We wasted the last parliament because all the effort was put into setting up an ETS. The risk is that we will do the same this time round given that putting a price on carbon will run into most of the complications encountered in the CPRS investigation.

Alternatives to putting a price on carbon need to be considered for dealing with the major sources of emissions. We should be comparing direct action, putting a price on clean and regulation instead of concentrating on a complex attempt to develop an answer to everything.

there will always be a third party, a bastard child of the majors, a waif looking for relevance..

It would seem that Labor forgot that it doesn't have a majority. Usually, everyone toes the party line, so by having the Greens wrest this from Labor it would usually mean it would go through undebated (Labor+Greens in the Senate would seem to have a majority from July 2011).

I wonder who got shafted in this negotiations?
- Labor - have they not grasped the extent of their possible minority or realised how this opens them up to attacks about giving in too easily?
- Greens - can they add up? 72+1=73; non-Labor+Coalition=77.
- Greens voters - the Greens can be "seen" to be doing something without actually doing anything.

Oh, and Angry Oak: I really wonder how many people looked at the Greens as a whole package instead of just as an environmental party or place to park their protest vote...

ps - jeremy is being sarcastic?

http:///www.currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

Democracy is a weird and wonderful thing.
What about a ten person representative committee on taxation?
Since 50% of Aussies make less than $40k a year, they get 5 seats.
As only about 10% of Aussies make more than $100k, they get 1 seat.
Wouldn't that be more 'representative' and democratic than all members of the committee coming from the highest tax bracket?

grim, how about those who pay the most tax, and thus fund the greater works of government, get the most representation?

Those who pay bugger all, get what they put in, bugger all

what could be fairer and more democratic?

so I hear it's 10% of Australian pay over 60% of the taxes, the next 10% pay 20% and so it goes, down at the low end .. they pay bugger all if anything, but all want to determine what happens to the money - all of a sudden they want things to be spread evenly .. right up to paying the same portion of their earnings? I think not.

As I said, rpg, Democracy is a weird and wonderful thing.
Democracy is about the equal rights of people, not of dollars.
I am curious; would you really prefer to live in a society where votes are proportional to the amount of money one makes?
Personally, I found this notion in the article to be rather appealing:
"Each term, a new randomly selected group of conscripts is drafted to serve in Canberra. They are paid the minimum wage. You can be sure Parliament wouldn’t sit for long and that the government would generally stay out of most people’s lives and wallets, affording Australians the time and money to be good parents and neighbours."
Our politicians are still willing to sacrifice the lives of our children in foreign wars. What sacrifices are they prepared to make, for the sake of their country?