Let us get this clear,what I say in this post, maybe the next is what I believe to be the truth.
I think Gillard never wanted a carbon tax, say clearly she did say we will have no tax.
While I await her fall, DO NOT THINK SHE LIED.
Simply did not know a hung Parliament would be the result.
I think as Tony Abbott has said Labor had a mandate to bring in an ETS in the first term.
Not Tony Abbott at that time BELIEVED IN MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE AND AN ETS, is on record saying it.
Abbott today hinted it was Gillard not Rudd who stopped the ETS.
Abbott now supports a scheme that GIVES TAX PAYER FUNDS TO BIG BUSINESS to cut carbon .
Tax payers will pay for every cent of that, big new tax?
Abbott has said man made climate change is real/rubbish, we need an ETS /we do not need an ETS.
Abbott proposes we pay for high income mums to take leave, and is not calling it a tax.
Abbott says you can only believe what he says if it is scripted, who is the lie teller here
contained.

Malcolm Turnbull last night looked statesman like, nearly as good as Shorten.
He has been hardened by his trip in to the fire but like good steel came out the better for it.
He has learned an Abbott trick, complain constantly, not my wish but it works.
He looked 10 classes above Hockey Pyne Bishop and more over Abbott today.
Bishop walked in to Parliament today and with forethought lied to Australia.
She knowingly told a selected bit of Gillards speech last Tuesday.
With deliberate ,and well planed lies she tried to make that speech say things it never did.
A question, do Australians want an ETS?
and FLO YOU MUST NOT FORGET, Gillard has lost the male vote, not because she is a woman, but because she even today is not quite fair dinkum.
The lies are thick on the floor in conservatives seats area like ticket that ran last on the grand stand at Randwick.
But liking some one will not change voters intentions.
Look closely at Abbott standing in the next few polls it should show many points down, but let us see.

We need to move on whether what is proposed to address climate change will benefit this country. Do we think that Mr. Abbott's scheme is better.
I, among others believe that Mr. Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition has only one, what I call an obsession to get the voters back to another election he believes he can win. He has stated recently if he won, he would have a mandate to do what he likes. Does that mean he expects the Greens who will have the balance of power in the Senate to roll over at his demand.

My scenario if the matter was tried in court.

Have you studied the facts that are available to be so sure the PM would be convicted.

I have a feeling if you were able to take the allegations, your solicitor would have to advise you that are unlikely to win.
The reason for this is that no one's denies the words were said.

In court, the words would put back in context which gives them another likely meaning.

The words in themselves mean little. You would have to prove that at the time, the PM intended to bring in a carbon tax. Surprisingly, in the public arena at the time, there is evidence that this was not Labor policy and Labor had rejected calls from the Greens to do so.

You would have to prove that when the PM voiced the words, she knew she intended to introduce a carbon tax. You would find this hard to do.
The scenarios are that:-
The PM made the statement knowing was lie.
The PM believed at the time there would not be a carbon tax in a government she led.
The PM told the truth but changed conditions after the elections left her with two choices.
The PM could keep the promise and attempt the impossible because of the make-up of parliament to get it pass
The PM could abandon any action on climate change altogether but this would mean abandoning her promise to bring in market based charge on carbon.
The PM could renege on her promised not to introduce a carbon tax and introduce a temporary carbon tax to be replaced by a market base charge in three to five years.

What the PM has done is introduced a two stage plan for an introducing a carbon market price mechanism.
The PM has reneged on the promise not to bring in a carbon tax.
The PM has kept her promise to bring in a market based charge on carbon.

She did not knowingly lie.
She bent to the will of ALL her partners in both houses.
Great importance was put on ETS by country independents.
One of whom Abbott told HE WOULD DO ANY THING TO GAIN POWER.
A large number, big list, of non core broken promises from Howard is like a ghost haunting the minds of far more than conservatives want.
As we get deeper into mud throwing, further from the Westminster system our Parliament was based on, My predictions of leadership change comes closer.
Again we do not know what costs if any we face, yet knowingly conservatives lie, saying up to 15% price increases are the outcome.
LIE as much as you wish but both sides can be condemned without using lies.
Abbott bless the little fella,is my party's best performer.

BHP Billiton, the world's biggest miner, supports a carbon tax:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/its-time-for-a-carbon-tax-boss-marius-kloppers/story-e6frez7r-1225924615262 They know it's essential to do this at some stage, otherwise Australia will be left behind the advanced world, and prices will rise far beyond than they otherwise would. The eventual, long term result of not pricing carbon and of no emissions trading scheme is more tax and higher prices.

Research by Dr Michael Schaper, small business commissioner of the ACT shows that Australia has around 1,163,000 businesses. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry released last year a poll that showed around 290,750 Australian businesses supported a carbon tax or ETS. That's a lot of companies, and if listed one beneath each other would take up many thousands of OLO forum pages. I'm confident that after the carbon pricing and ETS are finalised, and all the details are worked out after the consultation period, that support will be around 50/50. Companies will then have the real facts and figures instead of what they have now, which is hysterical Coalition lies and figures made up for political purposes by the Coalition.

Because the announcement has just happened, and because the Labor government has gone against an election promise "there will not be a carbon tax" while at the same time are honouring an election promise "our policy is to price carbon", there is public confusion. As a result, this is the time when pricing carbon will be the least popular it will ever be. Given a bit of time the Australian population will realise that it's a necessity for survival in this modern world: By necessity I mean an 'economic' necessity. To not do it will mean eventual higher prices and more tax and lower industry profit levels.

The Coalition is only interested in a short term view because they see that as giving them a political advantage. Politics first, Australia second.