Greens/Labor split on compensation

Enjoy the show!

It was always inevitable that when the details of the carbon tax are finally hammered out, Julia Gillard would find herself torn between keeping her working class core electorate happy by helping businesses offset the cost of the tax, and appeasing the Greens with their urban band of latte-sipping trendies, desperate to punish humanity for sins against the planet. The popcorn moment comes ever closer:

DIVISIONS between Labor and the Greens on industry assistance levels in the carbon pricing plan have deepened.

Greens leader Bob Brown yesterday declared he would not accept “gifts” to big polluters and his deputy Christine Milne directly contradicted Climate Change Minister Greg Combet as the party toughened its position on compensation to emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries.

Mr Combet said Professor Garnaut “also endorsed the emissions-intensive trade-exposed assistance style of package that the government formulated under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in the last parliament”.

But speaking before the government’s multi-party climate change committee met yesterday, Senator Brown said the Greens wanted a “principled” approach to compensation from the start, arguing “you either compensate people on the basis of information which is reliable, or you make them a gift”.

After the MPCCC meeting Senator Milne emerged and directly disagreed with Mr Combet’s assertion that Professor Garnaut had endorsed the Rudd package on assistance to emissions intensive trade exposed industries.

“No that isn’t how I read it,” she said. “Professor Garnaut has made it clear that he supports a principled approach.”

The harder line from the Greens came in the same week as Julia Gillard moved to distance herself from the minor party, declaring that only Labor could deliver a decision to price carbon and describing the Greens as being at the “extremes” of Australian politics. (source)

At least Gillard’s right on that point.


  1. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Well, Gillard did just not think this one through did she? She probably thought she was being cleverly Machiavellian in renouncing her lie to get green support. Thing is, Bob Brown has nothing to lose by playing hardball. Gillard is caught in her own naive scheming:

    She hangs tough on the CO2 tax on everything, and becomes the plaything Bob Brown and the Indies, or she renounces what was obviously a stupid choice and her government falls and she is no longer PM. Let me repeat, Bob Brown has nothing to lose by bringing this government down and forcing another election.

    From this distance, I can enjoy the irony of all this. Unfortunately, you Aussies have to live with this insanity until another election comes. If I were Abbot, I’d be working on the Indies.

    And another thing! SO, this tax on energy, because that is what it is, is designed to reduce energy use by taking away people’s ability to pay for it; but then, in the same outbreath, the politicians promise to give all that money back again. What will that money be used for? To consume more energy, of course.

    Now, the greens want to impoverish the world, and energy use will drop. The leftists see this energy tax as an opportunity to redistribute the wealth; government control of everything, the socialist dream.

    Beware Watermelons, for they are very stupid and dangerous – like an angered grizzly bear.

  2. What a joke! If it wasn’t such a serious issue it would be laughable.

    ‘The Greens’ – the new Communist Party for the 21st Century.

  3. rukidding says:

    Could someone give me an example of a non trade exposed industry in Australia.Besides Politicians and Lawyers.:-)

    • Yeah – the army of bureaucrats that will administer all the new rules and manage the slush fund handouts.

%d bloggers like this: