Tag Archives: cprs

Letter to Greg Hunt MP

29 Jun

* Shortcuts to Update 2 , Update 3 , Update 4 , and Update 5 below.

Prompted by a reader, this afternoon the following email sent to the Federal Opposition’s Shadow Environment Minister, Greg Hunt MP.

Cc’d to Senator Barnaby Joyce.

*****************************

Subject:  Why Are You Calling It A “Tax”, When It Is NOT?

Dear Mr Hunt,

I am writing to you pursuant to a recent communication between yourself and a follower of my Twitter feed – @BarnabyisRight and blog BarnabyIsRight.com

I understand that this lady questioned you concerning my recent article, which affirms that the “carbon tax” is NOT a tax, but rather, an “emissions trading scheme with an initial fixed price period”.  Exactly as per the Rudd Government’s proposed CPRS.

I also understand that your response contradicted this, instead arguing that “In fact the tax will actually morph into a tradeable right after 3 years”.

Mr Hunt, you are wrong. And I firmly believe that both yourself, and the Federal Opposition more broadly, are guilty of doing the electorate a grave disservice by continuing to falsely attach the moniker “tax” to the government’s proposed scheme.

In proof of this, I refer you to the following quotations and links. They are all from this blog article that I published recently, which has attracted considerable attention. The lady in question advises me that she did not feel comfortable sending you a link to the article, given that it contains some “florid” descriptors.

All but one of these quotes and links are from the government’s own handpicked sources.

I would ask that you please respond to my email, by specific reference to these evidences –

Julian Turecek of Cleantech Ventures, writing for MacroBusiness in May 2011 (emphasis added):

The current government has not yet give its policy a formal name. So the Opposition has obliged* and chosen one for them: a carbon tax.

Now this has got a lot of people, mainly tax advisers and accountants, barking up the wrong tree. It’s not actually a tax…

The current proposal is not a tax, but a fixed price emissions trading scheme. This is exactly the same as the CPRS, which also had a fixed price at the start.

[* Please think back carefully. When Gillard announced that she would introduce a “price on carbUon” after all, she and the government initially denied the Opposition’s “great big new tax” claim. But they have since allowed, and encouraged, this false meme to become entrenched into the public psyche. I believe that is because calling it a “tax” sounds more simple and less threatening, and most importantly, it does not so clearly highlight the banker-driven “trading” aspect than if they had instead called it what it is, and always was ultimately intended to be right from the beginning … an Emissions Trading Scheme.]

Garnaut Review, Chapter 5 (emphasis added):

In implementing an emissions trading scheme with a fixed-price start, there are two sets of decisions to be made: the starting price and how much the price will rise in each subsequent year; and the timing, conditions and manner of transition to emissions trading with a price that is set by market exchange.

The government’s own climate change website on the topic (emphasis added):

Broad architecture of the carbon price mechanism

A carbon price mechanism could commence with a fixed price (through the issuance of fixed price units within an emissions trading scheme) before converting to a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme…

Note very carefully what it says under Transition Arrangements (emphasis added):

Transition Arrangements

At the end of the fixed price period, the clear intent would be that the scheme convert to a flexible price cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme. In relation to the transition to a flexible price, it would be important to design the arrangements so as to promote business certainty and a smooth transition from the fixed to flexible price.

Ross Garnaut also reiterates the importance of the initial design promoting a “smooth transition” to a fully-floating price ETS, in his final Garnaut Review:

Investors need clarity about when and the conditions under which the transition to a floating price will occur. To support a smooth transition, the necessary institutions and supporting infrastructure should be established from the beginning of the scheme. It is important to specify rules for the scheme as soon as possible, including arrangements for auctioning permits and for acceptance of offsets and international permits.

Mr Hunt, this is where we come to the critical matter pertaining to whether there is any remotely possible justification for calling the government’s proposed “pricing mechanism”, a “tax”.

How exactly do you design a scheme to promote a “smooth transition”?

By giving those initial “fixed price” permits an expiry date that is far enough away to ensure that they can be traded when the emissions trading scheme transitions to a “floating” price. In this way, the “property rights” of those forced to purchase the initial “fixed” (and rising over “3-5 years”) price permits are safeguarded (ie, thus, “business certainty”) – they can “bank” their permits and trade them later, when the transition to a floating price occurs.

Of course, an even simpler way would be to give these permits to “pollute” an unlimited expiry date.

Which is exactly what the government’s official Policy position was under the original Rudd-Garnaut CPRS White Paper.  Which the Gillard-Garnaut “carbon pricing” mechanism aims to replicate – because that is what the bankers want (emphasis added):

Policy position 8.1

Each permit will have a unique identification number and will be marked with the first year in which it can validly be surrendered (its ‘vintage’). It will not have an expiry date.

8.4.1 Banking

Banking allows permits to be saved for use in future years. With unlimited banking, permits would not have an expiry date—once issued, they could be used for compliance at any future time.

… the advantages of banking are greatest if banking is continuous. For these reasons, the Government will allow unlimited banking from Scheme commencement.

Mr Hunt, in calling this a “tax”, you are misleading the Australian public.

You are focussing (diverting?) attention on to the quite unimportant details of the initial “fixed price” period, and failing to draw attention to the true end game. The Big Picture.

The Government’s plan has never changed.  They have always been pursuing a CPRS – an emissions trading scheme – with an initial fixed price period.

I should also mention that I am fully aware of the key role played by your colleague Mr Turnbull, going back to 2004 and his entry into Parliament, in the banker-driven push to include Australia in a global CO2-derivatives trading market (casino).

I am especially aware of the fact that Mr Turnbull is effectively “owned” by international bankers and CO2-trading pushers, Goldman Sachs, by virtue of their “confidential settlement” on Mr Turnbull’s behalf, to keep him out of court when Opposition Leader, in the 1/2 billion dollar HIH lawsuit in which Mr Turnbull was a named defendant.  I have documented this fact on my blog as well.

This is a matter of clear conflict-of-interest / corruption of our democratic processes. One that, some day, will become widespread public knowledge. I would suggest to you that it would be very wise – for numerous reasons – for the Federal Opposition to ensure that the matter of Mr Turnbull’s highly dubious associations and obligations does indeed become widely known.

Sooner, rather than later.

I (and the rapidly growing readership of my blog and Twitter feed) look forward with considerable interest to your responses on these matters.

Sincerely,

*********

Barnabyisright.com

UPDATE:

I should mention, it is my view that the above was a complete waste of my time.

For lots of reasons.

Apart from anything else, has anyone ever seen a politician admit that they are/were wrong about a critical issue? And then, do something proactive about correcting their error?

UPDATE 2:

Mr Hunt responds (Wed 29/6, 5:42pm)-

I respect your views ******** but respectfully disagree.

A tax is a fixed price with floating volume.

That is what is being created.

After three years – five years it will then turn into a tradeable floating price and fixed volume system.

Cheers,

greg

My subsequent response to Mr Hunt (Wed 29/6, 6:42pm) –

(cc’d to Senator Barnaby Joyce … I note that Mr Hunt did not cc Senator Joyce with his response)

**********************************

Dear Mr Hunt,

Thank you for your prompt response.

You have stated that – “A tax is a fixed price with floating volume. That is what is being created.

This is a wholly unsatisfactory response to the concerns raised at length in my previous communication.

It is not a question of our holding differing views or interpretations, Mr Hunt. It is a simple question of very clear facts and evidence, which you appear to be wilfully ignoring.

Your response is misleading and deceptive by omission.

With respect, your response suggests either a culpable ignorance, or complicity, on your part.

Your statement wilfully ignores the perfectly clear statements of the CPRS White Paper, the Garnaut Review 2011, and the government’s climate change website description of the “Broad Architecture” of the proposed “mechanism” for “pricing carbon” that I have quoted and referenced for your due consideration.

It also ignores, most importantly, the key point detailed in and evidenced by the government’s sources in my previous communication.

Mr Hunt, that key point is this.

The government’s openly professed intention, and the Garnaut Review’s consistent recommendation, is to issue carbon permits at a fixed price only for a temporary initial period, with said permits having the following key characteristics, specifically in order to “smooth the transition” to the ultimately intended fully-floating cap-and-trade scheme:

(a) Unlimited expiry date;
(b) Unlimited bankability, from Scheme commencement.

The implications of these parameters – stated previously as formal Policy Positions by Prof Garnaut and the ALP – are perfectly clear:

1. A “polluter” forced to purchase the initial “fixed price” carbon permits will be empowered to “bank” said permits, “from Scheme commencement”.

2. Due to their unlimited expiration date, the “polluters” will be enabled to trade said permits, after the temporary initial period has passed.

3. The “price” of carbon permits issued during the temporary, initial “fixed price” period, will be legislated to rise incrementally over that interim period.

Thus, it is patently obvious to any thinking person, that “polluters” forced to purchase carbon permits at (eg) the Year 1 “fixed price”, having been enabled to “bank” said permits, will be able to on-sell them after the temporary initial “fixed price” period trading restriction has passed, at the then going market rate.

Furthermore, as the price of permits will have been forced to rise by government decree during the initial period, this means that, absent a collapse in the market price upon the “floating” of the Australian carbon permit market, “polluters” will be granted opportunity to profit from the sale of carbon permits that they were forced to purchase – at lower prices – during the initial temporary period!

Indeed, those “polluters” who will be granted “free” permits will effectively be granted a free profit-making opportunity, directly arising from the nature of the proposed “initial fixed price” carbon pricing mechanism.

Mr Hunt, it is specious, an insult to intelligence, and clear cause for questioning your own integrity and motives in this matter, for you to suggest that a scheme such as that proposed – one which will guarantee an enhanced profit-making opportunity for at least some so-called “polluters (as described above) – could by any logic or rational measure be deemed a “tax”!

Sadly, I am confident that there is little to be gained in my extending on this point, by defining what a “tax” actually is, by way of reference to any external authoritative source/s.

Mr Hunt, it is also both insulting, and revealing, that you have pointedly failed to address in any way the arguably far graver matter raised in my earlier communication to you, vis-a-vis the conflict-of-interest / corruption of democracy evidenced by your colleague Mr Turnbull’s associations and manifest obligations to international bankers and CO2-trading pushers, Goldman Sachs.

Therefore, I am now directly requesting your comment on that specific matter, and refer your particular attention to the publicly available evidences linked in my previous communication to you.

Once again, despite the wholly unsatisfactory (and revealing) nature of your limited response, I do thank you for at least having taken the time to respond promptly to my and my readers’ concerns.

Sincerely,

******************

Barnabyisright.com

UPDATE 3:

Mr Hunt responds again (Thur 30/6, 10:30pm) –

I respect your views but the Prime Minister herself has said that it operates like a tax.

As has the Treasurer.

Cheers,

greg

My subsequent response to Mr Hunt (Thur 30/6, 11:14pm) –

(cc’d to Senator Barnaby Joyce … I note that, once again, Mr Hunt did not cc Senator Joyce with his response)

**********************************

Dear Mr Hunt,

Thank you again for your prompt response.

It is wholly unsatisfactory – and once again, thoroughly misleading and deceptive – for you to downplay / brush off the detailed concerns that I and my readers have raised, and/or for you to ignore the numerous government-published official documents that I/we have referenced, by merely stating that “the Prime Minister herself has said that it operates like a tax. As has the Treasurer“.

The citizens of Australia all know that the PM lies. As does the Treasurer.

The issue at hand, however, is your and your colleagues’ continued complicity in doing the same on this particular issue.

I refer your attention to the specifically stated concern that was first raised with you in my prior communication – which abundantly clear from the Subject description in these communiques:

Why are you calling it a “tax”, when it is NOT?

“I firmly believe that both yourself, and the Federal Opposition more broadly, are guilty of doing the electorate a grave disservice by continuing to falsely attach the moniker “tax” to the government’s proposed scheme.”

Mr Hunt, the concern raised directly references your and your Federal Opposition colleagues’ misleading and deceptive descriptions of the proposed policy.

Whether or not the PM – or indeed any other politician, media commentator, or individual – employs the use of the same misleading and deceptive description, does not exonerate either yourself or your Federal Opposition colleagues, for your continued use of the same.

I should not need to remind you, Mr Hunt, that both you and your Federal Opposition colleagues are elected representatives of the citizens of this nation.  You are being paid via our taxes, to represent our expressed interests, and properly and thoroughly heed our concerns.

You have failed to do so. Despite now repeated specific and detailed requests.

It is my and my readers’ expressed interest and concern, that both the Federal Opposition generally, and yourself as the responsible Shadow Climate Change portfolio spokesperson particularly, should:

(1) Formally and publicly correct the misleading and deceptive description of the government’s proposed “carbon pricing” policy; and

(2) Henceforth discontinue referring to the policy as a “carbon tax“, and instead refer to the proposed policy exclusively by way of the specific description consistently published by the Federal Government in its public policy documentation, as displayed on its climatechange.gov website and in the 2011 Garnaut Review.

I am now directly asking you, Mr Hunt, on behalf of myself and my readers, whether or not you will undertake to both heed, and act upon, this specific request from your electors.

I also note that, once again, that you have pointedly failed to respond in any way to my direct and specific request for comment on the directly associated matter of your colleague Mr Turnbull’s associations and manifest obligations to international bankers and CO2-trading pushers, Goldman Sachs. I would repeat this request by direct quotation from my previous correspondence:

Mr Hunt, it is also both insulting, and revealing, that you have pointedly failed to address in any way the arguably far graver matter raised in my earlier communication to you, vis-a-vis the conflict-of-interest / corruption of democracy evidenced by your colleague Mr Turnbull’s associations and manifest obligations to international bankers and CO2-trading pushers, Goldman Sachs.

Therefore, I am now directly requesting your comment on that specific matter, and refer your particular attention to the publicly available evidences linked in my previous communication to you.

Thank you in advance, for your choice to finally and directly address – and act upon – the specifically stated and repeated substance of my and my readers’ concerns.

Sincerely,

***************

Barnabyisright.com

UPDATE 4:

Mr Hunt responds again (Thur 30/6, 12:03pm) –

Many thanks and I respect your views but think and believe that this is a tax ands in fact the country believes it.

Cheers,

greg

My subsequent response to Mr Hunt (Thur 30/6, 1:10pm) –

**********************************

Dear Mr Hunt,

Thank you once again for responding so promptly.

Your response to my and my readers’ concerns – and direct and specific requests – continues to be appalling unsatisfactory.

Indeed, in your continuing to ignore the specific points of reference and direct requests that have been made repeatedly to you, your communications to me on these matters represent a wilful dereliction of your Parliamentary responsibilities to the citizens of this nation, to whom you directly owe your position, title, income, and power of influence.

Mr Hunt, in your latest response to me you have once again ignored all of the evidences and information that have been repeatedly submitted to you, and instead resorted to argumentum ad populum

I … think and believe that this is a tax ands in fact the country believes it.

Argumentum ad populum is authoritatively recognised as being a fallacious argument. Your resorting to it as a singular response to the evidences presented to you, as direct quotations from the government-published official documentation on this issue, represents a (further) wilful act of misleading and deceptive conduct.

As you have once again failed to respond to any of the specific matters that I have references, I will now again repeat my previous requests to you below:

Item 1.

It is my and my readers’ expressed interest and concern, that both the Federal Opposition generally, and yourself as the responsible Shadow Climate Change portfolio spokesperson particularly, should:

(1) Formally and publicly correct the misleading and deceptive description of the government’s proposed “carbon pricing” policy; and

(2) Henceforth discontinue referring to the policy as a “carbon tax”, and instead refer to the proposed policy exclusively by way of the specific description consistently published by the Federal Government in its public policy documentation, as displayed on its climatechange.gov website and in the 2011 Garnaut Review.

I am now directly asking you, Mr Hunt, on behalf of myself and my readers, whether or not you will undertake to both heed, and act upon, this specific request from your electors.

Item 2.

Mr Hunt, it is also both insulting, and revealing, that you have pointedly failed to address in any way the arguably far graver matter raised in my earlier communication to you, vis-a-vis the conflict-of-interest / corruption of democracy evidenced by your colleague Mr Turnbull’s associations and manifest obligations to international bankers and CO2-trading pushers, Goldman Sachs.

Therefore, I am now directly requesting your comment on that specific matter, and refer your particular attention to the publicly available evidences linked in my previous communication to you.

In closing, I would ask you to please explain for the benefit of myself and my readers, exactly how it is that a scheme which proposes to grant a selected subset of the total population a new “property right” (a “carbon permit”) – a property right that has an initially fixed and then subsequently a tradeable monetary value – in exchange for a government-mandated surcharge / levy / fee for the acquisition of that same property right – can be plausibly deemed a “tax”.

My readers and I look forward to receiving your direct, relevant, on-topic response to each of the aforementioned matters.

Sincerely,

*********
Barnabyisright.com

UPDATE 5:

Mr Hunt responds again (Thur 30/6, 1:24pm) –

Hi ************,

I receive over 300 emails a day- really…and I have endeavoured to be both fast and respectful.

I have to say that you are the first person I have encountered who does not accept that the levying of a fixed rate figure on the production of a floating volume of emissions is not a tax.

This is the economic definition of a tax.

You do not have to accept this of course.  But I also accept that nothing I say will change your opinion and while I disagree with that I stand for your freedom to take a different view yourself.

Regards,
greg

My subsequent response to Mr Hunt (Thur 30/6, 2:13pm ) –

**********************************

Dear Mr Hunt,

I do thank you once again for your promptness in responding to my and my readers’ concerns.

Your statement of definition in your most recent communique is, once again, misleading and deceptive, by reason of its representing (1) a blatant “red herring” fallacy, and (2) a blatant “straw man” fallacy:

(1) “you are the first person I have encountered who does not accept that” –

Mr Hunt, this is a red herring fallacy. Whether I am, or am not, “the first person you have encountered who does not accept that” the government’s proposed scheme is not a “tax”, is irrelevant to the facts and evidence as have been demonstrated to you by way of reference to the government’s official documentation.

(2) “the levying of a fixed rate figure on the production of a floating volume of emissions is … the economic definition of a tax” –

Mr Hunt, your statement is factually untrue.

This is not the economic definition of a “tax”.

A “tax” is typically described as follows: “A fee charged (“levied”) by a government on a product, income, or activity… The purpose of taxation is to finance government expenditure”

Furthermore, the “definition” that you have stated is irrelevant, and constitutes a blatant “straw man” fallacy.

I have repeatedly drawn your specific attention to the definition of the government’s proposed scheme, as published on its official climatechange.gov website, and in the 2011 Garnaut Review.

The only definition that is relevant to the matter, is the government’s definition as published in its official documentation. And it is manifest that this does not in any way, shape, or form, define the proposed scheme as a “tax”.  Instead, it clearly and repeatedly identifies the proposed scheme as being an emissions trading scheme with an initial fixed price period”.

Mr Hunt, your continued obfuscation, resorting to rhetorical fallacies, and above all, your refusal to directly respond to each of the points of reference and concern, and also to the direct requests that I have repeatedly submitted to you, only further evidences that you are persisting in acting in a thoroughly misleading and deceptive manner.

This is wholly unacceptable for any law-abiding citizen in right community standing, and the more especially for an elected representative of the citizens of this nation.

So much so, that I am now considering the option of enlisting the support of the several barristers and lawyers within my blog readership and Twitter following, in the potential pursuit of legal redress against you and/or your Federal Opposition colleagues, pertaining directly to the matters I have repeatedly detailed to you.

I now repeat – again – my previous, itemised requests for your direct response and action.

Sincerely,

***************
Barnabyisright.com

UPDATE 5A:

Correction – I inadvertently neglected to cc Senator Joyce on the last two (2) of my responses above (at Updates 4 and 5). Post edited to remove references.

The “Carbon Tax” Is NOT A Tax … It Is The Bankers’ CPRS By Another Name

27 Jun

Apologies in advance for any underlying tone of anger / frustration here.

I’ve decided to post on this topic after yet again fruitlessly debating with someone – a prominent conservative public “think tank” figure who should know better – who (like most Aussies) has swallowed the line that our government is introducing a carbon dioxide “tax”.

It is not. Ok?

It is NOT a #&^%! “tax”.

It is something far more insidious than merely a simple “tax” … something that you are hoping could easily be repealed one day.

But hey, don’t take my word for it.

Here’s Julian Turecek of Cleantech Ventures, writing for MacroBusiness in May 2011 (emphasis added):

The current government has not yet give its policy a formal name. So the Opposition has obliged* and chosen one for them: a carbon tax.

Now this has got a lot of people, mainly tax advisers and accountants, barking up the wrong tree. It’s not actually a tax…

The current proposal is not a tax, but a fixed price emissions trading scheme. This is exactly the same as the CPRS, which also had a fixed price at the start.

[* Think back carefully. When Gillard announced that she would introduce a “price on carbon” after all, she and the government initially denied the Opposition’s “great big new tax” claim. But they have since allowed, and encouraged, this false meme to become entrenched into the public psyche. I believe that is because calling it a “tax” sounds more simple and less threatening, and does not so clearly highlight the banker-driven “trading” aspect if they had instead called it what it is, and always was ultimately intended to be right from the beginning … an Emissions Trading Scheme.]

Do you need something more formal and “official” than the word of an investment fund manager for “clean energy” technology?

Then read the final Garnaut Review, Chapter 5 (emphasis added):

In implementing an emissions trading scheme with a fixed-price start, there are two sets of decisions to be made: the starting price and how much the price will rise in each subsequent year; and the timing, conditions and manner of transition to emissions trading with a price that is set by market exchange.

Garnaut makes it crystal clear. It is an emissions trading scheme with a fixed price start.

Need more?

Carefully read the government’s own website on the topic (emphasis added):

Broad architecture of the carbon price mechanism

A carbon price mechanism could commence with a fixed price (through the issuance of fixed price units within an emissions trading scheme) before converting to a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme…

Now sit up and take notice.  The following is very important, if you are going to get your head around why this is NOT a tax, and why allowing it be called that in public discourse (but not in the official documents) is a very sneaky, very deceitful way of relabelling what is exactly the same policy.

Note carefully what it says under Transition Arrangements (emphasis added):

Transition Arrangements

At the end of the fixed price period, the clear intent would be that the scheme convert to a flexible price cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme. In relation to the transition to a flexible price, it would be important to design the arrangements so as to promote business certainty and a smooth transition from the fixed to flexible price.

Ross Garnaut also reiterates the importance of the initial design promoting a “smooth transition” to a fully-floating price ETS, in his final Garnaut Review:

Investors need clarity about when and the conditions under which the transition to a floating price will occur. To support a smooth transition, the necessary institutions and supporting infrastructure should be established from the beginning of the scheme. It is important to specify rules for the scheme as soon as possible, including arrangements for auctioning permits and for acceptance of offsets and international permits.

Ok.

So, how exactly do you design a scheme to promote a “smooth transition”?

By giving those initial “fixed price” permits an expiry date that is far enough away to ensure that they can be traded when the emissions trading scheme transitions to a “floating” price. In this way, the “property rights” of those forced to purchase the initial “fixed” (and rising over “3-5 years”) price permits are safeguarded (ie, thus, “business certainty”) – they can “bank” their permits and trade them later, when the transition to a floating price occurs.

Of course, an even simpler way would be to give these permits to “pollute” an unlimited expiry date.

Which is exactly what the government’s official Policy position was under the original Rudd-Garnaut CPRS White Paper.  Which the Gillard-Garnaut “carbon pricing” mechanism aims to replicate – because that is what the bankers want (emphasis added):

Policy position 8.1

Each permit will have a unique identification number and will be marked with the first year in which it can validly be surrendered (its ‘vintage’). It will not have an expiry date.

8.4.1 Banking

Banking allows permits to be saved for use in future years. With unlimited banking, permits would not have an expiry date—once issued, they could be used for compliance at any future time.

… the advantages of banking are greatest if banking is continuous. For these reasons, the Government will allow unlimited banking from Scheme commencement.

To all those who continue to parrot the party line that what our government is proposing is a “tax” … you are wrong.

You have been hoodwinked.

In calling it a “tax”, you are focussing on unimportant details of the initial “fixed price” period, and failing to see the end game. The Big Picture.

The Government’s plan has never changed.  They have always been pursuing a CPRS – an emissions trading scheme – with an initial fixed price period.

It’s the thin end of the carbon-trading global banksters’ wedge.

So if you still think it is just a “tax”, then you have just bent over, grabbed your ankles, and taken the thin end right up your @$$.

Malcolm’s Motive: His ETS Lie Unravelled

24 May

Did Malcolm Turnbull lie about the real reason for changing his mind about his decision to quit politics, barely two weeks after announcing it?

From ABC’s Sunday Profile, May 28 2010:

Mr Turnbull is my guest on Sunday Profile. Welcome to the show. I’m Monica Attard.

When he rescinded that much publicised resignation from parliament Malcolm Turnbull says it was Prime Minister Rudd’s decision to shelve the ETS (emissions trading scheme) until at least 2013 which spurred him on.

Got that?

It was Rudd’s decision to delay the ETS that spurred Malcolm to go back on his decision to quit politics.

So, when exactly did Kevin Rudd announce his decision?

From ABC News, May 4 2010:

Rudd confirms ETS delay

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says the Government’s emissions trading scheme is being delayed until 2011.

He has also cut the price of carbon from $40 to $10 for the first year of the scheme.

From Nine News, May 4, 2010:

The federal government will delay the start of its carbon pollution reduction scheme by a year and could seek deeper cuts to emissions than originally planned.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd cited the recession, a need to give certainty to business and a chance to negotiate a global agreement in December as the reasons for the decision.

This decision was a momentous decision for Australian politics.

Careers have risen and fallen as a result. More will.

Now consider.

Kevin Rudd’s big decision was kept so secret, that not even Peter Garrett, the government’s own Environmental Protection Minister, was told about it in advance.

From ABC News, June 5 2010:

Peter Garrett has admitted he was kept in the dark over the scrapping of the Federal Government’s Emissions Trading Scheme.

The Environmental Protection Minister told Sky News today he found out the scheme had been dropped when he read about it in a newspaper report.

Now, let’s review the dates of news reports concerning Malcolm Turnbull’s announcement of (1) his decision to retire, and (2) his rapid change of mind.

From the SMH, April 16 2010:

Turnbull quits politics

From the Herald Sun, April 25 2010:

Former Liberals leader Malcolm Turnbull is seriously reconsidering his decision to quit politics.

From the SMH, May 1 2010:

Former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull has made a dramatic return to politics, sparking a rethink on leadership and climate change within his party.

Hang on.

Didn’t Rudd announce the oh-so-secret decision to delay the ETS three days later, on May 4?

Even the Environment Protection Minister Peter Garrett says he didn’t know about the decision until he read about it in the newspaper on May 4.

So, how could Malcolm Turnbull possibly have known about it before April 26, in order for the Herald Sun to publish their story saying that he was “seriously reconsidering” his retirement decision?

Malcolm allegedly changed his mind sometime in April … while “overseas” … because he was “spurred on” by Rudd’s decision to delay the ETS.

A secret decision, announced on May 4th.

I think it is abundantly clear what the real reason is for Malcolm’s change of mind:

The Australian, March 13 2009

HIH score settled for Malcolm

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull looks set to emerge from his long court case over HIH Insurance with his former employer, the Goldman Sachs merchant bank, making a confidential settlement on his behalf.

Learn more about Malcolm Turnbull’s real motives here – “Compassion For Malcolm: He Just Wants His Balls Back”.

Finally, it is interesting to note that many on the left of politics admire Malcolm Turnbull as a man of integrity, precisely because of his consistent strong stand on emissions trading. Malcolm Turnbull consistently polls better with Labor/Green voters on the question of Preferred PM, than he does with conservative voters.

In the interview mentioned above, Malcolm Turnbull was questioned about Tony Abbott’s famous Kerry O’Brien interview, where it is said that he “gaffed” regarding politicians and truth-telling.

This is what Malcolm had to say about it:

MONICA ATTARD: Have you ever in an unscripted moment said something that wasn’t the entire truth?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: I believe that politicians should speak the truth all the time. Invariably there will be occasions when you make statements that are factually incorrect due to an error…

But then there’s the occasion when politicians will say things that are simply not true … That is something that I think should not happen. That’s a no-no. That’s a third rail that you shouldn’t touch.

MONICA ATTARD: And that’s not what Tony Abbott was doing though in relation to the taxation that he was being questioned upon?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: I believe politicians and everybody for that matter should aim to be accurate and truthful in what they say at all times.

Now you can be truthful and inaccurate but what you shouldn’t be doing at any time is saying things that are untrue

The Natives Are Restless

15 May

Some public comments on the carbon dioxide tax, from Port Macquarie in the heart of Rob Oakeshott’s electorate of Lyne.

Video to follow.

Feel the love, Rob.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Brandished by a very polite and proper, well-dressed, respectable-looking female senior citizen

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Not to be left out of this big group-hug:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Grey power meekly bows to the insults of politicians:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

About that scientific “consensus”.  Seems many were familiar with Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman’s wise maxim –

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

And a few other thoughts:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

UPDATE:

The Port Macquarie News photo gallery here.

Julia, Things Have Changed

27 Apr

UPDATE:

Essential Research’s latest polling confirms it.  We used to care.  But things have changed.

Via Crikey’s Poll Bludger

Seventy two per cent of voters believe “will promise to do anything to win votes” applies to Labor, up nine points since March last year, while 66% believe “divided” applies — a massive 30-point increase since last year. “Out of touch” has increased 13 points to 61%, and “moderate” has dropped 12 points to 51%. Even otherwise uncharacteristic descriptions such as “extreme” now garner significant support, up 12 points to 38%. And whereas even last year 52% of voters thought Labor had a good team of leaders, only 34% now feel that way.

For the Liberals, however, it’s all positive: a drop in the number of voters who think they’ll promise to do anything to win votes — down from 72% to 65%; a rise in “moderate” perceptions by five points to 55%; “out of touch” down to 54%, “divided” down from 66% to 49%. There was also a big improvement on “good team of leaders”, but off rather a low base, up nine points to 40%. The Liberals lead Labor on nearly every positive indicator and trail on nearly every negative indicator. Labor still has a one-point lead on “looks after the interests of working people.”

Full report here.

Barnaby Ridicules Rudd’s New ETS

29 Apr

Media Release – Senator Barnaby Joyce, 29 April 2010:

ETS – the Extra Tax on Smoking – was it?

Well, this should allay our fears about the Prime Minister’s sincerity. He’s decided after 10 months of having the plans on hold to put a new tax on, wait for it – smoking. What a stroke of genius.  I suppose it’s a carbon abatement scheme of sorts, but I don’t think this is the one he took to the election. It is, though, a good reflection of the proportional relevance of his policy delivery. He talked about an emissions trading scheme to reduce billions of tonnes of carbon, but what he gave us was the removal of a few durries, with another moralistic sermon as a bandaid on his street cred which is more than a little bruised of late.

While in November last year, Mr Rudd said that any delay on climate change action would be “political cowardice … an absolute failure of leadership … and … an absolute failure of logic”, he has now managed to gather the courage to introduce what he called today “an unpopular” move to increase the cost of cigarettes by 25%.

This may be a good move in the interest of health, but it’s not going to cure Mr Rudd’s lack of credibility. It will be called for what it is – ‘a government desperate to do anything to avoid attention because the reality is that they’ve done nothing’ story.

Mr Rudd says this is not a diversion from the ETS, so why wasn’t it announced as part of his health reform package or the budget?  He doesn’t have the conviction to get the “Great Big Tax on Everything” up through a double dissolution, but he can put a tax on the individual emissions from the smokers of Australia. Maybe a tax on cigarettes is a more authentic exposé of the depths of his political complexity and belief.

More Information- Jenny Swan 0746 251500

Rudd Destroys His Minister’s Beliefs

28 Apr

* This April 28, 2010 post has since been revised, updated, and expanded with new developments in the ongoing Turnbull saga, in the following articles –

Compassion For Malcolm – He Just Wants His Balls Back
Malcolm’s Motive: His ETS Lie Unravelled
Doing God’s Work – Turnbull An Angel Of Death Derivatives
“Turnbull Once Said To Me, ‘You Capitalise On Chaos'”
“Spread The Word – ‘Untouchable’ Turnbull Is A Goldman-plated Turd”
“Malcolm Turnbull – The Goldman-churian Candidate?”

********************

The following media release by Barnaby just goes to show that he isn’t always right.  There is plenty of evidence to strongly suggest the true reason why Malcolm Turnbull really “believed” in an emissions trading scheme.

Simply take the time to review the history of the HIH collapse.  Consider the highly questionable role that Goldman Sachs Australia – of whom Malcolm Turnbull was chairman at the time – had to play in this, the biggest corporate failure in Australian history.

Consider the subsequent $500 million lawsuit brought against the key players in the HIH collapse… including named defendant Malcolm Turnbull.

Consider that only a few years after the collapse of HIH, even as those legal proceedings were being prepared, Malcolm Turnbull’s (again, questionable) takeover from Peter King as the Liberal candidate for the seat of Wentworth gave him a ready made entrance into Parliament in 2004.  Consider his rapid elevation to the key role of … Environment Minister. Followed by the first suggestion that the Howard Government should adopt an ETS.

Consider the revelation only a short time later that then Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull was to be spared from appearing in court as a defendant in that $500 million lawsuit.  Why?

Because his former employer Goldman Sachs had made a “confidential” settlement on his behalf.

Finally, consider which massive international banking power has been behind all the great bubbles in modern history – and is again behind the global drive for a new derivatives-based trading bubble, the likes of which the world has never seen.

It hardly takes a rocket scientist to put two + two together.

Malcolm Turnbull, the former Goldman Sachs chairman, named co-defendant, and beneficiary of a “confidential” settlement by his former employer, “believed” so strongly in Australia having an emissions trading scheme for a very good reason indeed.

But I personally harbour the gravest of doubts that “saving the planet” had anything whatsoever to do with it…

Media Release – Senator Barnaby Joyce, 28 April 2010:

“My heart actually felt for Minister Wong being dragged through the public teeth pulling exercise on radio this morning explaining that the Labor Party no longer has a carbon reduction scheme of any sort,” said Senator Barnaby Joyce. “In fact, it is now apparent that the only scheme likely to get up at the next election is the Coalitions as the Labor Party does not have a CPRS policy. Mr Rudd has yet again destroyed another one of his colleagues by revealing his lack of a political soul and his mercenary ambivalence that puts polls over statesmanship.”

“How can he possibly hold any credibility when he publicly denies the fundamental tenant of his political faith so illustriously espoused at the previous election? Mr Rudd has jettisoned the ETS as one would put aside a paper plate at a picnic.”

“One can now see that at least Malcolm Turnbull, although he had a view I fervently disagreed with on the ETS, was willing to put his job on the line because he believed it was right*. Likewise, Brendan Nelson. I don’t believe Tony Abbott is going to change his view to be in favour of an ETS because the polls say so, or Ron Boswell for that matter.”

“Mr Rudd is a philosophical soldier of fortune who chameleon like uses faux earnestness as a key tool of deception. He has made Peter Garrett completely recant all his former beliefs, he has handed Combet his ceiling insulation problems in a modern version of the ‘loaded dog’, and now he is piece by piece dissembling the belief structure of Penny Wong. Why? Because the poll monster told him to do so. Mr Rudd is a political bric-a-brac shop of kitsch philosophies – overpriced, under planned and dispensed at will.”

More Information- Jenny Swan 0746 251500

UPDATE:

Post reorganised to lead with Turnbull/Goldman connection, followed by Barnaby’s media release.

UPDATE 2:

Interesting. Less than a month after announcing his intention to retire from politics, Turnbull changes his mind.

Or should that be, has it changed for him.

(There are numerous anecdotal reports that Turnbull’s “overseas” trip was for a meeting with Goldman Sachs in NY)

UPDATE 3 – 19 May 2011:

h/t Twitterer wakeup2thelies

@BarnabyisRight Thats a fantastic write up Head of CSIRO also Fmr director of Aus arm of of Rothschild 2001-03 resume http://bit.ly/mqpJx9

Hell Freezes Over

18 Mar

Media Release – Senator Barnaby Joyce, 18 March 2010:

Hell Freezes Over: Cameron / Barnaby Agree

For once, Senator Barnaby Joyce agrees with the government. In the Senate today Senator Doug Cameron said, “This government has a good record on tax”.  They have a great record if it is about increasing taxes. Barnaby Joyce says he is glad that they recognise this. The Rudd Government’s ETS is one of the biggest imposts on every aspect of life ever invented.  So it is great that the members of the Senate do recognise that they have a fine record of creating taxes. Remember this is a tax on everything that will achieve nothing. It will not change the weather patterns but it will increase the prices on everything.

Mr Rudd did give us hope that there may be some real efforts on tax reform, but the report is conspicuous by its absence. Perhaps the Henry Tax Report has become a doorstop, a coffee table book or elaborate origami, buried somewhere in Mr Swan’s office?  Without the report, how can the Federal Government expect the states to agree to any change of GST funding for their proposed health plans?

More information- Jenny Swan 0538 578 402

Joyce: Rudd On Risk

1 Mar

Media Release – Senator Barnaby Joyce, 1 March 2010

On the weekend I was flattered by Mr Rudd making a statement about myself and risk.  I heard the statement whilst driving from a major protest in Armidale about the decision to bring in beef from countries with mad cow disease, which I think is very risky and so do most Australian consumers.

Whilst driving there was blanket coverage on the radio about Mr Rudd’s insulation program, a program responsible for the deaths of four young men, a program which has burnt down approximately one hundred houses and created deaths traps in about another 1000. According to James Tinsley from the National Electrical and Communications Association  it could cost tax payers almost half a billion dollars to fix.

Yesterday I heard Mr Rudd asked about fixing the health system and he said, “We didn’t anticipate how hard it was going to be to deliver things.” Now he wants us to give him more time to do a proper job on it. Let us not forget that Mr Rudd continues to pursue the Emissions Trading Scheme. This is where he reconfigures the whole of the nation’s economy based on a colourless, odourless gas while taxing every Australian household at the power points in their rooms. This is on the belief that Minister Wong can single handedly change the temperature of the globe from her room in Canberra.

Surely Mr Rudd can see the paradox of his statements on risk and national management. I’ll have to inform Mr Rudd, that as I drive around the country I am told constantly about the parody that his government is becoming. I think the best summation of the Labor Government was given by two people, a worker in a mine talking about discussions with his union colleagues and a service station operator. The first one said we just do not understand anything Mr Rudd says and we are very concerned about our jobs and his position on the ETS. The service station operator said people just start laughing when they see Mr Rudd now.

That, Mr Rudd is the fair dinkum reality. It is like the mechanic who, asked to service your car has done nothing to it except mount up a huge bill. After a couple of years bits and pieces of the vehicle are strewn around the shed and now Mr Rudd rushes out the front to talk to you with his little note book and says, I know I’ve stuffed up but I just want you to give me a couple more years to do a proper job on this.

More Information- Jenny Swan 0746 251500

%d bloggers like this: