Less than 5months from now, the Greens will hold the balance of power in the Senate and not surprisingly they will be pushing politics to the left by a long way. This might be a good thing given how far to the right things swung under John Howard. Some Gen-Y kids are going to be in for a surprise. Besides which, the Greens aren't green through and through, they're more watermelon-like: green on the outside, red on the inside.
That being the case, the Greens are already shooting down calls for a compensation package for there being a carbon price.
As chief executives from some of the nation's biggest companies attended climate change talks in Sydney yesterday, the Greens highlighted the fraught political landscape confronting the government's push for a carbon price.
After the Herald revealed growing unease among business leaders over the government's negotiations with the Greens, the party's leader, Bob Brown, vowed to challenge the resources industry in its campaign for compensation.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Senator Brown accused Rio Tinto of trying to ''gouge'' public money after this week unveiling a record profit of $US14 billion.
Rio Tinto, which owns half the country's aluminium smelters, is understood to be lobbying to ensure it is protected against higher electricity prices.
But Senator Brown said he would ''take on'' Rio, which he said would have pocketed $565 million a year under the abandoned carbon pollution reduction scheme. The Greens blocked that scheme, claiming that the compensation it offered to trade-exposed sectors and the power industry was excessive.
The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, was co-chairman yesterday of the meeting of executives from companies including BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, NAB, Woolworths, Qantas and Origin Energy.
It is understood most of the executives agreed a carbon price was inevitable, but stressed the need to avoid ''unintended consequences'' for the economy. One said trade-exposed companies including BHP and Rio Tinto appeared ''nervous'', and were the most vocal in explaining their situation to the government.
I guess the mining business headed up by such hard-done-by types like Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest and Gina Reinhardt are going to take to the hustings (or the back of flatbed trucks) and spend scores of millions to discredit a government trying to do something to address the fact that there needs to be a carbon price. I'm even guessing that the same bunch think that they can roll the Labor government if they can get to the two independents, Windsor and Oakeshott but there's every chance they can't. Let's face it, Windsor and Oakeshott were up to taking the punishing, bullying pressure from Tony Abbott. If the corporate world start launching ads attacking these men, they're more than likely going to push them away; not turn them so they join Tony Abbott.
The uncomfortable truth is that the Senate with the Greens holding power is going to be much, much more progressive than the old Senate so any number of these deals such as the revised Mining Rent Resource Tax and Carbon Pricing are going to be harder to negotiate. It's clear Bob Brown is spoiling for a fight, and he's got his numbers down.
All this is to say once again what a colossal fuck up the move against the ETS and Malcolm Turnbull was, and because of that move the corporate sector is going to pay a heavier toll than if the Coalition had let the Emissions Trading Scheme get up. The boot's going to be on the other foot come 1st of July.
And Just Why Should They Get Any Compensation?
This is the crux of the Greens' position. The reason a carbon price is being discussed is to create a deterrent for wanton emissions, as well as build a fund to combat the effects of climate change. The Corporate sector says they're only part of the problem, and ask why must they pay first before the private citizens? The answer to that is that they can always pass on the cost to the consumer, and therefore the punter is going to get hit with the carbon price; but also the notion that the government should compensate these polluting businesses for the losses they make when they have to factor in a carbon price is just another way for these firms to try and socialise the losses, just as they seek to continue privatsing the profits by avoiding the mining super-tax.
There's really not much more to it than that, so you can easily expect the Greens to ask, why should the tax payer fund any compensation for any of the polluting activity that these companies engage in and contribute to? They've been getting a free ride to date but the free ride is over. There is no reasonable argument to give compensation to freeloaders who suddenly must pay their way. Certainly it's the exact same argument they mount when they attack the welfare system and dole bludgers (do such entities exist any more?).
They can surely cop their own medicine. There shouldn't be any compensation at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment