Sorry, the ETS was not merely blocked by the Opposition. Labor, if it had the guts to do so, which it does not, could go to election on a double-dissolution basis. Why doesn't it. Because it knows it may lose. Labor will not risk it.

Abbott took a punt in opposing it, although he had his reasons. Public opinion could have turned against the Coalition further. However, public debate about the ETS has seen support for the Rudd govt proposal decline dramatically

Has anyone ever heard anyone from that the ANU say something anti the labor party, Ruddy, or global warming, & the carbon trading rip off?

No I thought not. They must be hoping to get a bit of all that dosh to waste for us.

I recall the last government having to buy the vote od some ratbag senators to get their bills through. Some from Tassie, & SA come to mind.

Hang about. This bloke is an economist, as well as an academic. No wonder he has lousy recall.

Hasbeen

I was at ANU for my daughters graduation not long back. Talk about Howard hating, Labour loving fraternity. It was actually sickening. Some have the ignorance or hide to pretend that these Government Institutions encourage open debate. What a joke. Mr Abbot should get Australian of the Year for bringing down the fraudulent ETS. They had previously given to a 'scientist' whose science is based on fairytales. He has no shame despite his failed fortune telling time and time again.

I love the line advising Tony Abbott to negotiate..

"It may feel good to pander to a sense that government is broken, but as any student of history knows, the best leaders have always been willing to engage with the other side."

Its amazing how he doesn't realise its Kevin Rudd's unwillingness to negotiate that has led to the Govt's near collapse. Tell Kev to learn negotiating skills. Just today he was on the TV telling the Senate to "just get out of the way".

Bu then again, the self-righteous Left don't need to negotiate because they are always correct;and they are blind to their own errors.

Its interesting how they now wish to negotiate about taxes and "discuss" Climate Change only because they can no longer force their own way.

The natural climate change cycles of the planet have historically taken place without mammoth fart taxes or corrupt carbon trading taxes.

What would any abatement measures be trying to achieve when we cannot agree on whether we are currently warming or cooling let alone what role CO2 has.

Another economist Tim Curtin, who has made presentations at the ANU argues that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is good for world food production. The UN calls for increased food production, but then also calls for reduced CO2, Banki must have a screw loose somewhere.

The UN IPCC's reputation is in tatters, their theory has failed and yet the spin cycle (of which this article is a part) talks about better communicating the same old lies to the general public.

Andrew, you seem to make it so simple and yet as a CONSTITUTIONALIST it comes across you really haven’t got a clue what really is applicable. The ETS would in my view not being constitutionally valid neither to the proposed SUPER TAX against mining profits and numerous other legislative provisions but what we lack is a proper system since as I view it the High Court of Australia fails to do its job to be the GUARDIAN OF THE CONSTITUTION.
We never should have a political party in both Houses of Parliament because the House of representatives has a totally different job then the Senate. There is a conflict of interest in a political party operating in both Houses of Parliament.
The Senate is a State House rather then a House of Review because the Senate is to look after the interest of every State separately or combined where as the House of Representatives is for the whole of the Commonwealth. Hence Senators of a State who may appreciate the legislation submitted in the H of R may then vote for it even if it is contrary to the desire of their political party leader. The Senate may introduce legislation which may be accepted by the House of Representatives and so one could hardly claim that the H of R then is some kind of House of Review.
Every Senator has to protect the interest of his/her State as a paramount obligation! That is the function of the Senate and this has nothing to do with being obstructive or otherwise blocking legislation as every Senator would betray his function to act against the interest of his/her constituents. Then start your debate from there!