This article reveals the wrongs of the application of a Carbon Tax and the wrongs of the Labour Government in introducing it. This is no small issue, it is very serious stuff. The future of the Australian economy and social structure is at stake.
We may not be able to stop it, which makes a farce of our so-called democracy, but we surely shouldn’t forget where this insidious tax came from and who is responsible for it!
START with what is uncontested. First, once carbon emitters are issued permits, those permits will be property they own, so any government that abolishes them will have to pay compensation, possibly in the billions of dollars.
Second, entitlements created by statute may be found by the High Court to be property even if that is not specified in the legislation creating them. But specifying it in the legislation, as the government intends, makes that outcome, and the need to pay compensation, far more certain.
Third, a future government could not get around the need to pay compensation simply by mandating a zero carbon price. This is because that would almost certainly require rejecting the Climate Change Authority’s recommended abatement trajectory. But unless that government could convince both houses of parliament to adopt another abatement target, such a rejection triggers a default pricing mechanism. And far from reducing the carbon price, the legislated mechanism could increase it by up to 10 per cent in a single year.
Rather, the legislation creating the authority limits the number of members it can have: unlike, for example, that establishing the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission. And a government has little scope to dismiss members once they have been appointed. The new government would therefore be stuck with its predecessor’s authority.
In short, a new government would be comprehensively locked in. But that, Mark Dreyfus, the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change, assures us (The Australian, September 22), is not the legislation’s intention. Rather, its aim is merely to provide certainty.
Dreyfus does not explain why certainty should be provided here but not for water entitlements, taxi licences, fishing quotas or development approvals.
But even putting that aside, Dreyfus’s stated aim makes no sense. For the Gillard government can no more eliminate uncertainty about the future regime for climate change than King Canute could turn back the waves. Rather, that uncertainty is a fact. And its costs cannot be wished away.
Much more at ‘The Australian’ website.
This is a form of dictatorship, maybe even bordering on treason, because it shifts power over our country away from the government and even to overseas interests.