15 July 2011

August 16 shaping up as the day of darkness at Parliament House

15 July 2011 | johnboy

Earlier in the week we were disturbed that the kings of Sydney talkback radio, Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, and Chris Smith, were coming to Canberra to broadcast from the lawns of Parliament House.

We gather that’s for some sort of anti carbon tax rally.

But now the Sydney gay media is noting that there’s going to be a gay hate march converging on our fair city that same day:

A collection of gay hate groups will join forces to rally against marriage equality in Canberra next month.

An initiative of the Australian Family Association, the National Marriage Coalition, the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) and Dads4Kids: Fatherhood Foundation, the coalition is aiming for a repeat of its 2004 rally which coincided with the Howard Government’s changes to the Marriage Act.

The groups will meet in Parliament House’s Great Hall on August 16.

The ‘National Marriage Day’ is being advertised by the group as being the first day of sitting for the new Senate in which the Greens hold the balance of power, despite the new Senate having already sat this month.
“You are needed in Canberra to show support for natural marriage and warn all politicians,” its call to action on the ACL website reads.

Is it time for Canberra to get it’s freak on?

UPDATE: Thanks to the readers who’ve pointed out Radio National reporting that the unholy trinity are scared to face the people of Canberra.

Join the conversation

158

All Comments

All Comments
Website Comments
Facebook Comments

LatestOldest

EvanJames5:04 pm 16 Aug 11

johnboy said :

The revolutionaires are coming next monday.

The Punch have just got up a good article about today’s rabble:
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/carbon-freak-show/
and it sounds like they were revolutionaries too, whining for a new election.

By the sounds of it, they got some more footage of Abbott in front of rude signs, again. Fair dinkum, the gist of all this seems to be that, if the conservatives don’t get in, the election is invalid and they howl for a re-draw. It’s not a bloody fete raffle.

Chop714:58 pm 16 Aug 11

Spend some money while you’re here 🙂

colourful sydney racing identity4:46 pm 16 Aug 11

johnboy said :

The revolutionaires are coming next monday.

Phew, that’s a relief. There I was thinking that it wasn’t going to happen.

johnboy4:43 pm 16 Aug 11

The revolutionaires are coming next monday.

colourful sydney racing identity4:42 pm 16 Aug 11

So, has the revolution started yet? When is the election?

johnboy3:06 pm 16 Aug 11

EvanJames said :

Bizarre. Since when could demonstraters use the inside of parliament house?

You can hire the great hall for pretty much anything.

EvanJames3:02 pm 16 Aug 11

Yeah, Jethro’s right. According to the CT, 800 haters flocked into the great hall at Parly House and Bob Katter auctioned off his hat. They were inside hating gays, while outside the carbon tax people worshipped Tony Abbott.

Bizarre. Since when could demonstraters use the inside of parliament house?

Jethro12:20 pm 16 Aug 11

I went along and had a squiz this morning.
I think it is/was actually two separate things.
A whole bunch of very old people were going into parliament house for the gay hate meeting, and a whole bunch of rednecks were gathering on the grass out front with poorly spelled signs.

EvanJames11:12 am 16 Aug 11

Jim Jones said :

“I hate poofs and science”

Outstanding! Yep, these are the people who should be directing the course of Australian politics.

They have assumed the role of the Real People. I think Alan Jones probably told them they were the Real People. They cannot work out why their guys didn’t get up at the last election, clearly something went wrong so they’re going to fix it.

cubicle0111:11 am 16 Aug 11

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Spectra said :

Man, that’s a good chunk of evil concentrated in a small area…surely this provides some sort of opportunity to, er, “solve” the problem?

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

Classified5:03 pm 12 Aug 11

00davist said :

Classified said :

00davist said :

Part of me feels that as an alternative to gay mariage, we need to addres (legaly and generally) weather marriage should be the generally acepted norma path of union, or if we need a non-religious, and therefore freely universal form of legal and sentimental union, that is considered the way for two people to become a full term, official couple. and those who still hold the ideals behind ‘Marriage’ could then also undertake that ceremony, in a more centimental sense.

Perhaps we need to use the civil union view, whereby anyone who wants to (that is, gay and straight people 18 or over) can be legally recognised as a unoin for legal purposes and registration. Outside this, people would then be free to pursue their own ceremony for personal and/or religious purposes, and we could simply authorise celebrants appropriately. For most people I would think the ceremony would be the important part, and everyone would be under the same legal structure anyway.

Just a thought.

I think that is something that needs to be looked into, I guess it’s also the ceremony bit though…

Maybe if we gave ‘Civil Union’ a nice name, and started the tradition of having a somewhat marriage like celebration all tied up with it, and made it so that marriage itself was more an optional extra that some people went and did too, if that was what they wanted.

It would also mean though, that marriage would need to be handed back to the religios entities to cotrol, and no longer would the Govt. have the controll over it, as they do now. as it would be replaced with a non-religios joining ceremony and legal union.

It is likely in that cucumstance, that there would also be some gay marriage, as with marriage back in the hands of the church, some denominations would maybe go for it others would not. I imagine if you were to have a catholic marriage, as an addition to your “Whatever replced marriaged in the general public perception of a normal legal and ceremonial union” (WRMITGEPONLCU) you would not be able to do so if you were gay.

It would become that most couples would be assumed to one day have a Wrmitgeponlcu, and that any cuple would be able to do so, while a couple that happened to also be religios, and wised to do so, could go and have a weding, organised by their church, it would not be a legal thing anymore, but if you beleive in Catholic God for example, you would probably want to have a ‘Wedding’ on top of your Wrmitgeponlcu, so that you felt you were joined in the eyes of god.

Thanks for the discussion, definitely food for thought.

00davist3:50 pm 12 Aug 11

Classified said :

00davist said :

Part of me feels that as an alternative to gay mariage, we need to addres (legaly and generally) weather marriage should be the generally acepted norma path of union, or if we need a non-religious, and therefore freely universal form of legal and sentimental union, that is considered the way for two people to become a full term, official couple. and those who still hold the ideals behind ‘Marriage’ could then also undertake that ceremony, in a more centimental sense.

Perhaps we need to use the civil union view, whereby anyone who wants to (that is, gay and straight people 18 or over) can be legally recognised as a unoin for legal purposes and registration. Outside this, people would then be free to pursue their own ceremony for personal and/or religious purposes, and we could simply authorise celebrants appropriately. For most people I would think the ceremony would be the important part, and everyone would be under the same legal structure anyway.

Just a thought.

I think that is something that needs to be looked into, I guess it’s also the ceremony bit though…

Maybe if we gave ‘Civil Union’ a nice name, and started the tradition of having a somewhat marriage like celebration all tied up with it, and made it so that marriage itself was more an optional extra that some people went and did too, if that was what they wanted.

It would also mean though, that marriage would need to be handed back to the religios entities to cotrol, and no longer would the Govt. have the controll over it, as they do now. as it would be replaced with a non-religios joining ceremony and legal union.

It is likely in that cucumstance, that there would also be some gay marriage, as with marriage back in the hands of the church, some denominations would maybe go for it others would not. I imagine if you were to have a catholic marriage, as an addition to your “Whatever replced marriaged in the general public perception of a normal legal and ceremonial union” (WRMITGEPONLCU) you would not be able to do so if you were gay.

It would become that most couples would be assumed to one day have a Wrmitgeponlcu, and that any cuple would be able to do so, while a couple that happened to also be religios, and wised to do so, could go and have a weding, organised by their church, it would not be a legal thing anymore, but if you beleive in Catholic God for example, you would probably want to have a ‘Wedding’ on top of your Wrmitgeponlcu, so that you felt you were joined in the eyes of god.

Classified3:13 pm 12 Aug 11

Jim Jones said :

Classified said :

Jim Jones said :

Classified said :

Jim Jones said :

The joining of a man and woman, entered into for life … or until one of you has had enough.

Have you ever been to a wedding where the celebrant said that? Do we attack the idea of a contract because sometimes people don’t meet their obligations? No, didn’t think so.

I know you’re just trolling now, so I won’t bother responding further.

You argued that, while many elements of marriage have changed, “the definition of marriage itself, being ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life.” remains unchanged.

I pointed out that this is patently untrue, citing the incorrectness of even that basic definition, to which you’ve replied: “You’re just trolling, I’m not going to respond.”

So, rather than engage in civilized dialogue about the plasticity of the definition of marriage, you’re just going to take your bat and ball and go home, are you then?

Oh FFS! There – happy?

The definition of marriage does not include any disclaimers about early exit. The fact that some people decide to do so (that is, dissolve their marriage) does not mean there’s anything wrong with the original definition. I wouldn’t have thought there’d be too many people who enter marriage honestly who have a specific end date in mind.

You’ve provided nothing to show this to be untrue, other than to say ‘but some people don’t go through with it’.

So, the definition doesn’t remotely match the reality, but this definition is so important that we should never alter it to be inclusive of same sex couples?

Seems a tad odd to me, to demonstrate such willful blindness towards the definition in one respect, but be so fundamentalist about it in another. To me, it indicates that the problem with gay marriage isn’t changing a definition at all, it’s something else entirely.

Added to which is the fact that that definition is a relatively recent thing anyway. People were getting married thousands of years before the invention of the English language.

The definition is fine, in fact the only person that seems to be having a problem is you!

00davist3:08 pm 12 Aug 11

Jim Jones said :

Classified said :

Jim Jones said :

The joining of a man and woman, entered into for life … or until one of you has had enough.

Have you ever been to a wedding where the celebrant said that? Do we attack the idea of a contract because sometimes people don’t meet their obligations? No, didn’t think so.

I know you’re just trolling now, so I won’t bother responding further.

You argued that, while many elements of marriage have changed, “the definition of marriage itself, being ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life.” remains unchanged.

I pointed out that this is patently untrue, citing the incorrectness of even that basic definition, to which you’ve replied: “You’re just trolling, I’m not going to respond.”

So, rather than engage in civilized dialogue about the plasticity of the definition of marriage, you’re just going to take your bat and ball and go home, are you then?

Jim, at this point in time, the definition reffered to by classified “The joining of a man and woman, entered into for life” Remains unchainged.

The change that you are reffering to is not in the difinition itself, but more the increase in people who are no longer sticking to that definition.

I have seen pleanty of people take cars beyond their standard definition, that does not change the definition of a car, it just means that sometimes people find paramaters outside that definition.

Classified,

It seems to me that part of the reason that we have been able to have a good discussion on this mater is the fact that your reasoning is not based in hatred.

You do not seem to oppose gay marraiage due to having a problem with gay people, but more (at least this is what I have perceved) becuse to make such a change would be altering something historic, Like changing the facade of a heritage buliding. It may not necissarily fit the streetscape anymore, but to change it would be to step away from it’s history.

I understand exactly where you are comming from, however, as i have mentioned, the issue that stands is the fact that marriage is still considered the ‘Social norm’, and it is seen as the minority couple that choses not to wed. Therefore, by not alowing gay people to ‘Marry’ we are in effect saying ‘you can not be part of the normal’.

Part of me feels that as an alternative to gay mariage, we need to addres (legaly and generally) weather marriage should be the generally acepted norma path of union, or if we need a non-religious, and therefore freely universal form of legal and sentimental union, that is considered the way for two people to become a full term, official couple. and those who still hold the ideals behind ‘Marriage’ could then also undertake that ceremony, in a more centimental sense.

If a normal couple is expected (gennerally) to wed one day, then we will never see gay couples as normal unles a) they too can wed, or B) normall couples are no longer expected to ‘Wed’ in the traditional sense of the term.

It is a tricky topic, and the fact is, there is no outcome that will satify everyone, that is why we need to have calm, and rational discussion about the matter, so that not only does everyone feel that they have at least been heard, but also as to come to a result that satisfies the needs of as many people as possible.

And thankyou to you too, It can be hard to have a constructive discussion sometimes.

Jim Jones3:06 pm 12 Aug 11

Classified said :

Jim Jones said :

Classified said :

Jim Jones said :

The joining of a man and woman, entered into for life … or until one of you has had enough.

Have you ever been to a wedding where the celebrant said that? Do we attack the idea of a contract because sometimes people don’t meet their obligations? No, didn’t think so.

I know you’re just trolling now, so I won’t bother responding further.

You argued that, while many elements of marriage have changed, “the definition of marriage itself, being ‘the joining of a man and woman, entered into for life.” remains unchanged.

I pointed out that this is patently untrue, citing the incorrectness of even that basic definition, to which you’ve replied: “You’re just trolling, I’m not going to respond.”

So, rather than engage in civilized dialogue about the plasticity of the definition of marriage, you’re just going to take your bat and ball and go home, are you then?

Oh FFS! There – happy?

The definition of marriage does not include any disclaimers about early exit. The fact that some people decide to do so (that is, dissolve their marriage) does not mean there’s anything wrong with the original definition. I wouldn’t have thought there’d be too many people who enter marriage honestly who have a specific end date in mind.

You’ve provided nothing to show this to be untrue, other than to say ‘but some people don’t go through with it’.

So, the definition doesn’t remotely match the reality, but this definition is so important that we should never alter it to be inclusive of same sex couples?

Seems a tad odd to me, to demonstrate such willful blindness towards the definition in one respect, but be so fundamentalist about it in another. To me, it indicates that the problem with gay marriage isn’t changing a definition at all, it’s something else entirely.

Added to which is the fact that that definition is a relatively recent thing anyway. People were getting married thousands of years before the invention of the English language.

Classified2:04 pm 12 Aug 11

00davist said :

I will quickly clarify my ‘Unacceptable Answers’ comment: I am more than happy to engage in discussion over matters such as this, I believe open and fair debate is essential.

It is impossible to have a discussion with people who expect that firmly stating “Because God Said So” is an end-all argument, that can not be opposed, even though it only holds validity to those who share the belief in question.

As for you answer, I have no issue with it, you are not trying to use non-answers, as answers to end discussion in your favour.

I understand exactly where you are coming from, and while I personally do not share your view, you have an opinion, based on what marriage means to you, and what makes it significant to you, I imagine therefore, if you were to see change of any form to the use of the word ‘Marriage” it would have a negative impact on it’s importance to you, as that importance is weighted partially on its stability of meaning over time.

Personally, I feel that Marriage needs to find it’s home, as it sits in a bit of a mid point as far as I can tell. If it wants to belong to religion, then it needs to take a step back from being the commonly accepted form of union, IE, if marriage is a Christian ideal, then it needs to become that, and just that, a practise undertaken separately by it’s followers. And we need to move forward and find a new over-arching legal union/ceremony.

I put to you this, If marriage is based in religion, then why does society in general, not object when an atheist man, and an atheist woman are wed? (IE, why do we need to single out a Gay couple as different?)

While we continue to draw lines between straight and gay people, there will never be full equality. I believe that any gay couple should be allowed to do whatever is considered the ‘Norm’ for a couple, so, either marriage stays ‘the norm’ as it currently is, and we allow all people to participate, or it becomes property of Christianity, and we accept that society needs a new ‘Norm’ that everyone can share in equally.

Free speach has been brough up a fair bit here, and I feel what you are saying fits under that heading, while i disagree with you Classified, You have every right to say what you have, My only concern is those who go beyond free speach, iether by trying to force their view onto others, or by using violence.

This is probably the most sensible and balanced discussion I have engaged in with people who don’t share my view on this subject. Thanks for that.

I completely appreciate that we have a ways to go for gay people to have true equality, and that is the reason why I don’t hold this view strongly. I can see that from the perspective of others my view doesn’t seem to promote equality. This is something I’m still working through, although I do think the existing civil unions frameworks goes a way towards providing this equality.

As for the free speech, I agree entirely. Rational discussion is good, forcing opinions onto others is not. Violence is never acceptable.

00davist1:51 pm 12 Aug 11

I will quickly clarify my ‘Unacceptable Answers’ comment: I am more than happy to engage in discussion over matters such as this, I believe open and fair debate is essential.

It is impossible to have a discussion with people who expect that firmly stating “Because God Said So” is an end-all argument, that can not be opposed, even though it only holds validity to those who share the belief in question.

As for you answer, I have no issue with it, you are not trying to use non-answers, as answers to end discussion in your favour.

I understand exactly where you are coming from, and while I personally do not share your view, you have an opinion, based on what marriage means to you, and what makes it significant to you, I imagine therefore, if you were to see change of any form to the use of the word ‘Marriage” it would have a negative impact on it’s importance to you, as that importance is weighted partially on its stability of meaning over time.

Personally, I feel that Marriage needs to find it’s home, as it sits in a bit of a mid point as far as I can tell. If it wants to belong to religion, then it needs to take a step back from being the commonly accepted form of union, IE, if marriage is a Christian ideal, then it needs to become that, and just that, a practise undertaken separately by it’s followers. And we need to move forward and find a new over-arching legal union/ceremony.

I put to you this, If marriage is based in religion, then why does society in general, not object when an atheist man, and an atheist woman are wed? (IE, why do we need to single out a Gay couple as different?)

While we continue to draw lines between straight and gay people, there will never be full equality. I believe that any gay couple should be allowed to do whatever is considered the ‘Norm’ for a couple, so, either marriage stays ‘the norm’ as it currently is, and we allow all people to participate, or it becomes property of Christianity, and we accept that society needs a new ‘Norm’ that everyone can share in equally.

Free speach has been brough up a fair bit here, and I feel what you are saying fits under that heading, while i disagree with you Classified, You have every right to say what you have, My only concern is those who go beyond free speach, iether by trying to force their view onto others, or by using violence.

00davist10:56 am 12 Aug 11

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

It is good to see a groundswell of public opinion against the current direction this country is taking.

As I have written here before, we are a Christian country and it is evil to have a prime minister who is not only an atheist but kept in power by The Greens, a secular humanist party based on satanism and led by a homosexual.

The idea of man-made global warming has been thoroughly disproven. There is nothing in The Bible which states that the climate will change so it isn’t happening and cannot happen. There is no tolerance here. Furthermore Cardinal Pell has already said that there is no such thing as climate change and Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman, Alan Jones and other intellectuals have put forward facts disproving the theory.

The people pushing the idea of climate change are mainly scientists who also push the theory of evolution which has also been disproved many times over. The idea that carbon dioxide – a building block of life – is a pollutant is ridiculous. Plants live on it and it is healthy for the earth. We urgently need more carbon dioxide not less, and rather than putting a tax in place to try and cut it back, incentives should be put in place to increase its production.

Entwined with the faulted theory of climate change is so-called sustainability which states that we should cut back our population – a recipe for stagnation, poverty and unemployment. More people means more jobs, economic growth and greater prosperity for all. Sustainability is the current buzzword but it is actually genocide by another name. We urgently need to boost our population to 500 million people by the year 2020.

I will be supporting the protesters because I am a respectable Aussie who would like to see a new government which will put us back on the path to righteousness and enlightenment again. I believe that if we do not do it ourselves, a higher power will intervene because God will not continue to be mocked by evil politicians from Labor and The Greens ensnared in wickedness and wallowing in a culture of death.

No you are not a respectable Aussie, you are an un-educated, Closed minded, Idiot, who believes that if you think its right, it must be right, and to hell with anyone who dare disagree with your lordship.

Honestly, get over yourself, you sanctimonious, self serving, out of touch, TROLL!

Thoroughly Smashed10:31 am 12 Aug 11

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

It is good to see a groundswell of public opinion against the current direction this country is taking.

As I have written here before, we are a Christian country and it is evil to have a prime minister who is not only an atheist but kept in power by The Greens, a secular humanist party based on satanism and led by a homosexual.

The idea of man-made global warming has been thoroughly disproven. There is nothing in The Bible which states that the climate will change so it isn’t happening and cannot happen. There is no tolerance here. Furthermore Cardinal Pell has already said that there is no such thing as climate change and Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman, Alan Jones and other intellectuals have put forward facts disproving the theory.

The people pushing the idea of climate change are mainly scientists who also push the theory of evolution which has also been disproved many times over. The idea that carbon dioxide – a building block of life – is a pollutant is ridiculous. Plants live on it and it is healthy for the earth. We urgently need more carbon dioxide not less, and rather than putting a tax in place to try and cut it back, incentives should be put in place to increase its production.

Entwined with the faulted theory of climate change is so-called sustainability which states that we should cut back our population – a recipe for stagnation, poverty and unemployment. More people means more jobs, economic growth and greater prosperity for all. Sustainability is the current buzzword but it is actually genocide by another name. We urgently need to boost our population to 500 million people by the year 2020.

I will be supporting the protesters because I am a respectable Aussie who would like to see a new government which will put us back on the path to righteousness and enlightenment again. I believe that if we do not do it ourselves, a higher power will intervene because God will not continue to be mocked by evil politicians from Labor and The Greens ensnared in wickedness and wallowing in a culture of death.

Nice.

Jim Jones10:30 am 12 Aug 11

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

It is good to see a groundswell of public opinion against the current direction this country is taking.

As I have written here before, we are a Christian country and it is evil to have a prime minister who is not only an atheist but kept in power by The Greens, a secular humanist party based on satanism and led by a homosexual.

The idea of man-made global warming has been thoroughly disproven. There is nothing in The Bible which states that the climate will change so it isn’t happening and cannot happen. There is no tolerance here. Furthermore Cardinal Pell has already said that there is no such thing as climate change and Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman, Alan Jones and other intellectuals have put forward facts disproving the theory.

The people pushing the idea of climate change are mainly scientists who also push the theory of evolution which has also been disproved many times over. The idea that carbon dioxide – a building block of life – is a pollutant is ridiculous. Plants live on it and it is healthy for the earth. We urgently need more carbon dioxide not less, and rather than putting a tax in place to try and cut it back, incentives should be put in place to increase its production.

Entwined with the faulted theory of climate change is so-called sustainability which states that we should cut back our population – a recipe for stagnation, poverty and unemployment. More people means more jobs, economic growth and greater prosperity for all. Sustainability is the current buzzword but it is actually genocide by another name. We urgently need to boost our population to 500 million people by the year 2020.

I will be supporting the protesters because I am a respectable Aussie who would like to see a new government which will put us back on the path to righteousness and enlightenment again. I believe that if we do not do it ourselves, a higher power will intervene because God will not continue to be mocked by evil politicians from Labor and The Greens ensnared in wickedness and wallowing in a culture of death.

Absolute gold.

That one’s going in the pool room!

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster2:53 am 12 Aug 11

It is good to see a groundswell of public opinion against the current direction this country is taking.

As I have written here before, we are a Christian country and it is evil to have a prime minister who is not only an atheist but kept in power by The Greens, a secular humanist party based on satanism and led by a homosexual.

The idea of man-made global warming has been thoroughly disproven. There is nothing in The Bible which states that the climate will change so it isn’t happening and cannot happen. There is no tolerance here. Furthermore Cardinal Pell has already said that there is no such thing as climate change and Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman, Alan Jones and other intellectuals have put forward facts disproving the theory.

The people pushing the idea of climate change are mainly scientists who also push the theory of evolution which has also been disproved many times over. The idea that carbon dioxide – a building block of life – is a pollutant is ridiculous. Plants live on it and it is healthy for the earth. We urgently need more carbon dioxide not less, and rather than putting a tax in place to try and cut it back, incentives should be put in place to increase its production.

Entwined with the faulted theory of climate change is so-called sustainability which states that we should cut back our population – a recipe for stagnation, poverty and unemployment. More people means more jobs, economic growth and greater prosperity for all. Sustainability is the current buzzword but it is actually genocide by another name. We urgently need to boost our population to 500 million people by the year 2020.

I will be supporting the protesters because I am a respectable Aussie who would like to see a new government which will put us back on the path to righteousness and enlightenment again. I believe that if we do not do it ourselves, a higher power will intervene because God will not continue to be mocked by evil politicians from Labor and The Greens ensnared in wickedness and wallowing in a culture of death.

neanderthalsis4:26 pm 11 Aug 11

Gershwin said :

shadow boxer said :

[It’s not as stupid as someone who cant tell the difference between soneone objecting to a tax that wont achieve anything and someone who denies there is a problem.

That’s a lot to read into my comment. I applaud your ability to read my mind through the medium of the internet.

However, you are incorrect; I can tell the difference. Why I’m not differentiating between them, though, is that both kinds think they have superior scientific or economic ability to people who actually work professionally in those fields and have well-considered and evidence-based views on (a) whether there is a problem and (b) what could work in a market-based economy to improve the situation.

There may be alternatives to a carbon tax, but I’ve yet to hear one that makes economic sense, let alone policy sense.

Shorter form: neither can successfully argue the point.

Neither can the majority of the “price carbon or we’ll all be rooned brigade”.

Whilst I believe that there is no argument over the science of climate change, there is a lot we need to look at before we move to implement an economic solution to a scientific phenomena.

I am yet to see any have well-considered and evidence-based economic views on whether now is the time to impose a carbon price given:
a) the current vulnerability in the domestic and global market;
b) there is no international accord on carbon reduction targets;
c) the current fixed price model is a poor model compared to that taken to the 2007 election by the coalition and that put to parliament by the Rudd govt;
d) the potential damage to our terms of trade and the reduced price competitiveness of Australian goods on the international market;
e) the all carrot and no stick compensation scheme for householders does not provide any incentive for the common folk to change their habits in regard to energy usage or their broader carbon foot print.

We have a model for carbon pricing that has very low reduction targets, overcompensates households, will damage our export markets and will be implemented by a government that has failed to implement anything effectively.

View more conversations

Featured Businesses

Lawyers

BDN Lawyers

BDN has provided legal services to to Canberra, Queanbeyan and the region for over 160 years.

Find out more

Lawyers

Kamy Saeedi Law

When you need a criminal or commercial lawyer, you don’t want to take any chances. You want someone in your corner that you can trust like your life depends on it - because it does.

Find out more

Mortgage Brokers

Clarity Home Loans

A passionate team of Canberrans helping other Canberrans secure their home loans. No frills, no commissions, no brainer.

Find out more

Community Club

Canberra Southern Cross Club

We're proud to give you a place where friends and family can come together for good food and great entertainment.

Find out more

Lawyers

MV Law

Through a spirit of entrepreneurialism, collaboration, and future-forward thinking, MV Law have earned an industry-leading reputation.

Find out more

Podiatrists

The Walking Clinic

The Walking Clinic has perpetuated an attitude of excellence in foot health provision. The experienced Podiatric team provide current and innovative care to all patients.

Find out more

Insurance Brokers

allinsure

Allinsure has been a trusted insurance advisory to thousands of Australian business owners for almost 20 years.

Find out more

Electricians

True Connection Electrical

Since 2014, True Connection Electrical have been servicing residential and small commercial clients with reliable, trustworthy and top-quality electrical work.

Find out more

View the best of Canberra

Home Loans Made Clear

August 16 shaping up as the day of darkness at Parliament House

Join the conversation

What's Trending

Featured Properties

Today's Poll

Featured Businesses

Lawyers

Lawyers

Mortgage Brokers

Community Club

Lawyers

Podiatrists

Insurance Brokers

Electricians

What's On

Jacka Open Day - Discover a community with plenty to love!

Research Festival 2024

Exhibition - Hopes and Fears: Australian Migration Stories

Life of a CBRn: Canberra Centre pop-up exhibition

Related Stories

Daily Digest