When politicians take to writing lines.....

Snapshot from Google Trends Australia for last 12 months at 9 February 2010

Click to enlarge

Blue CPRS

Red ETS

Yellow carbon tax

Green great big new tax

The phrase "great big new tax" is being used frequently by Coalition politicians and the media but doesn't appear to be cutting through on the Internet.
Google only lists it occurring 206,000 times world-wide and Google Trends has it running a very poor last in search terms across Australia over the last twelve months.

Australian Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott is particularly fond of the phrase, but is it his own?

How about a great big new tax, to keep Earth cool, and government absolutely swimming in cash to spread around?

The highlighted phrasing sound familiar?

No, it's not Mr. Abbott speaking in parliament, talking with the media or posting on his website (where he remains strangely coy about using those exact words).
This quote comes from a post discussing U.S.cap and trade on an anti-climate change blog in April 2009 at a time when Abbott was more concerned with participating in Pollie Pedal for charity and discussing the appropriateness of the earlier national apology to the Stolen Generation.

Seems that Tony might have borrowed the phrase.
Anyone else come across an earlier use of great big new tax?

The news just keeps getting worse for Senator Conroy

First it was the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking out against the evils of Internet censorship in January and now it seems the U.S. courts are expressing a view on censorship by government.

From Australia Uncensored in Stephen Conroy swims against the tide:

"When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought." (U.S. Supreme Court on 21.01.2010)

I am confused about Federal Opposition policies

I am confused about the federal opposition policies and I hope someone, anyone can clarify them for me.

Mr Abbott is talking about being tough on boat people. It is as if one day the future refugee wakes up and thinks : “I am going to put my life into the hands of people smugglers where I'll be at their tender mercy to be ripped off, crowded onto unseaworthy boats, packed into airless shipping containers and have a very high chance of dying and for this privilege my parents are going to sell close to everything they own so I can have my great adventure.”

I know what I would say to any of my kids who suggested this to me.

If parents are willing to do this it makes me think these people are fleeing a very bad situation; no-one in their right mind would do this for fun. No parent worth their salt is going to place a child in danger.

If the indigenous population had been tough on boat people back in 1788 and employed the Opposition's policy, where would we be today?

Then I hear from Mr Barnaby Joyce that he would cut the amount of overseas aid Australia provides.
This is stupid in my mind, I would much rather money was spent overseas to help those countries that have a high refugee outpouring to fix their own problems at home.
Then perhaps their populations will not have to flee their countries and travel to mine.

Federal Election 2010: only women iron

A chapeau flourish to Malcolm Farnsworth at AustralianPolitics for uploading and Possum at Pollytics for spreading around this audio example of Tony Abbott's unrepentant chauvinism, which I cheerfully dedicate to all those Northern Rivers female free spirits who never iron!

Download Patriarchal Tony here.

Free Rice: improve your vocabulary and feed the world

The World Food Programme is possibly the largest humanitarian agency fighting hunger world-wide.

Free Rice is a not-for-profit website run by this organisation at which you can play a game aimed at improving your vocabulary while accruing rice grain points which will increase the amount of food being given out to hungry people.

Start putting rice in a child's bowl here.

Current private sector donors to Free Rice and the World Food Programme.

Greg Hunt's rubbery CPRS figures presented to Parliament

The Opposition's Greg Hunt spoke to the Rudd Government's third reading of the CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME BILL 2010 on Thursday 4 February 2010:

The ABS lists 8.7 million Australian families.

You need to multiply 8.7 million by $1,100.

Multiplying 8.7 million by $1,000 gives $8.7 billion.

You then add another $900 million, let us call it, and

that gives you $9.6 billion. We are still $2 billion short

of making up Mr Rudd's tax. We are assuming that that

component will be met off the bottom line of business,

but if business passes that through it will be more than

$1,100 per family. So remember this: it is the 8.7 million

Australian families who are the ones that have to

make up the $11½ billion. We are giving Mr Rudd the

benefit of the doubt. We are saying that they will only

have to make up $9.6 billion and that business will cop

the other $2 billion and not pass the costs through for

that, but it is likely that it will be higher than $1,100

per family.

If anyone is wondering where Mr. Hunt found his $1,100 figure:

Where do we get the $1100 figure from? It is not
just us. Whether it was the Daily Telegraph in November
on the splash front page '$1100 per family the cost
of Mr Rudd's ETS', whether it was the work of the
Brotherhood of St Lawrence...

Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott apparently pulled the same number out of the air or from a Google News search (depending on who you believe) after The Daily Telegraph article was published and specifically applied it to middle income families. A fact which Hunt studiously ignores.

If Greg Hunt goes to a newspaper for some of his figures, where did he go to get his $11.5 billion great big tax and is it a per annum number?
We know that this figure is the estimated revenue from the proposed auction of CPRS carbon permits over two years because the Senate Economics Committee told us so in April 2009 and we also know from Frontier Economics that this original estimate is expected to fall under the revised CPRS currently before Parliament, but Hunt appears to be sticking with the original and now out-of-date projections which he insists on calling a tax on families, pensioners and small business.

Of course with this $11.5 billion being spread over two years that would mean that the spurious dollar amount Hunt is implying is an annual figure would have to be cut in half - that's $550 per family each year for the first two years of the emissions trading scheme.

Hunt is also being a trifle elastic when it comes to population numbers and needs to explain why he is distributing this 'tax' across 8.7 million so-called 'families' when he perhaps should be saying 'households'.
The $1,100 reverts to a per household basis in Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham's media release, so Greg Hunt cannot plead ignorance of what his 8.7 million represents.

Perhaps he thinks telling Parliament that it's all about Australian families reads better in Hansard and, after all the suspect $1,100 he is quoting appears to actually apply to middle-income families anyway according to other members of the Liberal Party.

And the $900 million or the Brotherhood of St Laurence and KPMG?
Well Hunt never explains where he drew that $900 million figure from.
While BSL-KPMG documents don't appear to mention the $1,100 per household but placed the additional costs at:

$494 per year additional expenditure for very low income (below $500 week gross income), high energy using households; and $478.40 for low-income (below $1000 per week gross income), high energy using households.

One rather suspects that Messrs. Hunt and Abbott have carefully included in their totals those projected cost of living price rises which are independant of any emissiosn trading scheme.

Rising to one's feet in the House of Representatives and knowingly building a dollar pyramid based on shifting sand is seen by simple folk as lying to Parliament.
Something Greg Hunt should remember before he goes any further.
Tony Abbott will of course totally ignore any parliamentary rules or conventions if it suits his immediate purpose.

ACMA snaphot of the Australian Internetz

Click on images to enlarge

ACMA Communications Report 2008—09 - released 12 January 2010

Key Indicators

Nats Luke Hartsuyker gets sprung or the local butcher gets an unfair hearing?

Sometimes comic relief is all there is in Question Time and the Nationals MP for Cowper shovels in on with a predictable response from the other side.
The question voters are left with - is the butcher an honest catalyst in this exchange?
I sorta think his use of the term "great big new tax" hints at a a more thhan passing acquaintance with the Coffs Harbour Nats.

Mr HARTSUYKER (2.40 pm)—My question is to the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy. I ask this question on behalf of Mr Russell Greenwood of Russell's Prime Quality Meats of Coffs Harbour, who said today:

My electricity bill has jumped from $5,600 per quarter to $7,400 per quarter in less than 12 months. A further electricity price increase as a result of Kevin Rudd's great big new tax will cause me to shed staff and drive up the cost of meat.

Further increases in the cost of electricity will cause extreme financial difficulty for my business.

Given that Mr Greenwood will receive no compensation for his business costs under the government's emission trading scheme, how does the minister expect him to keep his business afloat in these times of rising costs?

Mr Albanese interjecting—

The SPEAKER—Order! Before giving the call to the Leader of the House, he will withdraw his remarks.

Mr Albanese—I withdraw. Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask that the member table the letter from which he was quoting.

Mr Hockey interjecting—

The SPEAKER—There is no provision for that. As I have said before, the past practice of people who have occupied the chair has been to take it on trust that a member, in quoting from a document or a case where they have actually identified a person, will substantiate that by their own word.

Dr EMERSON—Some mothers do 'ave 'em! For the member for Cowper to suggest that electricity prices have gone up in the last 12 months as a consequence of the CPRS is patently absurd. I am not suggesting—

Mr Pyne interjecting—

The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Sturt will withdraw his remarks and he should dampen his enthusiasm.

Mr Pyne—I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Mr Hartsuyker—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it would assist the House if I were to repeat the question, because the minister clearly was not listening.

The SPEAKER—No. The member for Cowper has asked his question.

Mr Hartsuyker—I think it would help. Just the last paragraph?

The SPEAKER—The member for Cowper has asked his question.

Dr EMERSON—I am not suggesting that the small business man in question has claimed that electricity prices have gone up over the last year as a consequence of the CPRS, but that is what the member for Cowper said. As we know, the author of the question is the Manager of Opposition Business, because he repeated the question. We are quite happy for you to ask the question again.

Mr Hartsuyker—Mr Speaker, it is essential that I read the question again, because he is misrepresenting the question.

The SPEAKER—I do not think it is essential.

Opposition members interjecting—

The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Cowper will resume his seat. If the member for Cowper feels aggrieved by comments that the minister has made in this response, there are other forums of the House which he can use. I am not dealing with making question time a debating session.

Mr Hockey interjecting—

The SPEAKER—The member for North Sydney, who seems to be bemused or amused by my comments, knows that I have a view that has not been adopted by the House in any changes to standing orders, but it would assist if the standing orders that apply to the questions applied to the answers. They do not, and the practice of the House has been that there are different interpretations of what is allowed. The minister is in order.

Dr EMERSON—I will wind up my remarks by saying that this is the most absurd question I have ever heard in this chamber. That the member for Cowper would read out a question written by the member for Sturt, the Manager of Opposition Business in the House, asserting that increases in electricity prices over the last year have been caused by the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is absurd. It is an absurd question. The member for Cowper has embarrassed himself and he should think twice about asking stupid questions in the parliament

CPRS Bills 2010: Turnbull trumps Abbott in climate change debate (transcript)

Malcolm Turnbull speaking today in Parliament on anthropomorphic global warming and an emissions trading scheme, in direct opposition to his leader's new policy position:

The White Paper estimates the CPRS will result in a one off increase in the CPI by 1.1% – compared to the 2.8% one-off increase in the CPI caused by the introduction of the GST. Most households are compensated for this increase in costs either in whole or in part.

I should note that the largest component of increases in electricity prices in NSW over the next five years is, in fact, additional network charges to recognise the increased investment in the security and reliability of electricity infrastructure. Those increases, unlike the CPRS element, are not the subject of any compensation.

But given we have an apparent bi-partisan agreement that emissions should be reduced by 5% of 2000 levels, is an Emissions Trading Scheme, at a general level, the best policy to achieve the desired reduction in emissions?

Believing as I do, as a liberal, that market forces deliver the lowest-cost and most effective solution to economic challenges, the answer must be yes.

Because more emissions intensive industries and generators need to buy more permits than less intensive ones, lower emission activities, whether they are cleaner fuels or energy efficient buildings, are made more competitive.

A brown coal fired power station, for example, pumps out four times as much CO2 as an efficient gas fired one. But gas is expensive and clean and brown coal is cheap and dirty.

If there is no cost charged for emitting carbon there is simply no incentive to move to the cleaner fuel.

Until 1 December last year there was a bi-partisan commitment in Australia that this carbon price, this exercise in reducing emissions should be imposed by means of an emissions trading scheme.

At their core these bills are as much the work of John Howard as of Kevin Rudd. The policy I am supporting today as an Opposition backbencher is the same policy I supported as John Howard’s Environment Minister.

And why did we, in the Howard Government, believe an emissions trading scheme was the best approach?

It was because we, as Liberals, believed in the superior efficiency of the free market to set a price on carbon......

The ETS allows Australian businesses to make their own decisions as to how to reduce their emissions – Government sets the rules and in part sets the cap on total emission and then lets the market work out the most efficient and effective result.

Schemes where bureaucrats and politicians pick technologies and winners, doling out billions of taxpayers’ dollars is neither good policy is neither economically efficient and nor will it be environmentally effective.

For these reasons, Mr Speaker, I will be voting in favour of these Bills.

Rather cleverly Turnbull has released his full speech here ahead of the Hansard transcript.

Shafting Abbott in this way must have given him much pleasure, with the added advantage that he appears steadfast in his views when compared to Abbott's recent volte face.

A little aromatic? No, Tony - you said cr@p and you meant cr@p

ABC TV The Insiders Sunday 7th February 2010:

"BARRIE CASSIDY: You see the credibility problem for you is that you're a conviction politician. You call it as you see it. And yet you seem to be slightly half hearted about it. And then of course you have to live with the comment that you made, that you think climate change is crap.

TONY ABBOTT: I think what I actually said was that the so-called settled science was a little aromatic. Now you don't have to accept the totality of the science to still think that there is a reasonable argument for taking sensible precautions against possible risk and that's what we're doing."

A little aromatic? No, Tony - you said "absolute cr@p" and you meant "absolute cr@p".

Your blunt opinion was very well documented, you didn't deny the words when directly questioned in December 2009 and trying to fib now only shines a spotlight on your slippery political nature.

Now I know you have all but admitted that when you said that the science around climate change was "absolute cr@p" you were fronting what you thought was a hostile Liberal Party audience in Beaufort Victoria, but (unless you always tell people what they want to hear to save yourself a lynching) you were actually voicing your own opinion.

In fact the Pyrenees Advocate editor who attended that party function got the distinct impression that you were quite serious and reported; "In a wide ranging speech, Mr Abbott talked about climate change, the Liberal political fortunes and Kevin Rudd. Quote - the argument on climate change is absolute crap," he said."

The editor was interviewed by ABC Melbourne's Steve Martin and it's online for posterity here.

Of course this "cr@p" attitude to global warming means that you were telling the biggest of political lies when you told Kerry O'Brien on the 7.30 Report last October:

"Well, there may be one or two, but I think if the Government substantially accepts our amendments, that will make Malcolm, in effect, the co-author of this ETS. I think that would be a good position. It would be a rare ... it would be a great win for an Opposition. Let's face it, it's quite unusual for Oppositions to effectively be co-authors of major legislation, and if they were to accept our amendments, if they were to accept that their bill was, in important respects, very gravely flawed, I think that would be a good deal for the country, and obviously a political win for the Opposition."
I think we can all recognise the lie because as I write you are in the House of Reps getting ready to vote down the Rudd Government Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme amended bills for the second time.

Download the audio file of Pyrenees Advocate interview.