4
   

Oz Election Thread #4 - Gillard's Labor

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 08:55 pm
A very interesting development in the federal court regarding Peter Slipper's case.
Stay tuned, I think we are about to find out some very interesting information about the whole sordid episode.
Like: which politicians in the LNP were actually involved? Who actually had prior knowledge of Ashby's "sexual harassment" claims? And who was actually behind feeding all that sensationalist information about Slipper to News Ltd & their motives.
I've noticed the LNP has gone very quiet on this issue, for a while now ... & probably for very good reason, yes?
Maybe what looked like a very clever tactic at the time, with such an obliging media in tow, is about to blow up in their faces? Serves them right if it does. Wink

Quote:
Ashby texts admissible for hearing
Louise Hall
July 21, 2012 /the AGE


THE Commonwealth and the Speaker, Peter Slipper, will be able to use text messages between James Ashby and his alleged co-conspirators to support an abuse of process application on Monday.

Mr Ashby is claiming damages against Mr Slipper and the Commonwealth over alleged sexual harassment.

The respondents claim Mr Ashby conspired with another Slipper aide, Karen Doane, a former Howard government minister, Mal Brough, and a News Ltd journalist, Steve Lewis, to gain widespread publicity of salacious allegations to destroy Mr Slipper's career.

In the Federal Court yesterday, Alec Leopold, SC, Lewis's barrister, said the reporter maintained he did not have to produce a document captured by a subpoena issued on behalf of Mr Slipper in support of the application.

Lewis claims the document could identify a confidential source and new shield laws protect him from having to disclose that information. The Commonwealth and Mr Slipper accepted Mr Leopold's contention.

Mr Ashby's barrister, Michael Lee, SC, argued that hundreds of text messages downloaded from Mr Ashby's mobile phone were hearsay, or indirect, evidence.

Justice Steve Rares said heresay evidence would be allowed.


Ashby texts admissible for hearing:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/ashby-texts-admissible-for-hearing-20120720-22fge.html

.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2012 08:07 pm
From the Conversation.edu

A nice piece on what the PM should have sent to Australians on the introduction of the Carbon tax....



Dear Australians,

Most of you would be aware that Australia has embarked on a major reform by putting a price on carbon. For the first three years, the price has been set by the Parliament starting at $23 per tonne of greenhouse gases emitted and increasing by 5% each year – this is referred to as the “carbon tax”.

Note that after 1 July 2015, the “carbon tax” will give way to a “carbon price” that is set by the market place and not by the Parliament.

While the carbon tax/price will be paid only by the top 300 or so businesses in the country, and not by householders or small businesses, much of the tax will be passed through to us – the end customers for goods and services in the form of increased prices, particularly for electricity.

In this letter, I will try to explain how electricity prices are set in Australia and how the carbon tax affects the prices that you pay.

Before the carbon tax was introduced, most residential customers were paying a total of about 20 to 28 cents per unit or so, depending on where they live.

But let me begin with a few words on how electricity is generated and delivered to your houses.

Three main stages are involved in this process.

The first step involves producing electricity from generator/turbine sets in huge power stations such as the ones in the La Trobe Valley, Hunter region, Snowy Mountains etc. About 80% of all electricity in Australia is generated from stations that burn coal to heat water and generate steam that drives the turbines. The other 20% comes from gas-fired power stations, hydro stations, wind and other renewable energy power stations.

Next, electricity is transported from various power stations via a vast electricity grid network of transmission towers, lines, transformers, street poles and wires to houses and businesses all over Australia. Just as roads are used to transport goods from factories and ports to consumers, electricity is transported from power stations to all households by the grid network.

The third stage is played by electricity retailers, who buy electricity from power stations in an open, competitive wholesale electricity market and pay a “transport fee” to the network operators, and bundle these up and make various offers to customers.

To use another analogy, these retailers are somewhat like your neighbourhood vegetable shop owners going to wholesale markets (such as the Victoria Market in Melbourne) early morning, buying fruit and veges in bulk, and selling to suburban retail customers. The rub here is that unlike vegetables, one cannot store electricity in large quantities; there is no viable technology. The amount that is consumed by all customers in Australia must be matched exactly by electricity generated in all of Australia every minute or so. Without going into details, this inability to store electricity in any large quantity is a major reason behind the complexities of electricity pricing.

Electricity generation costs

Coming back to costs, Australia can generate electricity cheaply in coal power stations because we have coal in abundance and about 7 to 10 cents per unit in your bill pays for generation costs. Unfortunately, this burning of coal releases carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere, which most scientists in the world say causes climate change.

This is a very long term environmental issue, I mean 50 years or more, but we have to make a start now and work our way gradually over the next few decades to reduce our dependence on coal-based electricity and move towards more modern technologies and renewable energy. The longer we postpone this journey, the more difficult and more expensive it will be for our children and grandchildren.

Carbon tax was introduced with this aim in mind, so that power stations burning coal, gas or oil pay a tax and the resulting revenue is used to help develop modern technologies that don’t emit so much carbon dioxide. The effect of this carbon tax could probably add about 2.5 cents per unit or so to the current wholesale market prices. Note that this increase is more or less the same for all customers.

Network costs

The electricity grid in eastern Australia stretches all the way from Cape York to South Australia and Tasmania, different parts of which are owned and operated by either state-owned or private enterprises. A separate grid operates in Western Australia.

Given the vastness of land covered and the low population density outside major cities, the cost of transporting electricity is higher than generation costs. As our metropolitan and regional cities spread outwards, as our population increases, as mining activities increase, as more and more of us use plasma TV, air conditioners and other appliances, the peak demand for electricity goes up.

Though these peak demands may last only a few days in the year, for example heavy use of air conditioners on hot February days, the grid capacity must be built to withstand these peak pressures, even if much of these equipment are under-used during non-peak demand times. This means more capital works programs and more costs by network businesses which are passed on to customers as the network charge component of the bill. The “tyranny of distance” means that regional and rural networks incur more such costs per customer served than those operating in cities.

The cost of network charges is set by the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) based on detailed analyses of the various networks’ forecasts of load, capital and on-going costs. Until recently, these were set by state-based energy regulators. The cost of the regulated network charges has been going up markedly in recent years, much more than generation costs for all the reasons mentioned above.

But the point to note is that carbon tax does not affect network businesses as they mainly transport electricity, and do not generate electricity themselves by burning coal etc.

Thus the components of electricity prices paid by the customer (using a hypothetical case) may look like this:

Components of electricity price / Before carbon tax / After carbon tax of $23/Tonne
Generation costs (cents per unit) / 10 / 12.5
Network costs (cents per unit) / 13 / Little change (13)
Retail and other costs (cents per unit) / 3 / Little change (3)
Total paid by customer (cents per unit) / 26 / 28.5

Note that all figures used in this letter are only examples to help the reader understand the issue. The actual figures can be quite different to the ones quoted here

The total retail price in this example is likely go up by about 10% or so due to the introduction of the carbon tax.

Hope this clarifies the picture somewhat. Please do talk to your retailer if you want to further understand the exact implications of carbon tax/price for your specific account.

Yours sincerely

Australian government
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2012 09:02 pm
@hingehead,
Don't feel too bad; Northern California governments are now considering mileage fees for driving a car. The first estimates they have suggested is .10c/mile. This would be measured by having some sort of GPS system installed on each car.

If and when they implement this "mileage fee," my cost will increase from about .24c/mile to about .34c/mile. To drive to the Costco gas station, a round trip will cost $1.90. I drive about 5,000 miles per year, so that'll end up costing me an additional $500. Add to that the wear and tear on my car, and my car insurance. So just the raw cost of fuel and insurance will cost $2,550, and the wear and tear on my car at about $2,600/year.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2012 11:01 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Hi CI - I don't feel bad at all - I agree with pricing carbon, but our government just isn't getting through to people. What I find particularly hilarious/depressing is that electricity bills have already gone up enormously over the last three years (and will continue to do so) without any carbon tax input at all. But no-one's screaming about that....
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 02:54 am
@hingehead,
It's frustrating how they just can't seem to have these concpversations skillfully!
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 08:08 pm
An interesting piece that explains why the Greens are the mainstream party, in tune with more Australians than either the Libs or the ALP

http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=32435
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 04:04 pm
This is being posted around twitter at the moment. Median wealth of nations; a measure how well wealth is spread across households (more indicative of the economic health of a nation than the mean - which is skewed by the rich/poor gap). Makes the Abbott/Newman denigration of the Australian economy pretty hollow.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/medianwealth.jpg
0 Replies
 
Bootlace
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2012 05:37 pm
The big flaw I see in the Australian carbon tax is the ability of the major producers of carbon dioxide is to pass the costs on. What ever tax they have to pay will be passed on to the consumer. There is no "incentive" for industry to reduce carbon emissions and the only incentive I see as a by-product, is the argument for nuclear power stations. (Heaven forbid)
I don't see the present government or future tory government stopping the ever increasing opening of coal mines and exporting the stuff. If it is as bad as they say, halt new mines and limit or reduce present output. Will that happen ? Pigs might fly.
Why is the electricity network maintainer (Ergon in NQ) limiting the size of solar installations in private homes ? Why was the government rebate lowered and to be dropped? Why was the price paid for exporting solar energy dropped from 44 cents to 8 cents ? It's not even a parity price.
The pollies like to be seen saying the " right" things, but the fact is none of them are fair dinkum about what comes out of their mouths. The big boys will still pollute, the lower income people will get some compensation and middle Australia will pay through the nose.
This "so called" global warming has created a whole new industry. It is right up their with the man who created "futures" trading.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2012 06:24 pm
@Bootlace,
Hi Bootlace

There's a few things I'd like to say about some of your points.
Quote:
There is no "incentive" for industry to reduce carbon emissions

Well there is - probably the best way to increase profitability is to reduce costs, so if you can use less carbon-generated electricity your costs will reduce under a carbon tax. At that point you have the option to either reduce your selling price, thus gaining a advantage over your competitors and selling more 'units', or maintain your price, sell the same number of units and improve your profit/shareholder returns.

Quote:
I don't see the present government or future tory government stopping the ever increasing opening of coal mines and exporting the stuff. If it is as bad as they say, halt new mines and limit or reduce present output.


Let the market decide - China is our biggest buyer of coal - and they have an amazingly huge investment in alternative energy sources (particularly solar). Their drivers are no doubt a combination of energy security, environmental concerns (urban china doesn't have horizons because of carbon pollution) and the economics of buying and shipping fossil fuels - which always go up in price - whereas sunlight doesn't.

Quote:
Why is the electricity network maintainer (Ergon in NQ) limiting the size of solar installations in private homes ?

Because it will affect their profit. Exactly why I've bemoaned the privatisation of the electricity grid in Australia - private profit rides roughshod over public good - if electricity was solely owned and operated by the government there would be no shareholders to placate as we move electricity generation to households and (god forbid) made remote urban centres like Cairns less vulnerable to line failures.

As I have said many times, even if you dismiss out of hand the human contribution to climate change you have to acknowledge that fossil fuels are not sustainable in the long term, and are certainly going to get more expensive - at some point we will have to transition to a more sustainable and cheaper source of energy. I favour an orderly transition towards that future rather than a last minute panic.

I read an interesting article by uberlefty and personal hero George Monbiot, about peak oil. Basically he says we haven't reached it. Not because there is more oil, but because the rising cost of oil has made fields that were unprofitable to extract at $50 a barrel, now profitable at $100 a barrel.

Nonetheless we will hit a brick wall in terms of cost and supply - investing in sustainable energy (including a carbon tax) now is like lining that wall with pillows.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2012 08:34 pm
Source


No more crocodile tears on electricity

With all the hyped-up rubbish being spoken about the rise in electricity prices and how it will hurt the average householder, the June quarter inflation data present some home truths that comprehensively disprove the “poor bugger me” whingeing and whining about electricity prices that is frankly as boring as it is wrong.

Let’s check a few facts.

According to the weights used in the June quarter CPI, households spend a paltry 2.2% of their budget on electricity. This compares with 5.5% spent on “meals out and takeaway foods”; 4.8% on “alcoholic beverages” and 2.4% on tobacco.

Yes, the average household spends 5 times more on takeaway, booze and cigarettes than they do on electricity. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

There were a host of other interesting price changes in the CPI. Here is a list of items whose price has fallen in the past year and the amount they have fallen:

Bread & cereal products -1.7%

Meat & seafoods -2.1%

Dairy & related products -0.8%

Fruit & vegies -21.9%

Jams, honey & spreads -0.4%

Clothes -0.7%

Men’s shoes -1.6%

Children’s shoes -0.6%

Furniture & furnishings -1.2%

Household textiles -1.3%

Household appliances etc -2.7%

Other non-durable h’hold product -0.7%

Cars -1.6%

Audio, visual, computers & services -9.8%

Books -0.1%

International travel -2.3%

Equipment for sports & camping -2.2%

Games, toys & hobbies -6.0%

These items account for 24.4% of the CPI basket – more than 10 times the amount the average household spends on electricity.

All of that aside, when we know wages are growing at around a 3 to 4% pace and inflation is rising around a 1 to 2% pace, we also know that real wages are rising.

This mix of low inflation and moderate wage increases is locking in and sustaining rising living standards and well-being. So no more crocodile tears about rising electricity prices and a bit more acknowledgement that there is a significant range of items whose price is actually falling.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 07:39 pm
@hingehead,
Quote:
According to the weights used in the June quarter CPI, households spend a paltry 2.2% of their budget on electricity. This compares with 5.5% spent on “meals out and takeaway foods”; 4.8% on “alcoholic beverages” and 2.4% on tobacco.

I understand what you're saying, hinge.
And I fully support the government's efforts to reduce carbon pollution.

But ... if only there was such a thing as "average" households with "average incomes"!
I think it's fair to say that poorer households (& there are quite a few of them ) would spend a considerably higher percentage of their limited budgets on essentials like electricity, rent, petrol, food, etc ... I know from reading reports from welfare advocacy groups that quite a few such households struggled to meet the costs of those essentials, well before now, say nothing of really expensive "essentials" like proper dental care ...

My real concern for those already struggling is that opportunistic businesses like this one appear to be using the carbon tax as a convenient excuse for ripping off as much as they can from their customers. Luckily this particular business (like Brumby's bakeries) didn't get away with it, thanks to the ACC:

Quote:
The consumer watchdog says a South Australian refrigeration company has admitted to making false carbon tax price claims.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has accepted a legally-enforceable undertaking from Equipserve Solutions that it will not make further false statements linking price rises to the carbon tax.

Refrigeration company admits to false carbon claims:
Equipserve sent an email to customers which attributed the entire increase of a refrigerant gas price to the carbon tax, when this was not the case....


I just hope that the ACC is able to keep up with all the other companies who may be doing the same!
And I really hope that the compensatory funds the government is passing on to those on lower incomes keeps abreast with higher charges (whether genuine or opportunistic).

Of course the problem, politically, is Abbott & the LNP are doing their level best to sabotage the government's carbon reduction measures & will ruthlessly exploit any higher charges (whatever the causes) for their own ends.
I also worry the "strugglers" might attribute any extra costs they're presented with to the imposition of the "carbon tax" & not take the other very real factors into account.
It's all making me kinda nervous. Wink

.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 09:13 pm
@msolga,
I'm hopeful that raising the tax free threshold to 18g and the compensation package will mean less than no impact for the lowest income groups.

That said the article did point out the cigarettes and alcohol component of spending and traditionally that's a higher proportion of your expenditure the more LSES you are. Let's not get into pokies Wink

A great tweet doing the rounds bemoans the fact that the NSW government raised $100million for the SCG, but can't possibly raise $70million for the NDIS.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 10:41 pm
@hingehead,
Quote:
I'm hopeful that raising the tax free threshold to 18g and the compensation package will mean less than no impact for the lowest income groups.

Yes, that's how I hope it will happen, too, hinge.

Quote:
That said the article did point out the cigarettes and alcohol component of spending and traditionally that's a higher proportion of your expenditure the more LSES you are. Let's not get into pokies. Wink

Can't find it now, but I recall a recent news article that said some pokies venue (in Qld?) actually raised its costs accordingly, in response to the first payment to pensioners.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 11:06 pm
@msolga,
Quote:
actually raised its costs accordingly, in response to the first payment to pensioners.


I think that came up on an episode of The Drum, somewhere in Queensland, and Adelaide, the pokie earnings went up and an explanation was the carbon tax compensation going straight into the machines - there was no consensus on whether that was true because pokie takings didn't go up anywhere else.
0 Replies
 
Bootlace
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 12:35 am
There is something really wrong in this country and no politician wants to correct it, well not since the days of Whitlam. While foreign investment to a certain level is desirable, there is no need for complete foreign control of the vast amount of industry, mines, farms, power, communication and other assorted infrastructure.
A recent example :-
Quote:

Queenslanders face rising gas prices despite State's massive reserves
by: John McCarthy
From: The Courier-Mail
July 27, 2012 12:00AM
QUEENSLANDERS face paying double the price for gas because, despite sitting on top of massive gas reserves, most of the state's supply will
be shipped overseas.
Energy Minister Mark McArdle has confirmed gas companies that took part in a recent review had been unable to buy significant contracted gas from producers.

Our massive gas reserves in WA and QLD are being shipped overseas. People in Japan can buy our gas cheaper than we can.

We need to be manufacturing finished products, not supplying raw materials and buying the finished product back. It appears our major manufacturing industries are either closing down or being taken over by foreign interests. Every night on the news there is a new casualty and more people out of work. This rot has to stop. Are there anymore G. Whitlams out there ? We need to buy back the farm !
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 02:25 am
@Bootlace,
Welcome to globalisation, Bootlace.

Howard sold off our gas at two cents a tonne, to China, locked in for price for the next twenty years.

He figured he'd done us a great deal on that one.

Gotta love the global village. It's where the one percent profit, and the rest of us cringe.

0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 02:41 am
http://images.theage.com.au/2012/07/27/3496091/port-Moir_cartoon-620x0.jpg
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 02:57 am
@msolga,
QLD doesn't get a wheel?
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 04:51 am
@hingehead,
No. Surprised
What an oversight!
You should have gotten a huge one!
0 Replies
 
Bootlace
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 01:37 pm
If this is an example of the caliber of the LNP ministers in QLD then heaven forbid.
Quote:

Broadwater MP Verity Barton has lambasted rail passengers as "icky", called on welfare payments to be stopped for single parents and couples with children, and said Prime Minister Julia Gillard and former leader Kevin Rudd should stop breathing.
Darrell Giles
The Sunday Mail (Qld)
July 29, 2012 12:00AM

Not only do we have NO wheels on the wheelchair, we have NO wheelchair to put them on.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Beached As Bro - Discussion by dadpad
Oz election thread #3 - Rudd's Labour - Discussion by msolga
Australian music - Discussion by Wilso
Oz Election Thread #6 - Abbott's LNP - Discussion by hingehead
AUstralian Philosophers - Discussion by dadpad
Australia voting system - Discussion by fbaezer
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.89 seconds on 11/22/2024 at 12:32:06