Credlin: It was never a carbon "tax". We just pretended it was for political gain.

[Power Raid]

First, I agree with you that when Julia Gillard, our last great PM, stated "There will no carbon tax under the Government I lead" she was ruling out as a policy taken to the election having a price on carbon in the form that the carbon-pricing legislation ultimately took. And although the carbon pricing mechanism was not a tax on carbon in the strictest sense it was not unreasonable to call it, based on its effect, a "carbon tax".

In the same breath she also made clear she "would be leading our national debate to put a cap on carbon pollution."

As it happened, in fulfilling the policy commitment to lead the national debate, the multi-party Parliamentary committee she caused to be set up and to which all Parliamentary parties were invited recommended pricing carbon initially with a transition to an emissions trading scheme, which had long been known to be the preferred ALP option.

Also, as it happened, the voters in their infinite wisdom did not return a majority ALP government. Gillard was faced with a political choice. Either she honoured the commitment to lead the national debate to put a cap on carbon pollution by accepting the compromise scheme imposed by the Greens and Indies OR she did nothing and "honoured" a commitment that the Government she led would not put in place what was in effect a carbon tax.

But the commitment that the Government she led would not put in place what was in effect a carbon tax was necessarily premised on her leading a Government that could govern in its own right. Regrettably, the voters in their infinite wisdom did not empower her to that extent. Given the limited power she had it is clear that legislating the multiparty compromise was the most honest, ethical, committed and courageous choice she could have made.

And ning nongs like you call her "Juliar" for it. About as clever as me calling out Malcolm Turnbullshitter for his 2009 claims re climate change, taken from Mike Seccombe's recent article: https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au...turnbulls-switch-power-sources/14873364004242

Human-induced climate change, he said back then, was the “ultimate long-term problem” for Australia and the world. Inaction would have “catastrophic” consequences.

“We have to make decisions today, bear costs today,” he said, “so that adverse consequences are avoided, dangerous consequences, many decades into the future.”

He did not resile from the fact that the major cost would be a substantial increase in the price of electricity.

Australia could not wait for the world to act, he said. It had to lead.

“How,” he asked, “can we credibly expect China, with per capita emissions less than a quarter of ours, or India with per capita emissions less than one-tenth of ours, to take our call for global action seriously if we, a wealthy, developed, nation, are not prepared to take action ourselves?”

And the best mechanism for combating climate change, Turnbull said forcefully, was a market-based emissions trading scheme such as Labor was proposing.

He explained: “An ETS works by setting a limit, a cap, on the amount of CO2 which the total covered industry sectors can emit. These industries are required to acquire permits to emit CO2 within the overall cap.

“Note: the government does not set the price of carbon; it sets the cap on emissions and the rules of the scheme, and then it is up to the market, the laws of supply and demand, to set the price.”

Turnbull dismissed an alternative proposal – having the government pay polluters to reduce their emissions – as “a slippery slope which can only result in higher taxes and more costly and less effective abatement of emissions”.

what definition of a tax would you use?

would you not accept the treasuries definition?

 

[Windhover]

what definition of a tax would you use?

would you not accept the treasuries definition?

I don't give a stuff about the semantic argument. Nor should anyone. That's my point.