Coalition will force double dissolution on carbon tax

Greg Hunt

As we would expect, the Coalition will not allow the undemocratic “poison pill” tactics of Labor to stand in the way of its right to repeal the carbon tax legislation if (when) in government:

THE Coalition will go to a double dissolution election if it wins government and Labor baulks at repealing the carbon tax and its associated compensation, opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt says.

But Mr Hunt has declared he expects Labor to eventually support the Coalition’s push to unravel the Gillard government’s climate change policy, if it loses the next federal poll.

Speaking on Sky News’s Australian Agenda yesterday, Mr Hunt said doing otherwise would be “an act of almost breathtaking democratic arrogance”. Indicating the opposition had been busy behind the scenes building its election policy platform, Mr Hunt said he had been up till 5am one night last week trawling through previous years’ budget papers for viable savings.

The Coalition has confirmed it is looking for savings of about $70 billion to fund its policies.

“We are preparing for an election at any possible time, so we are ready to go in case the instability in government translates to an election,” he said.

“If there is more time, we can do more work. But we are ready for an election because we believe this government is unstable.” (source)

Comments

  1. Pete Whittaker via Facebook says:

    This government was unstable from the moment the PM Rudd opened his smarmy, sleazy mouth.

  2. Knowing that the Libs will do this would mean that anyone stupid enough to invest in carbon credits, only has themselves to blame !

  3. Bill Robbins says:

    Entrenched legislation hmmm they could try a referendum might be cheaper.

  4. Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott’s vote for the carbon dioxide tax are essential for it to pass. Both are happy to agree on consensus when it comes to the science however when it comes to their own electorates they’re not interested in consensus.

    Asked if they want a carbon tax, 90 per cent of survey respondents in New England are against it, with 3838 saying “no” and just 441 “yes”. In Oakeshott’s electorate of Lyne, the percentage was 88 per cent against – 3004 to 413.

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      Amongst pinko’s, consensus is only applicable or relevant if it’s amongst “scientists” Baldrick.

      The people are far too dumb to think for themselves, and any “consensus” they form should be ignored…

      • Histroically, when communists talk of peace, they usually talk of a “permenant peace” for all those people who disagree with them.
        Think Stalin, Pol Pot et al.

        History is a real bugger for those who’d rather we didnt drag up all the bad ol days they are so desperately trying to push aps the climate brainwashed Gen Ys….

  5. gyptis444 says:

    It is patently clear that Gillard’s gang has no intention of listening meaningfully to the electorate. When will democracy return to Australia?

  6. if they win( Coalition ) they will impose a similar policy/agenda to a carbon tax. Again wake up people you are being played

    • That’s as may be Grant but the one thing the Australian people will demand before the next election is that ALL sides of politics spell out their respective policies relating to major social, economic or environmental reforms in plain English.
      The Australian electorate will no longer so easily forgive false promises by lying politicians.

    • Spot on, Grant!!! Greg Hunt is on front-bench for ”climate change”. Him and Chris Payne are senator Brown’s laptops in the liberal party. They are doing now damages, same as Turnbull was doing to Howard. Climate never stopped changing for one day in 4 billion years; now Greg is going to stop it…?!

  7. It is quite extraordinary that this shaky minority government has lasted so long. Few governments have gone this long without having had to have a by-election, usually through natural causes.

    The nerves of so many Labor members who will definitely lose their seats have to be at breaking point. They would do well to think of their own health for the stress and liklihood of a heart attack just aren’t worth keeping any government in power.

    • Betty Whiffin says:

      Quite agree Malcolm. It would certainly pay an MP to cross the floor on the carbon tax legislation. Otherwise they know that it would be likely that they would lose their Seat in Parliament, especially in a Seat such as Lyne, New England and elsewhere where the large majority of their constituents are not in favor of a carbon tax. And with MP salaries being proposed to increase, it would be foolish not to think of their electorates’ wishes.

  8. Betty Whiffin says:

    Greg Hunt spoke with authority and very sensibly. What is this carbon tax for? I have travelled to Norway, Greenland, Iceland, over the Arctic Circle from Anchorage several times, and there are no sign of melting ice or “no more snowfalls” (Flannery). It seems that taxpayers will be paying 10% of the tax to the UN as well as the money for carbon credits. As an example companies are forcing citizens out of part of Uganda as they intend to reforest the land to obtain taxpayer funded carbon credits. In one way these carbon credits are a form of foreign aid, but only going to companies, not to the poor of this world. Flannery, Rudd and it seems Cate Blanchett are all buying homes right on the seaside in spite of the scare campaign that seas will rise dramatically.!! Seas have always risen and fallen and when it is quoted that overseas villages will be swamped by rising seas history tells us that this has happened many times before. Seas rising and then receding. For Julia Gillard to say that “we now believe that climate change is real”, proves that she is a sceptic of the fact that climate change has been real from the birth of the planet. She needs to read the history of a changing climate and how citizens ADAPTED to it, — and not by taxing their citizens. This tax will do nothing to the climate changing but will only be more taxpayer funded money going to bureaucrats to operate it and the wealthy will become more wealthy while the poor will remain poor. When the price per tonne goes up, compensation will be so expensive that the government will cease paying it.

    • Thats because climate change is just extreme left wing social engineering and agitprop ….

      AGW = Politics
      AGW = Social Engineering
      AGW = forced redistribution of wealth
      AGW = Communism is a green wrapper

  9. Not only will a double dissolution election ditch the carbon tax, but it will clear most of them greens out of the senate! Win, win!

  10. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    We don’t need promises from the Coalition for a double dissolution. We need something much simpler.

    We need the Coalition to acknowledge that the IPCC has never provided any scientific evidence that CO2 emissions from human activity is causing catastrophic man-made global warming. That is a fact.

    We need the Coalition to recognize that the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report says 97% of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere each year is from natural sources and 3% is from human activity… 3% being statistically insignificant.

    We need the Coalition to recognize that Australia’s annual CO2 emissions is just 1.5% of the world’s total annual CO2 emissions. Which makes Australia’s CO2 emissions statistically irrelevant (1.5% of the 3%).

    Once the Coalition can recognize this vital fact, we need the Coalition to then acknowledge that there is actually no logical need for any action to reduce Australia’s statistically irrelevant CO2 emissions.

    As a professional accountant, I can guarantee that once any major tax is introduced, the chances of any future government repealing such a tax is zero!

    • Betty Whiffin says:

      I totally agree Mervyn. The Coalition should take a stance on the true facts as you have sensibly stated and “acknowledge that there is no logical need for action to reduce Australia’s statistically irrelevant CO2 emission.” Most of the world have not gone down the path of a carbon tax and some of those with an ETS are winding it back. Nothing that humans can do will “save the planet”. The ancient civilizations went through warming and cooling and vice-versa and they sensibly harvested water to water the land in the dry. The Moche people in 600 AD had a mega La Nina followed by a mega El Nino (BBC documentary) and they coped in this way. Aqueducts, canals and dams were built centuries ago to store water. In any case it is reported that the sun is going quiet and that could enter in a “maunder” (cooling) effect and all this waste of money on the furphy of global warming and human induced CO2 emissions which has already been spent, will be further wasted.

      • Yes and no. IO agree withthe cooling. The main push of AGW is clamping down on what the extreme greenies see as humans being parasites on the planet.

        AGW is a way of putting a large shackle around the neck of every human and implementing the UN Agenda 21 , which seeks to basically tag and bag every human into high density slums and lock us out of over 50% of the plantes surface in a process called “Rewilding”. Do a search on rewilding and Agenda 21 – its truly disturbing reading…..why do you think they want us to build up not out?

  11. Betty Whiffin says:

    Agenda 21 certainly is disturbing reading. I have purchased a DVD called “The Lost World of Communism” which tells of what it is like under communism rule. It mainly features the Berlin Wall, Romania and Czechoslovakia which is now divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Vaclav Klaus who spoke in Sydney recently re the carbon tax scam was one of the instigators of the break away Czech Republic and he knows what it was like living under a communist country. It was a hard fought battle. Looked up “rewilding” and it certainly scares one. Australians need to wake up to what is going on in this country.

%d bloggers like this: