News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Political 
 Coalition challenge to Wong on emissions 

Coalition challenge to Wong on emissions

19 Jan, 2010 06:02 AM
AS THE Government does a daily countdown to the Opposition's release of its climate policy, Coalition spokesman Greg Hunt has demanded Climate Change Minister Penny Wong answer 10 questions about the Government's revamped emissions legislation.

He has asked for answers by Australia Day to give people information ''before you introduce legislation with significant grocery, electricity and other costs of living impacts for all Australians''.

The revamped legislation will come in when Parliament resumes early next month.

In a letter to Senator Wong, Mr Hunt asks that the price increases on a litre of milk, loaf of bread, a basket of groceries, and heating for the home of a pensioner who lives in a cold place.

He also asks:

  • How much will the cost of running a drycleaning business, a lighting store and a pie shop increase?
  • Will almost none of the money raised by the scheme go to reducing emissions or any form of real climate change action?
  • Will she confirm that the scheme would raise $120 billion from ''mums and dads, pensioners, teachers, police and emergency service workers'' and then give big business $40 billion of that?
  • ''Are you aware that the French constitutional court has just knocked out that country's carbon tax, that Tony Blair has just called for direct action, that even Sting has highlighted the potential of the world's forests to clean up our air and that the European model - which you trumpet - does not tax electricity and even then has been a dismal failure?''
  • Will, on the modelling, 5.7 million Australian families be worse off?
  • Will non-emissions trading measures have reduced Australian emissions by 150 million tonnes a year by 2020, more than even the best case under the trading scheme?
  • Will the Government restore support for solar energy?
  • Will Senator Wong guarantee no individual pensioner will be worse off under the scheme?

Mr Hunt has also taken up the challenge of NSW Australian of the Year, environmental activist John Dee, for federal politicians to cut their own emissions by 10 per cent.

He said his family would look at measures such as turning off standby power at night.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
C'mon Penny, Tell me exactly how much your proposed ETS Tax is going to cost me ? The Tax Payer doesn't give me a Car - I Pay for Fuel, Tyres etc The Tax Payer doesn't give me an Office - I Pay for Electricity, Stationery, etc The Tax Payer Doesn't give me Travel - I Pay for Accommodation, Meals etc So How much more do you Want me to PAY ???? No wonder Krudd wants the Country to Work Harder - Work Harder to Pay an ETS Tax . . .
Posted by Being Wong does not make you Right, 19/01/2010 9:15:05 AM
After Copenhagen the ETS is a stinking rotting dead body, why would anyone in their right mind want to give it mouth to mouth.
Posted by What the, 19/01/2010 11:35:39 AM
Wong and Rudd cannot give any answers, because they do not have a clue. All they want is the TAX to fund vote buying under the guise of compensation and what is left over to fill the black hole from the spending spree. Isn't it funny that neither has talked about the jokenhagen talk fest and the waste of time and money (including the butler for lamb chop). Also the silence has been deafening since the Northern Hemisphere had the cold snap. These two are an absolute joke, it will be interesting to see how they argue for the TAX when parliament returns.
Posted by jerangle, 19/01/2010 5:33:19 PM
...and to think that all the political spin and the media support nearly conned all of us and got the ETS through because the sky was falling. The absolute lack of action by this government despite all the rhetoric is proof itself that their ETS and Climate Change action is questionable. The ETS was a stinking mess before Copenhagen and it still stinks. I thought that when something was wrong and needed fixing you did it now, not wade through every imagineable detour. This country deserves much better than we are getting from this current government get rid of them and let's get on with the job.
Posted by Katandra, 20/01/2010 6:44:05 AM
More questions to add to the list: Will the 120 billion dollars raised in taxes change the weather 1 degree? How does the "STEAM" coming out of the power stations in Victoria affect the Great Barrier Reef? How does wong and wudd intend to change the weather here or in the Northern hemisphere. Will Gores polar bear (the only one the ABC's got pictures of) fall off the ice and go and join the ever growing family of polar bears in the Artic? Will wong and wudd tell the countries whose volcanoes spew out more emmissions than the rest of the civilised world put together, that they owe a fortune in ETS? Why wont wong and wudd get real and help the poor people around the world who are suffering from disasters caused by Mother Nature. Maybe they think they can control these things by taxing the population. The list could go on and on - Abbott and company should under NO Circumstances let Wong and Wudd off the hook. Scrap the ETS and concentrate on running the country thats what the misguided population voted for.
Posted by Woolie, 20/01/2010 8:39:13 AM
The key question is, when will she comply with her statutory duty to exercise power properly, in accord with minimum performance standards? That is, consider ALL relevant matters and discard ALL irrelevant bull$hit. Only then can she provide a proper, verifiable, analysis of all realistic emissions scenarios and attach properly weighted probabilities to each. If a bright young corporate "thruster" with an MBA were to operate at Wong's level of incompetence they would find themselves driving a bus quick smart.
Posted by Ian Mott, 20/01/2010 9:54:41 AM
On the one hand, we have a Coalition leadership that doesn't believe human carbon emissions promote climate change but claims that it will have a more effective carbon emissions reduction policy than the government anyway. On the other hand, we have a government that was given the mandate at the last election to reduce carbon emissions, but it has no guts to do anything about it. Take your pick... In the meantime, while they're all out there trying no more than to score political points, the clock's ticking and we're paying their salaries. Any leaders out there... anyone?
Posted by GT, 20/01/2010 10:04:27 AM
GT, I do not remember Rudd going to the election with the ETS, it was wholly and solely the union backed campaign about work choices.
Posted by jerangle, 20/01/2010 11:20:55 AM
GT you say Rudd has a mandate to reduce emissions but both major party's went to the last election with an ETS so there was no option. It isn't a mandate when there is nothing else to vote for. Might be why the independents have the balance of power in the senate.
Posted by wally, 20/01/2010 11:46:29 AM
jerangle, your memory is as faulty as your logic. Both the major parties went to the last election with similar ETS policies. That is why GT (and everyone who has a memory and a reasonable ability to think clearly) says the government has a mandate. And wally, you really are a wally. Of course the government has a mandate. When a prospective party is elected, after clearly declaring its policies, how could you possibly conclude it has no right to put one of its policies into effect? GT is right: the problem for the government is not one of a lack of mandate; it is a problem of lack of courage, which gives the coalition opportunists a chance to appeal to basic greedy self-interested groups.
Posted by Bushie Bill, 25/01/2010 8:55:06 AM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Coalition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt.
Coalition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
18 January, 2010
POLL
Q: If a referendum were held this weekend, would you vote in favour of the Commonwealth taking over from the States the management of Australia's river systems?

Yes
(72.6%)

No
(19.9%)

Undecided
(7.4%)

Total Votes: 647
Poll Date: 17 January, 2010

Most popular articles




North Queensland Register







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...