Wheezle posted:

Tony Jowns posted:

You know, if Tony thinks imprisoning, starving and torturing people is "honourable" behaviour, maybe we've had his intentions on refugees wrong. Maybe he actually does think he's treating them honourably.

Readman posted:

I haven't been able to find anything so far - what is the reason for Palmer blocking the Carbon Bill?

Amethyst posted:

I still can't get over the Japan thing. It really is probably the worst thing he's ever said.

hyperbowl posted:

I just caught Palmer's press conference from this morning, turns out he and the clerk of the senate have a different understanding of the constitution.

Those On My Left posted:

this is like saying that my dog and i have different understandings of differential calculus

Those On My Left posted:

this is like saying that my dog and i have different understandings of differential calculus

Amethyst posted:

I still can't get over the Japan thing. It really is probably the worst thing he's ever said.

Those On My Left posted:

this is like saying that my dog and i have different understandings of differential calculus

Gough Suppressant posted:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-leading-article/9260971/hip-hip-hooray-2/

quote:

Don't blame the Senate -- or the crossbench -- for Australia's political malaise: Xenophon

This week the federal Parliament welcomed 12 new senators from around the country. If, as some have suggested, the new Senate resembles the cantina scene from Star Wars, full of colourful characters from all over the universe, then I must be sitting at the bar too, because I’ve had a front-row seat in the Senate for this week’s developments. The new senators, like the old, reflect Australia in all its diversity, and I look forward to working with all of them.

Lately some writers have questioned Australia’s ability to make big reforms and prosper given the apparent difficulty encountered by this government and the Labor one before it -- although for vastly different reasons. Some have spoken of a “malaise” in Australia’s politics and pointed fingers at the Senate as some kind of scapegoat. I can tell you now -- the malaise was there before the latest addition to the Senate.

In fact, I firmly believe the new crossbenchers are part of the solution to Australia’s sclerotic political system, not part of the problem. As a South Australian independent Senator since 2008 and an independent upper house member in South Australia’s Parliament before that, I’ve observed governments of both side pushing agendas, some successfully, some woefully. It is true that federal governments have encountered big problems setting reform goals and achieving them over the past decade. The current government’s problems are part of this malaise, but it begs the question -- why has this happened?

I believe the major parties are just reaping what they have sown, since the last term of the Howard government and the dysfunction of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era. Now the Abbott government has sailed onto rocks of its own making. The factors at play include mismanagement, bickering, ideology, pettiness, focus groups, an obsession with leadership and the opinion polls, a lack of common sense nor an eye for the big picture narrative. These are just some of the reasons Australians voted in a record crossbench of 18 senators at the last election, equating to 24% of the chamber.

ABC elections expert Antony Green has confirmed that the 2013 election was a new high in a 30-year climb in support for non-major parties, recorded at 21% support House of Representatives races and 32% for Senate races. While I have serious misgivings over some of the “preference whispering” between micro-parties -- and even the majors -- that can produce curious results, the overall vote for the two major political blocs and the Greens was approximated in the numbers on the floor of the Senate. Labor lost six senators, and all of them went to the new crossbench senators.

More noteworthy, given the complaints from the current government about having their “mandate” blocked, was the Liberal result in the Senate -- the worst of any incoming government. The PM now has fewer Liberal Senators than when he was opposition leader. His Senate Coalition team of 33 compares with John Howard’s final term team of 39 senators. That speaks volumes about the Prime Minister’s “mandate” but also suggests where the blame for Australia’s political malaise lies. Because the performance of the Coalition since taking government has only reinforced, not dispelled, Australians’ misgivings and cynicism about politics.

The budget in May was a stinker. As one senator reportedly told The Australian Financial Review this week, the budget was “in more poo poo than a Werribee duck”, referencing the coastal town south of Melbourne that hosts a sewage treatment plant. I have big policy problems with the budget, such as the Medicare co-payment and the cuts to auto sector workers, pensioners, social security, higher education, health, schools, foreign aid and renewable energy funding. But I’ve been gobsmacked at the blind-siding of the whole country by this government. When did the government tell the states they were stripping a lazy $80 billion out of their future health and education budgets? When did the government tell the auto sector it would drain a further $600 million out of industry assistance (that makes $1.1 billion cut in total) that could have gone to restructuring ahead of the exit of the car makers? When did the government tell the universities it was going to cut 20% from federal funding for undergraduate courses and deregulate the sector? When did the government tell self-funded retirees it was taking away their modest seniors’ supplement?

Never, that’s when. Until budget night, that was. The subtext is all about mistrust of the electorate. I’m tipping Budget 2.0, sometime soon. And the government won’t get that through unless it restores trust with the voters.

Freudian Slip posted:

A topic that may get the thread actually debating among ourselves.

Tonight at our Green's meeting we discussed whether or not the Greens should allow the increase in the fuel excise.

I suggested that the Greens should pass it with an amendment that at least half the money raised would go to public transport, with the remainder going to roads.

However, we also needed a decision whether it should be passed without amendment. I argued that while it was a regressive tax, we had both economic and environmental reasons to pass it. In the end I was able to sway the group to support the rise in fuel excise.

It wasn't an easy choice, like the idea of the Greens suggesting amendments to the policy (re: public transport).

It is a regressive tax, because people who live in the outer suburbs and in rural/regional areas do need to drive as there are few, if any, public transport options. People who live near decent public transport are often more affluent. Also for people to be able to afford to buy a new fuel efficient car they need to be relatively wealthy.

However, indexing the excise means that the proportion of excise raised will hopefully stay in line with fuel price increases. At the moment the proportion of what we pay for fuel that is the excise has nearly halved since Howard froze it as petrol prices have increased so much. We currently have a structural deficit since taxes have been cut so much. Revenue raised from these increases means there is less chance that some services won't be cut (that sounds naive now that I typed that)

The other issue is to me the most important one. By placing more tax on petrol it sends a price signal to the consumer that we shouldn't be using so much petrol. It will encourage people to drive less, look for public transport options or buy more fuel efficient cars. As Greens, increasing the cost of pollution should be one of our main policies.

So simplistically, I see the policy as having two points for and one against.

What do other people think? Did I make the right call?

Hypation posted:

Carbon pricing is regressive

SadisTech posted:

[Citation Needed]

Hypation posted:

Carbon pricing is regressive - so if being regressive is bad you can't be for the carbon price.

SadisTech posted:

[Citation Needed]

Nibbles141 posted:

Watching Monday's Q&A for some reason. Judith Sloan is incredibly obnoxious. "You're completely wrong about this" "But you've made this point previously" "ummm, well, yeah".

Doctor Spaceman posted:

QandA this week was surprisingly decent because Stiglitz owns.

Les Affaires posted:

In effect I think Sloan felt threatened that her usual bulldozing of opposition wouldn't work against somebody with a loving nobel prize._{in economics}

Quantum Mechanic posted:

Except that the carbon price included targeted subsidies to remove the regressive aspect. It's a lot more difficult to do that with the fuel excise.


No citation needed. Carbon pricing in and of itself is regressive - ANY sort of consumption tax is regressive. There are acts you can take (levying it only on higher income earners/businesses, income subsidies) that make it not regressive though.

Les Affaires posted:

As far as I remember, the compensation was aimed at doing this - adjust the income taxation system to accomodate the cost of living increase on those it would affect the most.

Romeo Charlie posted:

The Liberals new policy to tackle climate change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2myKgJFbuo

Guardian Live Blow posted:

Leyonhjelm indicated he may not support the PUP amendments, which he described as "very prescriptive" with "extremely high fines for failure to lodge documents".

He said if the carbon tax was not repealed "the blame for that will rest with Labor, Greens and the Palmer United party".

SadisTech posted:

Yeah, I should have expressed my thinking more clearly. I wasn't intending to imply that carbon pricing per se is not regressive, but Hypation's statement was conflating the basic idea of carbon pricing with our actual real-world implementation of it, which comes packaged with a bunch of strategies to curb its regressive qualities.

So I shouldn't have taken the shortcut of putting citation needed on the simple statement 'carbon pricing is regressive' but instead taken exception to his implication that thinking regressive taxation is not ideal means you have to be against carbon pricing in all circumstances, and expressed that argument. My bad.

Hypation posted:

The need to provide a compensation package to limit the detrimental effects of regressive taxation kind of proves that carbon pricing is regressive. That compensation package is also outside the mechanism for setting or administering a carbon price. Carbon pricing per se is regressive. Its just that some people have chosen to impose the regressive tax while also separately and independently providing an offsetting adjustment.

The context of what I posted was also in response to someone being against a specific (regressive) component of a carbon tax and I pointed out that if you are against regressive taxes per se then you have to be against the carbon tax more broadly. I also pointed out that there is a (slow to respond and imperfect) mechanism for compensating people for fuel excise indexation so if you want compensation then there is something.

Hypation posted:

The need to provide a compensation package to limit the detrimental effects of regressive taxation kind of proves that carbon pricing is regressive. That compensation package is also outside the mechanism for setting or administering a carbon price. Carbon pricing per se is regressive. Its just that some people have chosen to impose the regressive tax while also separately and independently providing an offsetting adjustment.

The context of what I posted was also in response to someone being against a specific (regressive) component of a carbon tax and I pointed out that if you are against regressive taxes per se then you have to be against the carbon tax more broadly. I also pointed out that there is a (slow to respond and imperfect) mechanism for compensating people for fuel excise indexation so if you want compensation then there is something.

SadisTech posted:

To put it another way, knives can cut people's fingers off, so knives are bad. I am therefore flatly against knives and there is no circumstance under which one should be used. Does that seem rational?