WA Potato Marketing Corporation bites the dust

Cartoon: By R May 

It looks like Western Australia is sliding off into anarchy with the removal of another regulator.  The Potato Marketing Corporation appears to be heading towards the chopping block on the recommendation of the Economic Regulation Authority (ERA) apparently at the behest of the Labor opposition.

Fears of rogue potato growers doing whatever they want and street vendors selling illicit potato products to unwary addicts in dark alleys have been dismissed: 

Arguably an anachronism in today's capitalist world, WA's Potato Marketing Act of 1946 - and its subsequent regulator, the Potato Marketing Corporation of WA - trace their history back to the shortages of the Great Depression and post-war food security. 

The corporation not only controls what potato varieties can be grown and sold, but who grows them and how much they are paid. 

It has the power to search premises, confiscate equipment and crops, and prosecute farmers - as rebel southwest potato grower Tony Galati has found over the years after being threatened with legal action for overplanting and trying to sell excess spuds cheaply. … 

… ''The Potato Marketing Corporation and Western Australia's absurd laws have stifled competition and denied choice to growers and consumers,'' Mr McGowan said.  ''No other Australian state has a body that decides what varieties of potatoes can be grown, who can grow them and at what price they can be sold. 

''It should be left to the growers to decide if they will grow a particular variety of potato.''Mr McGowan said the restrictive laws were responsible for some of Australia's highest potato prices and, of the 66 commercial varieties grown around the nation; only 13 were permitted in WA. 

''It would be comical if it wasn't so damaging to WA's economy and consumer and grower choice,'' he said. ...

Marketing authorities and regulations became popular after World War 2, possibly as a reaction to the demise of wartime rationing, fears of a free market renaissance, and a need to find spots for all of those bureaucrats likely to be left with nothing to interfere with.

Both Labor and the Liberal and Country Party, (now National Party or LNP) were very keen on the idea; the difference being that while Labor aimed to control production, distribution, and marketing of products, the conservatives chose to regulate it.  There was little difference in the result.

During the 60s, and 70s, the most heinous crimes you could commit in Queensland on the basis of penalties, were breaches of national Party orderly marketing regulations. 

Newman government backtracks

"In retrospect it becomes clear that hindsight is definitely overrated!" Alfred E. Neuman. (No relation to Campbell)

Cartoon: By R May

In the wake of their second crushing by-election defeat, the Newman government has decided to reverse some of its more controversial, or at least idiotic decisions made in the last couple of years.

It’s sometimes said that the first step to recovery is to admit that you have a problem.  The government seems to be doing this, which is something we should give them credit for.

Their task is made more difficult though, in that they apparently have little idea what the problem really is: 

Mr Newman left the door open to wind back other controversial decisions. …

… “They want us to have a good relationship with the judiciary, they want those sort of arguments to cease and desist and they want the focus of everyone to working for Queenslanders.” 

The Courier-Mail had earlier revealed Cabinet would today discuss scrapping several of the most contentious elements of reforms to Queensland’s corruption watchdog and tough anti-bikie legislation. 

The Queensland Premier spent yesterday briefing senior LNP MPs on his plans after the Government suffered a massive 18.6 per cent swing against it in Stafford. 

It is understood the Government will reintroduce a bipartisan appointments process for the chair of the newly named Crime and Corruption Commission. 

The controversial decision by Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie to remove the bipartisan parliamentary committee’s role in appointments was heavily condemned by former corruption inquiry head Tony Fitzgerald in one of his numerous salvos at the Newman Government. 

Cabinet will also discuss removing some of the harshest aspects of the criminal motorcycle gang legislation that Mr Newman has repeatedly insisted he does not like but were an important weapon in the war against rebel bikies. 

It is also understood Cabinet members have been assured there will be no reshuffle and each will fight on to the election and be tasked with better selling the Government’s achievements. 

A senior Government source last night said Mr Newman had briefed colleagues that the Stafford result showed the Government’s pace and extent of reform had worried Queenslanders and they must now act. …

The problem with the biker laws is not pink jumpsuits, nor isolation of these prisoners as the LNP seems to believe.  The entire act is draconian, from its aim of outlawing the act of associating through to huge penalties for being, or having been a member of an organization since declared criminal.  There were already sufficient laws to do with all aspects of criminality among these groups; making these laws unnecessary.

The idea of 15 – 25 year mandatory prison sentences for being, or having once been, a member of a currently declared organization is an anathema to fair minded Australians, and have no place in a free society.

Asset sales are going to have to be done and should be.  In a modern nation state there is really no reason for the government to run commercial enterprises.  On budgetary issues they have been respectable, although they have not yet produced a surplus.

Since taking office just over two years ago, the Queensland government has been something of a showpiece in how not to do it.  A massive majority seemed to convince the LNP that it was immortal and could act in any way it pleased, and it did.

The massive loss in the Redcliffe by-election earlier this year taught it nothing other than to pay lip service with “We’re listening.”

There is probably little likelihood of a Labor win in next year’s election; that would require a stunning turn-around in a state still suffering from buyer’s remorse from the Labor years. 

The real danger though, is where protest votes from the sizable chunk of voters who find the LNP no better will go. 

Palmer United is the elephant in the room here.  Well funded, widely publicized, under scrutinized, and led by a populist with a pathological hatred of Newman, it’s potential to hold the balance of power and render the state government unworkable should not be underestimated.

It is difficult to understand why a government that is not travelling well in the polls and by-elections would rule out a ministerial reshuffle. 

Newman needs to reconsider this, given that the issues he wants to change are all the products of one minister, Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie. 

Bleijie had two years since his law degree in a provincial law firm doing ‘commercial law’, (read conveyencing work) when he was elected to state parliament.  With the training wheels barely off his work practice, he was made Shadow Attorney General.  It is hardly surprising that this guy’s screw-ups have overshadowed anything that the government has actually done.

Newman really needs to tramp him.

Since when was driving a privilege???

Nothing any good ever came out of Victoria – Old Queensland adage

Victoria seems to be offering stiff competition for other nanny-state regimes with their latest stupidity.  Magistrates will now have the power to take away your drivers license for being drunk while walking home after a night at the pub.  It is not explained why being on foot has anything to do with driving but hey, with slogans like, ‘if one life can be saved,’ its said, it will all be worthwhile.

Effectively, this means that if you are out at the pub, get a bit pissed, and are a bit worried about how to get home a few blocks away; if you think you can still keep the car on a straight line, you might be better to take the risk on driving rather than leave it in the car park and walk.  You will be visible for longer on foot, and there is no difference in the penalty.

The government tells  the public that driving is a privilege, not a right and the editorial comes up with the same words: 

… The provisions broaden a judicial officer’s ability to suspend, cancel or disqualify an offender’s licence or learner permit for any matter, regardless of whether driving is an element of the offence. 

For anyone to lose a licence for public drunkenness would be an extreme use of the new power. Offenders can lose their licences for road rage and magistrates have wide powers to impose conditions on them.

“From today, offenders can lose their driver’s licence for road rage offences or for any other offence where the court considers doing so will better protect the community or send a clear message to the offender,” Mr Clark says. … 

…  “Where a court considers the best way to pull an offender into line is by taking away their licence, it will have the power to do so.” 

A senior North East traffic policeman welcomed The Road Safety and Sentencing Acts Amendment Act 2013.  Wangaratta highway patrol Sgt Michael Connors said anything that deterred offending was welcome.

“The possession of a licence is a privilege, not a right, so if these offences are going to be committed where they shouldn’t be driving on our roads, say hoon driving or evading police, then their licence should be suspended or removed,” Sgt Connors said. ...

A drivers licence cannot really be considered a privilege, given that the roads are publicly funded and citizens are entitled to freedom of movement whether sober, pissed, or even meeting with the disapproval of the public at large, provided they are not acting in an aggressive or coercive manner.

Were a road to be privately owned, and that owner restricted the right to drive on it to friends, gay partners, climate change skeptics, or whatever, then driving on it would indeed be a privilege.

A drivers licence is given subject to meeting certain requirements in driving ability, knowledge of the road laws, and an understanding that while traveling, the driver has the ability to do so safely.

It is not an absolute right; otherwise it would arrive in the mail at the predetermined age.  It is however, a right to all who can meet the basic qualifications for receiving it, and can conduct themselves in a manner consistent with safe road use.

Any legislation that takes away the right to drive on public roads for reasons unrelated to road safety is an anathema to liberty and has no place in a free society. 

Packer, Gyngell revisit Bridget Jones Diary, cops get involved

 Image (L): courtesy, News Ltd

In Australia we are still trying to find out what happened elsewhere in the world after a bit of a blue in Bondi took all of the press’s attention for the day.  Our third richest man, James Packer and Nine CEO David Gyngell decided to settle their differences in the tried and tested Aussie manner with a punch up in front of Packer’s home.

While most of the population regarded the whole thing as a bit of a joke, the ABC was able to find a suitable list of sooks and the self-righteous who found it deeply disturbing.  This includes one idiot who fretted about it “harming Australia’s reputation as being sort of the Wild West for business.”

There is some suggestion of corporate fallout from it, but both seemed to put up a decent show so shareholders can be pretty confident as to the ability of their respective men.

Probably the thing Bruce Gyngell should take away from the event is that if you have a big bloke like Packer really pissed off with you, it’s a bad idea to park across his driveway.

The New South Wales police have decided to get involved, despite reports that neither combatant has laid a complaint.  This seems to indicate that the state has no actual crimes to deal with, or its police have less of a sense of humour than those in Queensland.

It seems totally illogical for law enforcement to waste its time trying to find something to charge someone with when no harm was done apart from the odd black eye, bruises, and a few lacerations.  The fight seems to have been a consensual act between two adults, both of whom seemed to want to do it.

Nobody else was hurt unless one of the minders who dragged them apart strained a muscle, so the police should but out.

Plain packaging not doing so well

Plain packaging appears to be one of those things that must have seemed like a good idea at the time as a knee jerk reaction by a government that felt the need to be seen to be doing something.

When plain packaging legislation was mooted, it was criticized by the tobacco industry as likely to encourage counterfeiting of cigarettes. This claim was dismissed by the government as ‘big tobacco’ propaganda.

Recent reports indicate that ‘big tobacco’ was right and big government was wrong: 

THE volume of illegal tobacco on the streets of the Sunshine Coast has grown at an alarming rate, according to the results of a new survey. 

Conducted by KPMG UK, the survey looked at the number of discarded illegal cigarette packets on the Coast. 

A sample of 300 packs last year found 6.7% were illegal - up from 0.5% in 2012.The report showed Australia's total consumption of illegal cigarettes had climbed to its highest rate. 

British American Tobacco Australia spokesperson Scott McIntyre said the country's total black market was continuing to boom, with a 20% rise in illegal tobacco since plain packs had been on shelves. 

"If the criminal gangs who illegally imported 2.45 million kilograms of illegal tobacco into the country last year had paid the tobacco excise they should have to the Government, then we would have around $1.1 billion extra in the budget," he said. 

"Due to high excise rates Australia is a very lucrative target for illegal tobacco smugglers and it's made more attractive as there's no real enforcement at the retail level to stop them once they hit the streets. 

"Around 70% of the price of a legal cigarette pack sale goes to the Government in taxes. Criminal gangs obviously don't pay tax, making smuggling illegal cigarettes in from Asia and the Middle East so profitable. 

"It's why dodgy retailers sell illegal cigarettes for around half the price of legal cigarettes.”

The echo chambers of the insular elites ring with self-congratulations at yet another great idea that will stop the great unwashed from harming themselves and make Australians safer in spite of ourselves.  The problem with being insular though, is that you tend to lose touch with the real world and come up with ‘solutions’ that create the opposite effect.

Plain packaging is a boon to those who are prepared to counterfeit the product, while the increases in excise makes the cheaper product even more attractive. 

When will these self righteous idiots ever learn?

Brandis supports limited freedom of thought but not of deed

With the rise of libertarianism the Liberal Party are becoming rather fond of getting back to their supposed roots in classical liberalism.  One of the problems they have in doing this is that they are not very good at it.

In 2010, now treasurer, Joe Hockey gave a speech to the Grattan Institute in which he lauded John Locke and John Stewart Mill and spoke at length on his avaricious reading of everything they had to say.  While there is no reason to doubt his reading of them, given his actions since, there is room for considerable doubt as to whether he had a clue as to what they were on about.

George Brandis is better in his actions on freedom of speech, but in an interview with Brendan O’Neill quotes John Stuart Mill as his inspiration while maintaining that the government has a right to be the arbiter of what people can do: 

So currently, Brandis is on a mission to reform Section 18C. He wants to remove the words ‘insult’, ‘offend’ and ‘humiliate’, but he is willing to leave in the stipulation against ‘intimidation’ of a person or group on the basis of their ethnic origins. … 

… Brandis says there are two reasons he’s bent on overhauling Section 18C. The first is because it expands the authority of state into the realm of thought, where it should never tread, he says. ‘There is a deeper question here, about the role of the state. To what extent should the state be the arbiter of what people can think? 

Now of course, the state is the arbiter of what people can do. The state, to use the most straightforward example imaginable, prohibits murder. It is the role of government to protect the weak from the strong. But this is about whether it is the role of government to tell people what they may think. In my view, freedom of speech, by which I mean the freedom to express and articulate beliefs and opinions, is a necessary and essential precondition of political freedom.’ … 

… As another bottle of wine arrives, he returns to Mill: ‘He said the only limitation on the freedom of the individual should be when he causes harm to others. Hearing views that you find offensive or outrageous or insulting is not a form of harm. If it is admitted to be a form of harm, then freedom of speech, freedom of discourse, intellectual freedom and political freedom become impossible.’

Brandis deserves kudos for his effort to reform the racial discrimination act, even if he fails to go far enough.  There is no real reason why section 18C (the hurt feelings law) should not be repealed in its entirety, however he seems to be hung up on keeping the section relating to intimidation of a person or group on the basis of their ethnic origins.

There are already adequate laws against intimidation in Australia which apply whether there is any racial aspect or not, thus making this section unnecessary.  To suggest that there should be a special one to handle complaints where a racial aspect is claimed means that the court is required to decide what an offender was thinking at the time.  This appears to go against his assertion that the state should not be the arbiter of what we think.

To have special laws, either for or against particular racial groups is a form of apartheid and have no place in a free society.

The problem with George though, is his assertion that the state should be the arbiter of what people do.  He offers no ifs, buts, nor even maybes on this. 

His statement on the right to regulate murder is a no contest, but harks back to the arguments of the religious right that were the state not to enact the ten commandments in full, then murder and theft would be legal.

The state has a right and function in preventing coercive acts in society but that is where the right to regulate human actions ends. From a libertarian perspective, we are OK with laws that prevent murder, theft, or the bearing of false witness, but we would have problems were it to enact them against adultery, graven images, or working on the Sabbath.  This does not indicate that we support such behaviors, but they are moral decisions that are not the place of the state to govern.

The Brandis/Hockey state sees no reason to steer clear of regulating our personal behavior. The mere fact that someone somewhere can do something without a license and without breaking a law, is seen as a compelling reason for an act of parliament to correct this.

Brandis is moving in the right direction, but needs to totally reevaluate his commitment to classical liberalism and try to go the whole hog.

Vic government in trouble over Howard gun laws

There is some sweet revenge for gun enthusiasts for the draconian Howard gun laws, with the possibility of the Victorian government falling over one of its members falling foul of them.  The Victorian government is barely hanging on by the skin of its teeth and cannot afford to lose a member.

Now one of its members has been charged with possession of a prohibited firearm and the possession of guns without a licence. 

The Coalition's hold on power in Victoria could be under threat after a National party MP was charged with firearms offences. 

Mildura MP Peter Crisp is due to face court in May over a number of charges including the possession of a prohibited firearm and the possession of guns without a licence. 

He was charged after reporting the theft of three guns from his farm in New South Wales.If convicted, Mr Crisp would be ineligible to sit in Parliament, which would force a by-election and could threaten the Coalition's ability to govern. … 

Mr Crisp says he has always held the appropriate NSW and Victorian licences and had taken all reasonable precautions to ensure the safe storage of his guns.

In fairness to MR. Crisp, he has not shot anyone, threatened anyone, robbed anyone other than taxpayers in his role as an MP, nor has he engaged in any other inappropriate activities with his guns.  The ‘crime’ if it can be called that, is simply owning them.

This highlights the stupidity of making a criminal offense of ownership of an object without a requirement of proving any intent to commit a crime.

The Howard gun laws were implemented as a knee-jerk reaction to the Port Arthur massacre in which a schizophrenic gunman killed 35 people and wounded another 23.  Despite the fact that out of the hundreds of people there, none other than the crazy guy was armed, the government took the view that fewer law abiding gun owners was a viable solution to criminals and the insane owning firearms.

Curiously, Howard is seen as one of our better PMs, which is probably an indication of the paucity of political talent in Australia.

There is little to cheer about however, as at this point it is unlikely that the only party with a rational view on gun ownership, the Liberal Democrats, will be able to take power there.

Suicide sparks calls for ‘Charlotte’s law'

After a high profile death of someone who appears to have been wronged or was a victim of crime, there tends to be efforts to enact some sort of legislation named after them.  This is usually a bad idea owing to the knee-jerk nature of the effort, failure to examine other aspects to the case, and legislators desire to be seen to be doing something resulting in something draconian.

Charlotte Dawson, a model and TV personality with something of a troubled past committed suicide a few days ago, and a campaign has been launched for a law against cyber-bullying as result of her history of opposing such idiots.  One such incident has been dealt with here in the past. 

What is ignored in all of this is her history of depression, mental illness, and her financial and employment difficulties: 

CHARLOTTE Dawson was found dead at her Woolloomooloo home yesterday, following a long and very public battle with depression.  Friends of Dawson’s have spoken of a sense of inevitability around her death, revealing that in recent weeks the prominent media personality’s mental state seemed specially fragile. 

It is believed Dawson was struggling financially, having borrowed up to $80,000 from friends as she tried to keep up the rent on her $1200-a-week apartment. 

She had also been axed from her role on the popular Foxtel TV show Australia’s Next Top Model, and last November parted ways with management company Chic Management after they said her battles with mental illness were ‘damaging her brand’. 

Only a week ago, Dawson’s ex-husband Scott Miller had appeared on Channel Nine’s 60 Minutes to talk about his drug addiction and the role it had played in the breakdown of their marriage. Dawson, who described Miller as the ‘love of her life’, said at the time she wasn’t sure if she would be strong enough to watch the interview. …

While her battles with trolls and bullies has some possible relevance, there appear to be more significant and more immediate reasons for her actions.  Her death is tragic, but is not a good reason to introduce new and more restrictive legislation, no matter how badly we feel about it.

EU banning E-cigarettes

Anti smoking hysterics are constantly on the prowl looking for ways and excuses to place further bans on their favorite cause.  It almost makes you believe that they want people to quit the habit except for the fact that they attempt to ban just about everything that will help in doing this.

Their latest cause célèbre is the humble E-cigarette, which seems to be on the outer everywhere with the EU joining the rush to stop them.  The only resistance being offered is predictably, from the libertarian aligned UKIP:

Leyonhjelm warns of dangers of VLAD Act

Image: David Leyonhjelm

In yesterday’s biker protest in Brisbane, the press seem not to have noticed the speech by Liberal Democrat senator elect, David Leyonhjelm who warned that the Queensland government were creating the sort of moral panic that has been used against minority groups throughout history.  David was the only politician who supported the right of recreational bikers to enjoy their rides without police harassment: 

“There have been moral panics about communists, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals and Asians,” he told a gathering of more than 3000 riders and civil libertarians outside State Parliament.
 

“In most cases there is an identifiable group of people who are vilified. They are singled out as a group by the police and, fairly often, new legislation is aimed at them.
“And nearly very time the legislation makes things worse and we all lose a bit of our freedom.
 

“What the Queensland Government has done with this moral panic is more troubling than usual. 

“When it gets over its panic and moves on to the next bogey-man, we will be left with laws that can be used against anyone, to undermine fundamental liberties and damage the independence of our justice system.”
 

David says the LDP has quite a few motorcycle-friendly policies including the promotion of free footpath parking, no tolls, lane filtering, no front number plates and “refuge boxes” for motorcycles at the front of the queue in traffic.
 

“We basically want to create a positive environment for bikers, not a negative one,” he says.
 

He told the Freedom Ride crowd at Parliament House that the VLAD Laws created a very negative environment in which he predicted “a police officer will die”.
 

“If you are indeed criminally inclined and facing a mandatory 25-year sentence for a fairly minor crime like dangerous driving or fighting in public, and you belong to a motorbike club, you might as well go down for murder as for the lesser crime,” he said.   “The sentence is no different and there might be no witnesses.”


The Queensland Police Commissioner’s voluntary ride register so recreational riding clubs can avoid unwanted harassment by police also came in for criticism.
  “These laws have been sold to the public as highly targeted legislation, designed to tackle organised crime,” he said.
“The Premier says police will not harass or intimidate law-abiding riders, but riders have been told to ring a police hotline if they want to ride in groups or three or more in peace.
  “The reality is very different. Non-declared clubs have been raided, including the Vietnam Veterans, and there are numerous stories of innocent motorcyclists being stopped and searched without justification.”
He said the police and the motorcycle-riding public are on a collision course.
  “And they wonder why nobody comes to the aid of police when they are in trouble,” he said. 


“I’m never going to help someone who thinks it’s ok to pull me up, search me and threaten me with jail if I don’t answer their questions merely because  am riding my motorcycle in company with a couple of other people.” …

Queensland biker laws policed to the point of stupidity

Ever since the Queensland government launched it’s fascist anti biker laws there have been reports of police going over the top in enforcing them by harassment of law abiding motorcycle riders.  Some reports indicate that there have been provocations in order to cause an offence to be committed.

At a recent funeral of a seventy-year-old woman in Townsville, a group of motorcyclists were pulled over and searched despite notifying authorities that they were to ride in a guard of honor for the deceased.  Law abiding riders are cutting back on group rides to the point where some businesses catering to this market in some of the popular destinations are concerned about having to close down.

Now a charity motorcycle ride in aid of the Cancer Council has been subjected to arbitrary checks as they set out on a ride: 

Participants of a charity motorcycle ride feel they have been classed as criminal motorcycle gang members following the degree of police presence at the event. 

Former president of the Bundaberg and District Motorcycle Enthusiasts Club, John Burrage, was one of hundreds of riders who took part in the last Bumz on Bikes cancer fundraiser ride on October 27. 

"The police turned up - two guys were walking around in uniform and there were two plain-clothed guys," he said. 

"Later on, we observed them approaching the Cancer Council ladies and demanded all the entry forms and took them away to the police station to photocopy.  "To me, that's a bit off." 

Mr Burrage said the treatment made him, and others, feel like criminals.  "It's putting us in the same category with all the outlaw gangs," he said.  "That doesn't seem fair to me."Now they have everyone who was there on record - don't' we have rights anymore?". … 

… But Bundaberg Criminal Investigation Branch Detective Sergeant David Tucker stressed that officers were not out to "tarnish" the event. 

"We wouldn't even think for one minute that the event was tarnished by any members of a criminal motorcycle gang, or that it was related to a criminal organisation," he said. 

"We had an obligation to ensure that there were no members of criminal motorcycle gangs attending there and committing an offence under the new legislation." 

Det Sgt Tucker said the new legislation, brought in last month, now meant it was an offence if three more members of a criminal bikie gang were together at any one time.  "The reason that police attended was to ensure that among the persons attending, there wasn't three or more criminal motorcycle gang members," he said. …

One member of the Rebels Motorcycle Club was identified at the event.  Had there been two other members or former members of the Rebels or other outlawed clubs present, they would have been guilty of an offence under the act, even if they were unaware of the presence of the others. 

The position of the other riders is not certain under these circumstances, as technically, they would have been associating with outlaw motorcyclists.  In any case, just what the hell is the problem with Rebels, Comancheros, Hells Angels, or any other group the government doesn’t like participating in a charity ride?

This obsession by the government, and the willingness of the police to go around making pricks of themselves among law abiding people in the hope of bagging a couple of ‘bikies’ is only going to lessen respect for the law and especially, the police among the community.

Repealing the carbon tax

This is the text of a submission by the Carbon Sense Coalition to the Australian Government on the Proposed Repeal of the Carbon Tax.


The Case for Repeal

We support the immediate repeal of the carbon tax. This tax was introduced by stealth, and the justification for its introduction is spurious. It should be repealed or made ineffective immediately.

We are told its purpose is to “reduce carbon pollution” – just three words, each of which is based on a lie.

•                “Reduce”: The effect of Australia’s carbon tax on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is so tiny as to be undetectable and any miniscule reduction would be totally swamped in the far bigger natural seasonal variations of carbon dioxide levels. The effect on global climate, if any, would also be too small to be measured and of no benefit to the climate or life on Earth.

•                “Carbon”: It is NOT a tax on carbon. Carbon is a solid – either soft and black like graphite and soot, or crystalline, hard and beautiful like diamond. It is definitely not the colourless gas created when carbon is burned. The “carbon” tax falls mainly on carbon dioxide, a colourless, harmless natural gas which has always been present in Earth’s atmosphere, usually in far greater amounts than at present. The use of “carbon” when referring to “carbon dioxide” is a deliberate deception. It would be like calling liquid water by the name “hydrogen”, a major element in the water molecule which is a dangerous explosive flammable gas. Based on the carbon example, a tax on water vapour (another “greenhouse gas) would probably be called “The Hydrogen Tax” by government propagandists.

•                “Pollution”: Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and should never have been called one. It is the essential gas-of-life for all plants and they support all animals on Earth. It is no more a pollutant than oxygen, which is the gas-of-life for animals, or water vapour which is essential for all life. All three gases have effects on earth’s surface temperature, and on surface life, and such effects are usually highly beneficial. Additional carbon dioxide has been improving and will continue to improve the growth rate and drought tolerance of all plants on earth. Far from polluting the Earth, extra carbon dioxide has been greening the globe for decades.

There has been no attempt at an independent cost benefit analysis to justify the tax. 

The costs of the carbon tax are substantial and will increase every year it remains. It will increase the costs of locally produced coal, gas, electricity, cement, steel, timber and everything made using these essential products. If these businesses are exempted or compensated, the tax will be totally ineffective and taxpayers in general will bear the cost of the extra red tape, bureaucracy and churning of funds. If they are not exempted, value-adding businesses such as further processing, fabricating and manufacturing will be forced to close and relocate to more sensible business environments. 

There are no proven benefits. In fact, even if the tax was effective in reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, this result would not be beneficial to life on Earth.



To introduce such a costly tax without even the pretence of an independent public enquiry into the likely costs and benefits will (hopefully) stand for decades as Australia’s worst example of bad public administration.



There has also been no independent enquiry into the science supporting this massive gamble with the job prospects and economic future of Australians. The government has relied totally on local and overseas activists with a radical agenda, or on its own employees and grant recipients, most of whom have bent to the political will and supported the views of their pay-masters. The continual appeal to “consensus” and “authority” is clear evidence that the scientific case is weak.



The conclusion is obvious – this tax must be repealed as soon as possible. Australian voters have twice supported a political platform that promised that there will be no carbon tax under their administration. It is time the people’s opinion was heeded.




The Mechanism of Repeal

The main legislative support for the introduction of the war on carbon in Australia is contained in about 25 separate bills passed quickly and gleefully one day in 2011.

In an instant, a new class of carbon tax victims was created as well as another class of carbon tax beneficiaries. 

The passage of time has entrenched and emboldened the beneficiaries and triggered the evasive ingenuity of the victims.  Neither should be rewarded or punished any longer. 

No new injustice will be created by instantaneous restoration of the situation to that which prevailed on the eve of the introduction of the carbon tax legislation. 

To organise repeal by introducing almost as many new bills as are being emasculated is just creating legislative pollution which is sure to provide employment for smart lawyers for years to come. There should be no transitional arrangements – those receiving benefits should see them stopped immediately, and those paying the costs should get immediate and total relief.


The most appropriate repeal bill should say: “The sole purpose of this Carbon Tax Repeal Bill is to totally repeal the following Bills and regulations (and then list them all). The Speaker should then say “Those in Favour. . . Those against. . . I think the ayes have it. Session closed”.



If there is any opposition or delay to the repeal program in Parliament, the government should use its regulatory power and ingenuity to reduce the carbon tax rate to zero. It should also set to zero any penalties for failure to comply with the as-yet un-repealed Bills.



Related Matters Needing Attention

As part of this carbon tax repeal session, several more things need to be done:

1.              Remove carbon dioxide from the list of pollutants requiring reporting under the National Pollution Inventory Scheme.

2.              Australia should withdraw from the Kyoto Agreement, thus falling into line with China, India, Japan, Canada and USA.

3.              Cease funding or supporting in any way in the operations of the IPCC. This body has become a destructive and costly international bureaucracy. Australia should push to limit its activities, cut off its income and close its operations.

4.              There should be no new price control or surveillance legislation. Many semi-public bodies such as electricity generators are already subject to price justification/competition tribunals. All this has done is allow or even encourage generating and distribution companies to invest heavily in building or upgrading facilities knowing they will get a guaranteed return on those investments. More useless price surveillance will just add to the costs and overheads of the industry.

5.              The Climate Change Authority is still spreading nonsense reports. The responsible minister should immediately change the board, re-deploy staff to more productive jobs and lock the corporate doors. It should then be abolished as soon as possible.

6.              The government should delay the introduction of legislation to support their direct action climate program until there has been an independent enquiry into global warming science and a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of “Direct Action”.

7.              Finally, John Howard’s Renewable Energy Targets legislation should be repealed. These targets act like a hidden carbon tax, whose cost will continually escalate as significant renewable energy sites become harder to find and connect to the power grid. No one should be forced to use or pay for any special type of energy.

Summary Recommendations

1.              The “Bill to repeal the Carbon Tax” should be no longer than one page and should say just that – no transitional arrangements.

2.              If the repeal bill is delayed in Parliament, the government should use its regulatory ingenuity to reduce the carbon tax rate and the benefits to zero and set to zero any penalties for failure to comply with the as-yet un-repealed Bills.

3.              Carbon dioxide should be removed from the list of pollutants covered by the National Pollution Inventory Scheme.

4.              Australia should withdraw from the Kyoto Agreement.

5.              Australia should cease all financial or other support for the IPCC.

6.              There should be no new price surveillance introduced when the carbon tax is repealed.

7.              The Climate Change Authority should be abolished as soon as possible. Pending abolition, it should be de-staffed, de-funded or re-deployed.

8.              The “Direct Action” legislation should be put on hold until a thorough independent enquiry has been held into global warming science and a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis has been completed.

9.              The Renewable Energy Targets should be repealed together with all other market, price or subsidy mechanisms which favour renewable energy.



Submitted on behalf of the Carbon Sense Coalition by: 


Viv Forbes
Chairman


Disclosures: The above report was produced by Viv Forbes with assistance from several other members of the Carbon Sense Coalition. No one prompted or paid us to produce it. 

Everyone in Australia has a vested interest in this legislation, some winners, and some losers.

Viv Forbes and his wife own and operate a livestock grazing property which will benefit from repeal of the carbon tax. He also uses electricity, diesel, petrol and gas all of which will benefit from repeal of the carbon tax. He is also a non-executive director and small shareholder in an Australian coal exploration company. The operating costs of this company will benefit if the carbon tax is repealed and any future underground mining operations will also benefit with lower costs. However this company’s expected market for coal is overseas in Asia, and Australian coal exporters will benefit if Australian processing, smelting, refining and manufacturing plants are forced overseas by the carbon tax. Finally, he is a father and grandfather who supports repeal of the carbon tax because that will create stronger, richer Australia with better opportunities for those who want to work and prosper.



Petition.
If you are concerned that federal and state governments are spending billions of taxpayer funds on green climate follies, without due diligence, here is a petition demanding a cost-benefit study be done. Please sign and help it along:
http://www.ipe.net.au/ipeframeset.htm



John Howard Joins the Deniers (well almost).



John Howard did many silly things which still haunt us. One of the worst was when his government passed the Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets legislation in 2000, after an off-the-cuff election promise in 1998. This acorn has developed into Australia’s most costly carbon tax. It has permanently saddled our electricity system with a slab of costly intermittent energy, and created a mendicant class of electricity producers and equipment suppliers with a huge vested interest in staying on that gravy train.



Then in a silly promise before the 2007 election, Mr Howard promised, if elected, to introduce an Emissions Trading Tax. But Mr Rudd outdid him, describing the ETS as the answer to the “great moral and economic challenge of our time”. Unfortunately Rudd won the election and unfortunately kept his promise.


Despite these black marks, Mr Howard has seen the light (despite the fact that he says he has only read one sceptical book on global warming policy).

In a speech in UK to the Global Warming Policy Foundation entitled “One Religion is Enough” he said “The high tide of public support for over-zealous action on global warming has passed”. 
For his full speech see here

The Many Benefits of CO2



How humanity and the rest of the biosphere will prosper from this amazing trace gas that so many have wrongfully characterized as a dangerous air pollutant.

Keeping a Sense of Perspective on Global Warming. 



There is nothing unusual or worrying about the modern warm era (as long as it does not end):


Funds Flow in, in Enormous Dollops.

In the previous issue of Carbon Sense, we advised that our finances were $124 in the red for the month (while Flannery raised $1 million). This is the response from one supporter: 



Funds, in enormous dollops, flow in to Viv:– slightly tongue-in-cheek, I just deposited (exactly….) $124 into your account.   Didn’t send a dime to Flannery though.



All that aside, the last several weeks have been a very cheerful period, as we have watched a lot of the nonsense being dismantled by people with a bit of sense