Just let us have a damn say!


Although promising not to, the Gillard government wants to enact the biggest change on the Australian economy, via a carbon (dioxide!) tax, since the GST.

Today, Tony Abbott suggested a plebiscite meaning every Australian voter would get a real chance to vote Yes or No.

This is the only fair way to go about it.

But the government is saying No, the two gargantuan egos that are the “Independents” Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, aren’t saying Yes or No so far, and Greens Leader Bob Brown, formerly a fan of plebiscites, is also saying No.

According to a NineMSM poll, however, about seven out of every eight Australians is saying Yes.

Granted that’s not a scientific poll, but it will be very interesting when a proper one comes out.

What are Gillard and Co. so worried about? A plebiscite isn’t a compulsory vote, nor is it binding as is the case in a general election and/or referendum.

Their stance is the antithesis to democracy.

[slightly edited]

Advertisements
  1. The whole AGW movement is the antithesis of democracy. But then some of the leaders have dropped all pretense and are openly admitting that democracy is bad and must be abolished. They want to kill the patient in order to save the infection.

    • Sean of Deer Park
    • June 21st, 2011

    It got voted down today because of Sen. Fielding. I am glad that mongrel is finished, come Thursday.

    Abbott was right to make the call for a Plebiscite. The Carbon Dioxide Tax is a huge change to the architecture of the Australian economy and needs to be ratified by the people before implementation. We know it and they know it. Abbott’s tactic highlighted the fact there is no mandate for the tax.

    Although, Abbott is saying if Gillard brings in a Carbon Dioxide Tax he will repeal it (Good Call). I am very concerned Julia (a legal boffin) will quickly have the legislation tied up in contracts (like the Desal Plant in Victoria) with expensive out-clauses. Baillieu in Victoria should have scrapped the Desal Plant but the legal implications were apparently too costly and would have made the State look unstable for future investment.

    From 1994 to 1996, I worked with Gillard. I was seconded to the CPSU (Community and Public Sector Union) by CEO Frank Blunt on behalf of Telstra. Julia was our legal representative in the Melbourne Industrial Relation Commission. I was one of Seven people who designed and wrote the legal agreement between Telstra, the CPSU and CEPU (Information Technology Transformation Project – Changes to Award conditions for all Telstra IT staff) within the bid to privatise Telecom Australia. I received a medal and a huge payment for my work. The process was called “The Participative Approach”. Participative, is one of Julia’s favourite buzz words, you may have noticed. I can’t talk about details here because of confidentiality clauses, but I can say; every, single, word, in any document Julia signs her name to is analysed and reworded with legal jargon for meaning and potential future implications. (Hence, my overuse and/or misuse of punctuation; 😆 bad habits die hard.)

    Whatever Gillard legislates will most likely be “Air-Tight”, pardon the pun. This is why it is so important the legislation does not get ratified in the first place. It is hard enough to change small things, let alone repeal an entire Bill. I am very worried about this Tax proposal for this reason.

    In my humble opinion, I believe the CO2 tax is about making Industry Super Funds (run by Unions) more profitable because of their agenda and past bad investment choices going back more than a decade. If you look into all of the climate initiatives, you will uncover the fact they are all being bankrolled by the superannuation funds of Unions, Councils and State and Federal Parliaments. Then there is also the taboo subject of politicians being involved in the creation of a “shelf company” that owns the issue rights of ETS “Carbon Credits” in Australia. The people involved, that I am aware of are: Julia Gillard, Malcolm Turnbull, Kim Beasley, Joe Hockey and Kevin Rudd. There are others on the board of directors but I cant remember all of them. I have mentioned this to Bolta a couple of years ago and commented on his blog about it, but no-one takes the bait and runs with it.

    In years to come, certain people are going to become very rich on the back of the ETS, bad public policy and to the detriment of this country. As I said, this is only my humble opinion from my own personal experience. As a laymen, I have no proof. Intensive investigation would certainly uncover many questionable dealings at the political and business level. As they say; it’s not what you know, but who you know that counts. At the end of the day, it is indeed us “mugs” that will pay for everything. Given your journalistic skills, BB, you may be able to uncover, prove and break the story. 4Corners briefly mentioned the shelf company link around 2004, I wish I could find it but my search has been to no avail.

    It is also interesting, Malcolm Turnbull is the person who holds the import rights for the new Light Bulbs that cost us a fortune; as globes went from 50cents to $3 retail. The new light globes have a hideous reputation for lasting weeks instead of the 1000 hours promoted. My experience is the new globes last 2-3 months then blow. The entire thing is a scam of the highest order from what I witness. These people need to be exposed for the charlatans they are. It makes me so cross. 😡

    • Given your journalistic skills, BB, you may be able to uncover, prove and break the story. 4Corners briefly mentioned the shelf company link around 2004, I wish I could find it but my search has been to no avail.

      I’d likely need someone to come to me as happened with the BER.

      An interesting and very plausible suggestion you make there, too, re Julia chucking in lots of legal jargon and expensive get-out clauses.

    • J.M. Heinrichs
    • June 21st, 2011

    “… the legal implications were apparently too costly and would have made the State look unstable for future investment.”
    Not true; there’s a parliamentary immunity holding which prevents one government from over-committing its successors. You just need the gumption to go to court when necessary. For your example, shutting down the project and reimbursing reasonable costs would be expected. Having an agreement requiring massive payments unrelated to actual costs at time of closure should have resulted in a “don’t be silly” judgement by the courts.

    In other words, Dr Abbott can establish at this point in time, that, should he form a government, he will make every parliamentary effort possible to quash any such carbon tax legislation, and that any financial deals made as part of that legislation will be sent to the courts to be killed. You might call it “drawing lines in the sand”.

    • On a slightly different line, even if Abbott wins an election between July 1 and the next election (Nov. 30, 2013 is the latest possible date), he won’t control the Senate; the Greens will effectively. Thus he’ll have great difficulty repealing any carbon tax laws for that reason alone.

    • Merilyn
    • June 21st, 2011

    There is one thing that is now very obvious to a lot of people that Julia and Bob Brown are against democracy when it comes to asking if the Australian people want a carbon tax.
    Check out how fast they suspended the cattle trade after the outcry, without first going in for diplomacy and having talks with another country. Now that country is very offended, [and yes I know it was pretty terrible what was happening], Bob listened to a program today where farmers in the NT who are cattle people and they said they had been over to the Abattoir with son who is a vet and checked out all the details before sending their cattle there, and all was above board.
    Now they are in trouble financially, if the cattle trade does not start up again in the near future, and according to the minister that does not look likely. [They are just a small family company].
    However I digress, the point I was making is that Tony Abbott has shown the Australian people that this present government of Labor/Greens/Independents will do anything to bring in this tax regardless, of the hardship that it will cause, and people will start to sit up and ask, why?

    • Ceasing that cattle trade is hurting families – much like a carbon tax will – for no good reason and those abattoirs that were so barbaric as we all saw deserve to be run out of town; not “fixed”, but dismantled (and, yes, we should have far, far more oversight, even run the things there ourselves) – but to shut down an entire industry is madness.

      Andrew Bolt is right to be quietly backing away from his original knee-jerk reaction of wanting the trade stopped, and that an inquiry should be about whether the trade is resumed rather than stopped.

      Bolt should address that one.

        • Sean of Deer Park
        • June 21st, 2011

        I concede and agree (considering my earlier comments on the issue). As disturbed as I was to see what was going on, to the point of being appalled, it is ridiculous to ban the entire trade. Its about ensuring humane treatment, not starving people in Indonesia and sending Cattle Farmers in Australia to the wall.

        Australia could easily fix the issues with cooperation, assistance and commitment. Stun guns and regular inspections should do it. I remember watching a tv show about the ships and cattlemen here in Australia and was impressed with the operation. The cows and sheep get better treatment than us on a P&O cruise. The problem seems confined to a small number of abattoirs. Address those issues and it should be business as usual. If Australia cant trust or rely on Indonesia to do the right thing, we should be able to create a new market of supply with our own people creating new jobs over there.

        • I think I saw the same and/or similar program on Discovery Channel a while back. It was one of their episodes for those mega ships, and one of our live cattle transports was featured one time.

          It’s 5 star treatment for the cattle.

          When abattoirs are run properly, processing cattle from Australian ranches, the average human has a harder life and death.

    • Sean of Deer Park
    • June 21st, 2011

    An interesting comment, JM. I wonder why Baillieu hasn’t had the Nads to challenge the previous governments rulings on the Desal Plant. It annoyed me when he said they couldn’t do anything. Your comment sounds more than reasonable. BB, does make a good point also, in the Greens holding control from July. Still, the judiciary and government are supposed to be separate, so Baillieu should be able to challenge the contracts at State Level.

    Maybe there is some truth to the rumours of “Red Ted”. As JM notes, all you need is the gumption to take it to court to test the legalities. I think I may write a letter to Ted and put this to him and see what response I get, if any. Thank you for the comment, JM. Excellent points you have raised here.

    • He’s good value ain’t he? Still wish he didn’t charge so much.

        • J.M. Heinrichs
        • June 22nd, 2011

        He’s worth twice what you claim to pay.

        Cheers

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Surely you're thinking something...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: