andrew, 25 April 2012 - 12:21 PM.

[jamon g]

or ignoring the hard questions i've asked...

[Andrew]

You asked why they exempted those industries and I said so. You asked why those 500 businesses are the bad guys and I said so. The really worrying thing with this whole debate is that it's given legitimacy to the flat-Earth climate change deniers; they're the ones filling those rallies at which our next PM speaks.

[jamon g]

no you just tarred everyone with a broad brush. I'm asking you, which of these 500 companies specifically hasn't invested in tech to improve efficiency?
here's an additional question: how many carbon neutral plants has the govt. built since it came to power, and how many are they building in the next ten years?

[Andrew]

<p>All of them haven't done enough.

Second question's irrelevant. The policy serves as a disincentive to pollute. That's the point.

If you think pollution's good, just say so.
The fact rermains - the government's doing what it thinks is in the best interests of the people (long-term), even though it's clearly not in the best interests of the government.

Edited by Andrew, 25 April 2012 - 01:08 PM.

[jamon g]

no what i'm saying is that instead of introducing a tax to a small section of the business economy and then not spending the income on renewable initiatives, they could be doing it properly. Instead of spending 42 billion on faster internet they should be building green plants. instead of a coal fired desalination plant in victoria it should be wave and wind powered. instead of new coal energy plants they should be solar thermal plants. Instead of a mining tax it should be a tax on all superprofits and the other recommendations of stamp duty removal etc should be implemented. They are just half arsed.

[Andrew]

no what i'm saying is that instead of introducing a tax to a small section of the business economy and then not spending the income on renewable initiatives, they could be doing it properly. Instead of spending 42 billion on faster internet they should be building green plants. instead of a coal fired desalination plant in victoria it should be wave and wind powered. instead of new coal energy plants they should be solar thermal plants. Instead of a mining tax it should be a tax on all superprofits and the other recommendations of stamp duty removal etc should be implemented. They are just half arsed.

Well, they need to temper things to not cause a massive slowdown in the economy; it has to be about balance. As for a super-profits tax for all industries, I don't agree - mining is a different beast; a non-renewable resource that needs to be milked for all it's worth now. People always suggest banks should be punished but their profitability helped minimise the GFC's impact here.

And that's very dismissive of the NBN - modern communication made available to 90+% of Australians - long overdue (assisting in education, health services and business in general (not just Facebook and movies)), and not costing anything, as it will be sold for more than it cost to implement.

Edited by Andrew, 26 April 2012 - 12:44 AM.

[jamon g]

health and education already have their own dedicated broadband network, and business can build their own. People are moving to wireless tech. I'll be interested to see if even a third of people take it up let alone 90%. I use the net everyday, for work and play but won't be signing up because of the cost and because the wireless techs now are heaps fast for what I need to do, and if I wanted to do more I could buy a higher bandwidth. I can't see what it will be used for other than better quality porn!

[garjones]

I can't see what it will be used for other than better quality porn!

Surely that's justification enough?

[Andrew]

health and education already have their own dedicated broadband network, and business can build their own. People are moving to wireless tech. I'll be interested to see if even a third of people take it up let alone 90%. I use the net everyday, for work and play but won't be signing up because of the cost and because the wireless techs now are heaps fast for what I need to do, and if I wanted to do more I could buy a higher bandwidth. I can't see what it will be used for other than better quality porn!

It'll be used for whatever the internet is currently used - but faster and with greater capacity. People are moving to wireless tech still tethered to local WiFi networks.

Unless you’re referring to Alan Jones’s wondrous laser beams, there is not and will never be any telecommunications tech faster than light; wireless/satellite will NEVER be a better choice than fibre-optics. It’s not the speed of light that matters – light in fibre travels slower than radio waves in free air. It’s the bandwidth available (due to the high frequency, lack of interference and dedicated transmission medium) that makes it a complete whitewash in fibre’s favour.

Business can build their own? Sure, maybe the CBAs and BHPs can, but small to medium businesses, and those operating in remote and rural Australia have to rely on what the big telco's make available - which is often not very much at all. Should we have let businesses build roads too? The NBN needs to be viewed in the same way as federal highways and copper phone-lines - it's necessary infrastructure, long neglected.

Again, like much this government has done, it's a long term measure in a political climate where short-term is king.

[jamon g]

they could build 40 giant solar farms for that and power almost 5 million households which is almost two thirds of our population. Imagine that.

[Andrew]

they could build 40 giant solar farms for that and power almost 5 million households which is almost two thirds of our population. Imagine that.

All in good time. Build the solar farms "for that"? What's "that"? The NBN is revenue neutral at worst, and a money-maker at best.

[jamon g]

sorry dude, you can't in one post argue that a carbon tax is vital to fight against pollution and then argue fibre optics are more important. Well you can, but not effectively. Also power generation is going to pay itself back far faster than broadband, especially when you're exporting the extra coal (carbon dilemma). And then you could build the network, if indeed anyone still wanted it.

[Andrew]

sorry dude, you can't in one post argue that a carbon tax is vital to fight against pollution and then argue fibre optics are more important. Well you can, but not effectively. Also power generation is going to pay itself back far faster than broadband, especially when you're exporting the extra coal (carbon dilemma). And then you could build the network, if indeed anyone still wanted it.

Why have no private entities set up solar power farms, if they'd be so profitable so quickly? We know why they wouldn't set up an NBN (they'd want to leave out remote and rural Australia).

You could be the only person who DOESN'T want the NBN (yet you're making that known by posting online).

Both the NBN and the price on carbon are incredibly important - neither costs the government/taxpayer anything at all. As David Hale pointed out on Lateline last night (http://www.abc.net.a...w/#/view/930511) this government's doing pretty well (and setting an example with the mining tax, among other major reforms); certainly a far cry from the claims of waste and incompetence coming from the Liberals. Mike Carlton puts it well:

http://www.smh.com.a...0427-1xq2a.html

Beneath these alarums and excursions there is a competent government struggling to get out.

It brought us through the global financial crisis by keeping its head when all around were losing theirs. (Britain went into double-dip recession just this week.)

The economy is humming along, with inflation, unemployment and interest rates at historic lows. Remember the hollow boast of Messrs Howard and Costello that interest rates would always be lower under the Coalition. In fact, that dithering duo managed to get home mortgage rates up to 13 per cent at their worst, twice what they are today. This month's Reserve Bank cash rate is 4.25 per cent, and likely to come down another notch next Tuesday.

Sure, some sectors of the economy are doing it tough. But it's because economies evolve. Farriers, ostlers and postilions were doomed when Gottlieb Daimler invented the automobile and Henry Ford built his T-model on a production line.

The department stores that once studded the Sydney CBD are long gone. Grace Bros, Anthony Horderns, Farmers, McDowells, Waltons, Bebarfalds and Mark Foys vanished with the rise of the suburban shopping mall and the likes of Harvey Norman. Now, in his turn, the writing is on the wall for Gerry Harvey because Tim Berners-Lee created the internet and Jeff Bezos came up with Amazon.com. It's called progress. Ain't the government's fault.

But wait, there's more. For years now, Tony Abbott et al have been shouting that Labor will never manage a budget surplus. Ho hum. Wayne Swan will deliver one next month. We also have a resources tax that will share the common wealth of the Commonwealth more fairly, and a carbon tax that will actually put more money into the kick of most Australians and small business while meeting our international obligation to deal with climate change.

Yes, and Labor has also made big leaps in education funding, aged and disability care, mental health and dental health. It is building the national broadband network, which will bring benefits we cannot yet imagine.

The truly amazing thing is how lousy the government is at selling these successes. Hopeless, just hopeless. Events get in the way every time.

Edited by Andrew, 28 April 2012 - 04:22 AM.

[jamon g]

no heaps of people are against it - I'm not against the internet you dope. anyway, just read that to recoup the investment the govt. is going to restrict wireless services that compete with the nbn and remove the copper too - thus making it the only choice for broadband. that sucks ass, and is because the trial areas are only giving a 10% take up rate (higher in the latest releases on the mainland) as most people are happy with their existing service.
Oh well, I'll just end up using my phone as a modem on a 4g network like everyone else.
As to the question of why private companies aren't building the plants - it's because they're between 2-5 times more expensive to build than coal, and so if you are a private equity company who is only interested in profit for your billion dollar investment, you go with the better return. Thus the govt. needs to build it, and take a longer pay back time for the benefit of the country.
Now with the NBN, the projected figures are for it to take up to 20 years to roll out, and for the payback not until 2034! That's a seriously long time. I've tried in vain to get figures on what take up rates they need for that payback period but in vain. There's no figures to be had.

[Andrew]

no heaps of people are against it - I'm not against the internet you dope. anyway, just read that to recoup the investment the govt. is going to restrict wireless services that compete with the nbn and remove the copper too - thus making it the only choice for broadband. that sucks ass, and is because the trial areas are only giving a 10% take up rate (higher in the latest releases on the mainland) as most people are happy with their existing service.
Oh well, I'll just end up using my phone as a modem on a 4g network like everyone else.
As to the question of why private companies aren't building the plants - it's because they're between 2-5 times more expensive to build than coal, and so if you are a private equity company who is only interested in profit for your billion dollar investment, you go with the better return. Thus the govt. needs to build it, and take a longer pay back time for the benefit of the country.
Now with the NBN, the projected figures are for it to take up to 20 years to roll out, and for the payback not until 2034! That's a seriously long time. I've tried in vain to get figures on what take up rates they need for that payback period but in vain. There's no figures to be had.

No need for name-calling. The NBN's clearly the most popular initiative they have - the only opponents are people loyal to the Conservative memes and hardcore News Limited readers (never forget that the NBN is the real driver behind the Murdoch hate).

Why does making the NBN the only option for broadband suck? The copper system is falling apart and needs to be phased out. When you compare how much we pay for the speeds and download limits we get in Australia (a wealthy and pretty technologically advanced nation in all other respects), it's pretty terrible; embarrassing really.

If the NBN will take 20 years to roll out, having it paid for by 2034 isn't that long really - it really got under way last year, so three years after completion it'll be sold - seems reasonable to me.

I get it, you don't like this government - not one thing can you find to approve of. I agree with the Carlton piece upthread - they're terrible at selling all of these big initiatives - but in the long run they'll be vindicated, in much the same way the reverse is now happening with the Howard era.

And dog help us all when Abbott becomes PM.

[jamon g]

well i voted for them and will vote labor again, but it doesn't mean i have to like their decision making. the problem is I don't think they're in power - all their decisions are clearly dictated to by the minority parties.
Anyway, what a day. blood politics indeed. I told you appointing slipper was going to come bite them in the ass. The independents have said they'll dissolve the govt. if he comes back as speaker and so today gillard has indefinitely stepped him aside. and the dickhead thomson issue has finally (way too late) forced her hand, though this decision today to remove him from the labor party but keep his vote on the cross bench will put another nail in the coffin of her govt. Unfortunately every time they make a political decision it's tarred by the fact they have to keep a minority govt. so can't actually make the right decision.

[Andrew]

<p>

well i voted for them and will vote labor again, but it doesn't mean i have to like their decision making. the problem is I don't think they're in power - all their decisions are clearly dictated to by the minority parties.
Anyway, what  a day. blood politics indeed. I told you appointing slipper was going to come bite them in the ass. The independents have said they'll dissolve the govt. if he comes back as speaker and so today gillard has indefinitely stepped him aside. and the dickhead thomson issue has finally (way too late) forced her hand, though this decision today to remove him from the labor party but keep his vote on the cross bench will put another nail in the coffin of her govt. Unfortunately every time they make a political decision it's tarred by the fact they have to keep a minority govt. so can't actually make the right decision.

Nah, all their big policies are Labor policies - the NBN was in place before the minority government issue - the only concession to the Indies is to roll it out to rural areas ahead of schedule (which is quite fair considering they lag behind metro areas already), the "carbon tax" is a temporary measure ahead of an ETS which was Labor policy since before 2007. Watching (or listening, rather, to) the Thompson press conference, I was taken by how well he handled it - I realised that we haven't really heard from him since the Sydney Morning Herald first broke the story all those years ago. He's actually quite well spoken and argued his position without resorting to "politician-speak" all that much - he seems like he'd make a good performer so it's sad that his political career is pretty much over.

He's been kicked out of the party, but he's not a child - he believes in Labor - why would he vote for anything the Coalition put forward when they're behind this whole mess? Of course he'll support the government from the cross-benches, but he hasn't been forced to do so.

As for Slipper - he's been a great Speaker, maintaining order in the house - why there's been no blowback to the Coalition for pre-selecting him in 2007 and 2010 (when apparently all of these issues were known to them since about 2004) is another example of the soft treatment they're receiving from the media.

Edited by Andrew, 29 April 2012 - 12:34 PM.