Tag Archives: carbon tax

Campbell Newman Does A Barry

28 Mar

Click to enlarge

NSW Election Campaign. February 24, 2011.

Barry O’Farrell:

“I don’t support a carbon tax, the Premier does,” Mr O’Farrell said.

“The premier’s advisers say carbon taxes will cost families another $500 a year on their power bills.

“I don’t think that’s affordable.

“If you’re talking about reducing the cost of living pressures you can’t support a carbon tax.

“I won’t and I’ll go to Canberra to argue that point if I’m elected premier.”

[Mr O’Farrell] called on voters to voice their anger when they vote, saying a new coalition government would “send a shiver up the spine of every federal ALP backbencher sitting in a marginal seat”.

“The coming poll is the only opportunity that families and small businesses have across NSW to try and stop this carbon tax dead,” Mr O’Farrell said on Friday.

QLD Election Campaign. February 24, 2012.

Campbell Newman:

The carbon tax is bad for Queensland. It’s bad for jobs. Frankly, if the carbon tax is introduced it will make it even harder for us to achieve our four per cent target. But that’s why I’m here today, to say that we will fight every single day, if we’re elected, as the Government of Queensland, to fight against this tax; that even if the tax is introduced, we will work with Tony Abbott and state premiers to fight the tax still.

We hope that Queenslanders will see the opportunity in this election campaign, but particularly on the 24th of March, to send a signal to Labor – who are so caught up in their own activities and their battles at the moment – send a signal to Canberra, to Labor that you don’t want the carbon tax and that’s why people have on the 24th of March an opportunity to actually send that signal to vote against a carbon tax.

Both Barry O’Farrell and Campbell Newman made clear promises during their election campaigns, to fight against the carbon tax.

Numerous constitutional experts have said that the carbon tax legislation can be challenged in the High Court, ideally by the States, under section 114 of the Constitution (amongst others).

Many NSW voters, including this blogger, have petitioned Barry O’Farrell to action this, and make good on his campaign promise. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no further response from Premier O’Farrell.

Nothing … zip … nada … has actually been done to “fight” the carbon tax, by any Liberal-National State Government (NSW, VIC, WA, and now QLD).

It appears that Premier O’Farrell is as untrustworthy as Julia Gillard.

Promise one thing before the election.

Do the opposite after the election.

Queensland’s new Premier Newman made an identical promise before the election.

Will he now “do a Barry” after the election?

* I urge Queenslanders to directly petition their local MP, and Premier Newman, informing them of Your Will that the new Queensland State Government should challenge the carbon tax in the High Court. You can use the sample petition below:

Dear [insert State MP’s Name],

I know that it is my duty to keep you informed of MY WILL on anything that comes before Parliament, or that should come before Parliament.

My communication to you concerns the [insert State name] State Government budget, and possible impacts on the budget arising from the Commonwealth’s Clean Energy Future legislation.

Constitutional barrister Bryan Pape and other legal experts are on public record indicating that the [insert State name] State government has grounds to challenge the Commonwealth government’s Clean Energy Future legislation, under section 114 of the Australian Constitution.

IT IS MY WILL that you take immediate action to cause the [insert State name] State government to challenge the constitutionality of the Commonwealth’s Clean Energy Future 2011 (ie, carbon tax) bills in the High Court.

Yours faithfully,

[signed]

[insert your full name, address, and date, as legal evidence that you are a constituent.]

Details for contacting your State government Premier and local State MP’s below:

QLD

NSW

VIC

WA

SA

TAS

NT

Qlders To Cast Carbon Tax Verdict … LNP To Do F-All To Stop Carbon Tax

23 Mar

Media Release – The Nationals, 23 March 2012:

Dear Friends,

Queenslanders to cast carbon tax verdict

Today marks 100 days until Labor’s carbon tax drives up the price of everything, costs Australian jobs and makes us less competitive internationally – and all for no environmental gain.

Fittingly, Queenslanders will have their day of reckoning against a bad Labor government tomorrow, but also cast their judgment on the carbon tax and the deceitful government Julia Gillard leads.

This Queensland election, like last year’s NSW election, shapes as a referendum on the carbon tax. People power will be on display.

Last time in the Sunshine State there was a sense that Labor cheated its way into office. That is echoed federally with the Prime Minister’s broken carbon tax promise, ‘there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead’. Words that live in infamy and ring loudly in the ears of all Australians.

Without a record to stand on, Anna Bligh and Labor’s smear campaign against Campbell Newman has been unprecedented, ugly and Queenslanders don’t like it. It may have been headline-grabbing but, ultimately, I think it has backfired badly, especially in the last week or two.

When the Crime and Misconduct Commission confirmed Mr Newman had no case to answer and Anna Bligh could not produce a shred of evidence against him, she and Labor were exposed for the fraud they were peddling. That has repulsed people.

It was straight out of Labor’s old playbook. Muckraking and throwing anything and everything in the hope something would stick. It’s gutter politics and it doesn’t work. Dragging Mr Newman’s wife and family through that muck was morally wrong and a political mistake. People accept there is argy-bargy in politics, but this was obviously baseless and crude.

Campbell Newman is to be commended for not parachuting into a safe seat but really taking the fight up to Labor in its own backyard. Ashgrove was always going to be a tough ask, needing a 7.1% swing. That takes character and Queenslanders have responded to that.

As we’ve already seen in WA, Victoria, NSW and now Queensland the tide has turned, Labor is on the nose and Julia Gillard’s judgment day with the Australian people for Labor’s lies, waste and incompetence is coming.

I look forward to the day when the LNP and the federal Coalition are working together in government for the benefit of Queenslanders and all Australians.

King [sic … dear Lord, can noone spell or copycheck anymore?!] regards,

Warren Truss
Leader of The Nationals

Fine words.

But will the Queensland LNP do anything more than just talk it up on the bankers’ CO2 derivatives scam, once they hold power from tomorrow night?

Will they act to STOP the “carbon tax”, rather than just unconvincingly promise to “repeal” it?

Will they get off their fat, lazy, well padded, shiny-suited, taxpayer-financed arses and actually challenge the Orwellian-titled Clean Energy Future legislation in the High Court, under sections 55 and (especially) 114 of the Australian Constitution, as several expert constitutional lawyers have advised that they can?

Or … will they demonstrate themselves to be no better than their tough talking, big pre-election promising, non-delivering invertebrate counterpart in NSW, Premier Barry O’Farrell?

On past and present form, I am betting on the latter.

All talk. No action.

Queenslanders … keep the bastards honest.

Vote 1 Katter’s Australian Party (“The Australian Party” on your ballot)

“They Are Pathological In Their Hate Of It”: Barnaby

22 Mar

Barnaby Joyce on fire in the Senate.

Enjoy:

The Simple Way To Tell That The Mining Tax And Carbon Tax Are Unconstitutional

22 Mar

“By their words you shall know them.”

What is the biggest red flag alerting you to the likelihood that a government bill is unconstitutional?

When the wording of a government bill repeatedly insists that it is in compliance with a section of the Constitution.

Or, when the bill repeatedly insists that it does not do something, or is not something, that would constitute a breach of the Constitution.

Because if it were in keeping with the Constitution, then there would be no need whatsoever to say anything.

This is not just the rational surmising of your humble blogger.

A constitutional law expert agrees.

From Yahoo!7 News (emphasis added):

Government facing mining tax revolt

… [Macquarie University’s] Dr [Margaret] Kelly not only thinks Fortescue will get a hearing but that it has a decent shot at winning the case.

“Given the shortness of the Act, the lack of definitions in the Act, and the very general nature of the Act, then I, if I were the Commonwealth, wouldn’t be as hopeful as apparently the Prime Minister currently is,” she said.

She says challenges made under section 114 of the Constitution would attract serious consideration by the High Court.

The fact that each of these acts purports to say the Act does not impose a tax on the property of the states, I think, quite clearly raises that question unambiguously.

“The acts in their various forms also raise the question of, is this really a tax as opposed to being, as I say, a pecuniary penalty or some kind of fee?

“That too is a constitutional question.”

Dr Kelly is right.

In the 425 page (!?!) Explanatory Memorandum to the 288 page Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011, we find the following (emphasis added):

Imposing the MRRT

3.31    The MRRT is imposed by three different imposition Bills. One imposes MRRT to the extent that it is a duty of customs [section 3, MRRT customs imposition Bill]; one imposes MRRT to the extent that it is a duty of excise [section 3, MRRT excise imposition Bill]; and one imposes MRRT to the extent that it is neither a duty of customs nor one of excise [section 3, MRRT general imposition Bill]. This reflects the constitutional requirement that laws imposing duties of customs shall deal only with duties of customs and that laws imposing duties of excise shall deal only with duties of excise (see section 55 of the Constitution). However, there is only one assessment Act.

“This reflects the constitutional requirement” does it?  Utter bollocks!  What it “reflects”, is Australian governments’ now standard method of circumventing the clear wording and plainly obvious intent of the authors of the Constitution. I for one have no doubt whatsoever that when the authors of our Constitution wrote section 55, they certainly did NOT do so with the intent that every new tax, customs duty, or excise duty, should require the separate drafting and passage through both houses of Parliament of multiple, interdependent but at the same time, mutually-contradictory bills defining the new impost as being (1) not a tax, (2) a duty of customs, (3) a duty of excise, and (4) neither a duty of customs nor a duty of excise. To suggest otherwise is risible, and would be to assume that the authors of the Constitution wanted to make it as complicated and difficult as possible for government to impose genuine taxes, customs duties, and excise duties. No dear reader – the true reason why Australian governments (both “sides”) use this multiple interdependent but mutually-contradictory bills technique, is plainly obvious: their new imposts are not taxes, customs duties, or excise duties. They are unconstitutional money grabs … and they know it.

3.33    MRRT is not imposed on property belonging to a State. That ensures that the MRRT complies with section 114 of the Constitution, which prohibits the Commonwealth from imposing a tax on any kind of property of a State. In practice, this will only have an effect to the extent that a State mines its own taxable resources. In that case, the State will not be subject to MRRT.

Sorry BrownGilSwan.

Sorry Big Three multinational mining oligopoly PM-removers and tax-dodge designers.

Your saying so, does not make it so.

Indeed, the opposite is true.

Your saying so, almost certainly makes it not so.

Previously, we have seen exactly the same blatant Constitution-sidestepping ruse used in the 19 different bills and 1,000+ pages of the Clean Energy Future 2011 legislation:

Charge payable

(10) If a carbon unit is issued to a person in accordance with this section, the person is liable to pay a charge for the issue of the unit.

(11) Subsection (10) has effect only so far as it is not a law imposing taxation within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution.

Note: See also:
(a) Part 2 of the Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Act 2011; and
(b) the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—General) Act 2011.

Compare …

Clean Energy (Charges – Excise) Act 2011

A Bill for an Act to impose charges associated with the Clean Energy Act 2011, so far as those charges are duties of excise

And compare …

Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge – General) Act 2011

A Bill for an Act to impose charges associated with the Clean Energy Act 2011, so far as those charges are not duties of excise

The government’s bills for the mining tax, and the carbon tax, are not unlike a spoilt domineering child trying to get its own way.

Fingers inserted in ears.

Eyes screwed tightly shut.

And insisting, “It IS it IS it IS it IS it IS!”

Or, “It’s NOT it’s NOT it’s NOT it’s NOT it’s NOT!”

Basic rule of life, dear reader.

Listen very, very carefully to a government’s words.

Then ask yourself, “What is the opposite of what they have said?”

The opposite, is far more likely to be the truth.

Conversations With The Constitution

21 Mar

Sometime in 2004, your humble blogger was waiting for a flight at Melbourne airport and went in search of something interesting to read.

Leading constitutional law expert Professor Greg Craven‘s cleverly written “Conversations With The Constitution: Not Just A Piece Of Paper” made a long wait for a short flight highly entertaining, frequently amusing, and genuinely enlightening.

Professor Craven has now added his voice to that of constitutional barrister Bryan Pape, and the legal counsels of self-made Aussie miners Clive Palmer and Andrew Forrest, in publicly stating that the Green-Labor government’s mining tax, and carbon tax, are indeed open to challenge as being in breach of the Australian Constitution.

Interestingly, Professor Craven indirectly refers to the very same sections of the Constitution that your humble blogger has long cited as having been deliberately circumvented by the government in legislating their new “taxes” (emphasis added):

Constitutional law expert Greg Craven said it was also likely the MRRT would face twin legal challenges by states and mining companies.

The Australian Catholic University vice-chancellor said the states could challenge the new laws on the grounds that they interfered with resources rights.

A mining company could argue the tax interfered with its property without just terms, he said.

There are a lot of arguments that could be raised,” he said.

“It’s a little bit like the carbon tax, there are some laws that are born to be challenged because they are so complicated.”

It is very likely it will end up in court but what will happen there is much more unpredictable.”

Professor Craven said such a legal challenge could potentially take years to resolve.

As we have seen previously (“GilSwan Conned – Mining Tax The Greens’ Pit Of Despair”), the mining tax is a farcical Trojan Horse, designed by the Big 3 multinational miners, for the Big 3 multinational miners, in a secret and corrupt exclusive deal with Gillard and Swan, to increase the Big 3 foreigners’ oligopoly in Australia at the expense of their much smaller, locally-owned competitors.

And of course, regular readers know only too well that the carbon “tax” is nothing of the sort, but is in plain matter of fact another Trojan Horse; it is a CO2 derivatives scam, designed by bankers, for bankers.

Now that both “taxes” have been railroaded into law by the Greens and Labor, it has fallen to Mr Palmer and Mr Forrest to take up the legal fight against these laws, in the national interest:

Billionaire miner Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest says he is close to mounting a legal challenge to the Gillard government’s mining tax.

Mr Forrest said his listed company, Fortescue Metals, was not opposed to paying tax, but the minerals resource rent tax was “poorly designed” and biased against smaller miners.

“The minerals resource rent tax is unfair, narrowly based, complex, inefficient and will reduce investment and future jobs in the Australian mining industry,” a spokesman for Mr Forrest told The Australian Online.

“As Fortescue has previously advised, the company has engaged senior counsel and will commence legal proceedings after the legislation has been enacted and legal opinion has been finalised.”

The Australian Online understands Mr Forrest will urge smaller miners from the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies to join the proceedings.

Mining magnate Clive Palmer, who has vowed a High Court challenge against the government’s carbon tax, is yet to decide whether he wants become involved.

“One person can only do so much at one time,” he told The Australian Online.

“If I thought the mining tax bill was unconstitutional, I would mount a challenge.”

Finance Minister Penny Wong said she believed the mining tax would survive the challenge.

“We have sought legal advice and I am confident the minerals resource rent tax will withstand any challenge,” Senator Wong said.

However, Liberal Senator Mathias Cormann said the tax was likely to be scuttled.

“I have no doubt that Labor’s dodgy mining tax will be thrown out by the High Court just as their dodgy Malaysia people swap deal was thrown out by the High Court,” he said.

We shall see.

I for one have little faith in the wisdom, impartiality, or integrity, of the befrocked, high and mighty, “progressive” “intellectual” lawyers (need I say more?) who have risen above the ranks of their parasitic, ambulance-chasing brethren to preside over Australia’s so-called “justice” system. Like those special turds, that always float to the top.

Nevertheless, we live in hope. It would be very pleasing to see motions of injunction successfully filed against both “taxes”, prohibiting the government from handing out “compensation” payments etc, until after the legal challenge/s have been decided.

Indeed, it would be a sweet, sweet irony if a legal injunction stayed the executioner’s sword being brandished by this government over the economy … just as their 4-years-and-counting delay in the FWA investigation into Labor MP Craig Thomson has stayed the executioner’s sword being brandished by the Australian public over this government.

Carbon Tax Legal Challenge By Evil Aussie Miner

14 Mar

There are so many ways in which the CO2 derivatives scam (aka “Clean Energy Future” aka “carbon tax”) can be challenged as unconstitutional, it beggars belief that we have to wait for a good ol’ Aussie-made-good mining billionaire to step up and actually do it:

MINING billionaire Clive Palmer has escalated his campaign against the Gillard government, vowing to use his resources to mount a High Court challenge to the carbon tax.

Mr Palmer told the ABC’s 7.30 last night he had legal advice that the carbon tax, set to take effect on July 1, was unconstitutional.

Asked on what grounds it was unconstitutional, he said: ”The grounds are set out in legal advice and they’ll be coming out in the High Court. I can’t answer that question because I’m not a lawyer. I can only go on the advice that I’m given.”

The move comes weeks after Treasurer Wayne Swan accused Mr Palmer and other wealthy mining magnates Gina Rinehart and Andrew ”Twiggy” Forrest of wielding too much power and being a threat to democracy.

Last night, Mr Palmer hit back, saying: ”I’ve given away each year more than a hundred times the Treasurer’s salary to Australians who are needy. I wonder how much of his salary has he given away to Australians who need that wealth?

”In the spirit of love and reconciliation we can forgive the Treasurer, but the Australian people will never forgive the Labor Party for destroying the opportunities of our children, our future generations.”

He said the carbon legislation acknowledged the possibility of it being declared unconstitutional. ”When it says it’s found to be unconstitutional, the government will create charges through other acts, that’s in the legislation.

Mr Palmer is right.

That particular point is precisely what this blog has argued throughout 2011.

The CO2 derivatives scam legislation totals some 1,000 pages and 18 different bills. Much of this – especially the multiple bills – is purely a result of the Government banksters’ lawyers trying to deliberately circumvent sections 51 and 55 of the Constitution – see The Carbon Pricing Scheme Is Unconstitutional and More Proof The Carbon Tax Is Unconstitutional.

The State Governments can also challenge the CO2 derivatives scam as unconstitutional, under section 114. This blog has endeavoured to encourage NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell to do exactly that, without success to date … despite the recent direct assurance of Premier O’Farrell that he would have the state Attorney-General look into it – see Premiers’ Appeal – Carbon Tax High Court Challenge and No Excuses, Mr O’Farrell.

Premier O’Farrell’s lack of credibility – indeed, his hypocrisy and complicity – was amply demonstrated within hours of his giving that personal assurance, when he stood beside PM Gillard and gushingly accepted the siting of the Greens’ $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation Carbon Bank / slush fund in Sydney … benefiting NSW by a whole 40 new jobs. At a cost to all NSW residents of billions, in higher costs for everything.

So as usual, we cannot rely on politicians from either “side” of politics … even when their primary election campaign pledge is to “fight the carbon tax”, and “I’ll go to Canberra to argue that point” if elected.

It takes deep pockets to challenge the power of the Federal Government.

Let us hope that “evil” Aussie-made-good local miner, Mr Palmer, is as good as his word.

Because one thing is certain.

Australian politicians of all stripes and colours are not.

UPDATE:

From a different news report, Mr Palmer is quoted as having said “I think the constitution of Australia is much more important than having a number of lawyers or parliament trying to slip around it.”

Indeed. And as readers of barnabyisright.com know from the abovementioned posts in 2011, “trying to slip around” the Constitution is exactly what the 18 bills of the Clean Energy Future package are designed to do. It is so obvious, it is disgraceful, and any so-called “judge” who failed to recognise the patently obvious attempt to circumvent the clear meaning and intent of the Constitution should be sacked … and disbarred.

UPDATE 2:

You can watch the interview with recently declared National Living Treasure (how apropos!) Clive Palmer here.

UPDATE 3:

With thanks to @wakeup2thelies

Barnaby Pings Wong On Carbon Tax Impacts

14 Mar

“The government stands by the Treasury modelling … the government stands by the Treasury modelling…” – Penny Wong

L.M.A.O.

Watch it all, and note in particular (a) Wong’s obfuscation, misdirection, and abject failure to answer, and (b) Bob Brown’s intervention, attempting to silence questioning of the Green-Labor CO2 derivatives scam:

Enjoy also Barnaby’s speech to the Senate yesterday:

“‘We are us’ … what exactly, what on earth does that mean? ‘We are us’ … I mean, who else could you be? We are somebody else? Somebody else is us?”

“In the last four weeks the Labor party have borrowed … an extra ten billion dollars, just in the last four weeks … that would buy about 20,000 houses in Brisbane”

“Treasurer Wayne Swan … is the Treasurer of the Millennium … we are so lucky to be blessed with him”

“What’s a Midas Touch backwards? … a Sadim, perhaps”

Carbon Price To Knock $30bn Off Economy

13 Mar

A new study commissioned by the Minerals Council doubtless has about as much credibility as Treasury modelling (ie, none).

Nevertheless, it is only logical that with EU carbon permits trading at under 10 Euro per tonne with little hope of price improvement, Australia’s “carbon price” starting at a fixed $23 per tonne and rising over 3 years, before changing to a full emissions trading scheme with a fixed floor price of $15 per tonne, is going to hurt.

From the Australian:

AUSTRALIA faces a $30 billion hit to growth by 2018 if domestic carbon prices remain higher than the European price, according to new economic modelling that will add to business pressure to bring the $23 starting price closer to Europe’s $10.

The modelling, by the Centre for International Economics consultancy, warns that keeping the $23 fixed price regime and the floor price of $15 a tonne – key elements of the current package – will have almost twice the impact on economic growth by 2018 as allowing the Australian price to track international prices.

A higher price in Australia than in comparable international markets could also cost the mining industry a cumulative $4bn and durable manufacturers $1.5bn over six years, the CIE modelling predicts. In a blow to the Coalition’s direct action policy alternative, leading CSIRO researcher Michael Battaglia has warned that the abatement figures in Tony Abbott’s alternative policy are “ambitious”. The centrepiece of the policy – sequestering 85 million tonnes of carbon in soil by 2020 – might only achieve abatement of between 5 million and 20 million tonnes, he said yesterday.

The CIE research, commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia, comes amid projections that slow growth in Europe will mean international carbon prices will not rise significantly above the $10 around which they are currently sitting.

When Australia’s carbon package was announced, Treasury assumed an international carbon price of between $29 and $61. But the European credit crisis caused prices to slump. The research will amplify calls by key business backers of carbon pricing, including the Australian Industry Group’s Heather Ridout and the Business Council of Australia’s Jennifer Westacott for the policy to be rewritten.

Last week, Ms Ridout said the difference between the Australian and European prices was effectively “a tax on industry”, while Ms Westacott described the disparity as a concern for the competitiveness of Australia’s industries.

Obviously.

As regular readers know, here at barnabyisright.com we have clearly demonstrated – from the government’s own documents – that the Orwellian-named Clean Energy Future legislation is little more than 1,000 pages of babbling legalese designed by bankers, for bankers, to disguise two (2) tiny little clauses that are the key to the entire scam.

A CO2 derivatives scam:

How can I be so sure?

Because not one of [the] claimed “Objects of the mechanism” requires laws that specifically permit bankers to create unlimited quantities of wholly unregulated “financial weapons of mass destruction” called derivatives (or “securities”).

They are completely unnecessary. Moreover, the ongoing GFC turmoil proves that unregulated derivatives markets represent a clear and present danger to our government-propped banking system, and thus are a sovereign risk.

And yet, this is just what our Green-Labor government is doing right now in the Senate.

Carefully buried in their Clean Energy Bill 2011 we find the ticking time bomb (underline added):

109A Registration of equitable interests in relation to a carbon unit

(1) The regulations may make provision for or in relation to the registration in the Registry of equitable interests in relation to carbon units.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an equitable interest that is a security interest within the meaning of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009, and to which that Act applies.

In other words, while the regulations may make provision for registration of equitable interests in a carbon unit, they specifically (subsection 2) do not make provision for registering a “security interest” in a carbon unit.

[A “security interest in” a carbon unit is, quite simply, a derivative or “security” that is based on the underlying “value” of the carbon “unit”]

It is clear then, that the government does not want to record carbon derivatives creation and trading.

They want to permit it. Just not record or regulate it.

Indeed, they wish to ensure “avoidance of doubt” that banks are legally allowed to immediately pull the pin on creating and trading these (wholly unregulated) financial weapons of mass destruction (underline added):

110 Equitable interests in relation to a carbon unit

(1) This Act does not affect:

(a) the creation of; or

(b) any dealings with; or

(c) the enforcement of;

equitable interests in relation to a carbon unit.

(2) Subsection (1) is enacted for the avoidance of doubt.

And just in case you missed the point – and your missing the real point is, in fact, the whole point of their using such opaque language – then the truth is spelled out more clearly elsewhere.

Where?

Way down in the fine print, of course. In the Explanatory Memorandum tacked on to the end of the Bill (underline added):

3.36 The bill does not affect the creation or enforcement of, or any dealings with (including transfers of), equitable interests in carbon units. [Part 4, clause 110] This provision has been included for the avoidance of doubt. In addition, the bill does not prevent the taking of security over carbon units.

Now I ask you, dear reader.

How does the scheme’s granting permission for banks to create a secondary carbon securities trading market (ie, “security over” carbon units) help to reduce CO2 emissions?

Indeed, how does a wholly unmonitored and unregulated shadow banking market in carbon derivatives help to create a single cent in extra government revenue, for the Senator Milne-championed Clean Energy Finance Corporation to pour down the toilet of otherwise commercially unviable “green” energy projects?

Answer: It doesn’t.

The government will never see any of the profits generated by banks from their multi trillion dollar trading in wholly unregulated carbon derivatives.

But you can be certain that they (and we) will hear all about it when the banks’ multi trillion dollar derivatives betting on movements in the market price of thin air blows up too. Because that’s when – just as with the global mortgage derivatives trade that triggered GFC1 – the bankers will (again) come running to government for a bail out.

Rest assured, dear reader.

Even if this latest round of calls for changes to the legislation are acted upon by government, of one thing you can be certain.

Just as the current legislation specifically allows for unlimited, unregulated creation of CO2 derivatives by banksters for trading and profit in international ‘shadow banking’ markets – and from Day 1, not just when an ETS begins – so too any new or revised legislation will still specifically allow this ticking time bomb hidden in the carbon tax to be created.

Because that is the ONLY reason why the legislation exists.

To allow the creation of wholly unmonitored, unregulated derivatives-on-thin-air by Big Finance, in unlimited quantities.

The fuel-air mixture for the biggest shadow banking financial bomb ever devised:

Barnaby: People Want A Positive Future

8 Mar

Senator Joyce writes for the Canberra Times (my emphasis added):

One of the useful parts of the obligatory election trudge around the countryside is that meetings, functions and party events become a great barometer of what is worrying people.

Don’t go on the road if you are looking for self-affirmation; voters do not turn up to tell you what they like about government and politicians.

If a summary was given of what is making people talk at the mandatory Q and A session at the local hall/bowling club/RSL you would not be surprised that it is a thousand miles from what seems to be the concern on the ABC’s Q&A. There are four issues that are becoming constants: excessive market power in our retail industry; foreign ownership of strategic Australian assets; the carbon tax; and coal seam gas.

The businesses that go to functions ask, when will anyone seriously deal with excessive market concentration and the resultant exploitation of smaller market players? This was once seen disparagingly as a ”poor bugger farmer” issue by the more enlightened in the corridors of Canberra. Now senior corporates are also starting to ask the same question. The chief executive of Coca-Cola Amatil, Terry Davis, has highlighted his difficulty in finding a margin for Coca-Cola on a shelf controlled by two very dominant retailers and a second-tier wholesaler.

Foreign ownership of key agricultural assets and our ever increasing reliance on foreign borrowings by our government is a two-for-one package. People do not believe that Swan has the debt under control, and he hasn’t, he has borrowed an extra $11 billion over the past four weeks.

They believe that there is a naivety pervading the carte blanche approach to any investment to any area for any reason. They ask when does the government ever say no and the answer is that our Foreign Investment Review Board is like the Venus de Milo acting as wicket keeper for Australia: looks good but stops nothing.

People are surprised to learn that if a foreigner wants to buy any residential land then approval must be sought. However, you can buy any farm in the country without seeking approval if it is worth less than $244 million. There is probably only one farm in Australia over that threshold.

People have a pathological dislike of a policy called a carbon tax. Sections of the left hate it because it is seen as a mechanism to create commissions for major sections of the banking sector. The right hates it because it is a totem for the fallacy that government is better at spending money than you are and has wiser and more noble motives than you have. Everybody in between hates it because it is just so patently absurd. Government policies that make people poorer don’t cool the planet, they just make people very angry.

Rather than help the proponents of the global warming debate the carbon tax has been completely counter-productive for them. The reality is that there is now a strong majority who have a strong scepticism of the global warming narrative and a large number who just don’t believe at all. Many of those who do believe in it, don’t want to pay for it.

Finally, and it is the issue du jour: coal seam gas. This issue is politically remarkable as it has linked the far left and the far right. It is the powerless landholder against the miner and the expectation that the government should act for the powerless. It is the usurping of an individual’s property right, the under pinner of an individual’s security, the seedbed of the individual’s liberty. It is the green issue that links to the shopping trolley.

Unfortunately for the government, it is in so much debt that its political future, based on the delivery of services, cannot be met without the income stream from the royalties and the tax.

What then really angers people is that the topics they see discussed on their TVs, and from their government, do not match these concerns.

People want a more positive future where government talks about the delivery of substantial new infrastructure and a vision of a new horizon of economic opportunity in the north and other undeveloped parts of our nation.

Instead we have a Labor government obsessed with its own machinations and a Treasurer who seems to think his main job is to pick fights with Andrew Forrest, Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer.

Damn!

He sure has his finger on the pulse.

Imagine such a man leading the nation.

The words of the great Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu spring readily to this blogger’s mind in picturing such a future:

“To lead the people, walk behind them.”

“A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.”

No Excuses, Mr O’Farrell

5 Mar

Yesterday, your humble blogger received a public undertaking from Premier Barry O’Farrell, that he would consult the NSW State Attorney General with a view to a legal challenge by the NSW State Government to the Federal Government’s carbon tax.

Today, a gentle reminder for Mr O’Farrell of his pre-election commitment to the people of NSW.

Feb 24, 2011:

I’ll fight against carbon tax: O’Farrell

NSW opposition leader Barry O’Farrell says he will go to Canberra to argue against a carbon tax, if the coalition wins the state election.

He was speaking during a live leadership debate with Premier Kristina Keneally, who is in favour of setting a price on carbon.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced on Thursday that a carbon price will start in Australia on July 1, 2012.

“I don’t support a carbon tax, the Premier does,” Mr O’Farrell said.

“The premier’s advisers say carbon taxes will cost families another $500 a year on their power bills.

“I don’t think that’s affordable.

“If you’re talking about reducing the cost of living pressures you can’t support a carbon tax.

“I won’t and I’ll go to Canberra to argue that point if I’m elected premier.”

Mr O’Farrell, the High Court of Australia is in Canberra.

And your most powerful argument against the carbon tax, is the Australian Constitution, section 114 in particular:

States may not raise forces – Taxation of property of Commonwealth or State

A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.

In October 2011, constitutional barrister Bryan Pape publicly stated that State governments have legal standing to challenge the Commonwealth’s Clean Energy Future Bills 2011, given their impact on state-owned electricity generation and distribution assets.

But it is not just state-owned electricity assets that will be impacted by the carbon tax.

As we discovered in my in-depth research of the Federal Government’s NGER Register of “biggest polluters” ( The “500 Biggest Polluters” Exposed – Everything The Government Is Not Telling You ), the carbon tax will also impact on many other state-owned enterprises and utilies, including public hospitals and health care facilities, public transport, state rail networks, water utilities, state universities, state forests, and more.

Section 114 of the Constitution is clear. The Commonwealth cannot impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.

Mr O’Farrell, you campaigned on a clear anti-carbon tax platform; pledged to take up the fight against the carbon tax in Canberra; and urged NSW voters to elect you as their representative to pursue that fight:

O’Farrell calls for NSW carbon tax revolt

NSW Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell has joined the chorus calling for a people’s revolt against a carbon tax, saying the March state election is a chance for voters to send a message to Canberra.

During a visit to a shopping centre at Cranebrook, in Sydney’s west, Mr O’Farrell said the yet-to-be-determined price on carbon would raise annual energy bills by $500, and increase grocery and petrol prices.

He called on voters to voice their anger when they vote, saying a new coalition government would “send a shiver up the spine of every federal ALP backbencher sitting in a marginal seat”.

“The coming poll is the only opportunity that families and small businesses have across NSW to try and stop this carbon tax dead,” Mr O’Farrell said on Friday.

“To stop this tax needs every voice and every vote and the poll on the 26th of March gives people an opportunity to do that.”

Mr O’Farrell, your campaign promise worked:

ALP deserters ‘spooked’ by carbon tax

JULIA Gillard’s carbon tax may have saved two high-profile NSW ministers from a Greens’ assault in inner Sydney, but the move exacerbated the revolt against the 16-year-old Labor regime in its own heartland.

In western and southern Sydney, mining areas and long-established industrial towns, factory workers, two-car families and low-income households swung more heavily against Labor than the NSW average.

Echoing their federal leader Tony Abbott, incoming Coalition MPs in NSW argue that traditional Labor voters were spooked by the prospect of job losses, higher petrol prices and rising household power bills from a carbon tax.

Mr O’Farrell, you have made a promise.

You have a case to argue.

You have no excuses.

P.S. Please inform Mr O’Farrell and your local MP (or your own State Premier) that it is Your Will that the State Government should challenge the constitutionality of the carbon tax legislation in the High Court. Sample letter and contact details here.

%d bloggers like this: