'I am not a fan of a carbon tax, but I defend Cate's right to say she is a fan.'

No policy has been released? What are you basing this on? How will it work in practise?

'There were two Australian stars who fronted this ad. Besides Cate there was Michael Caton, but we hear no slur against his name from this lot. Why not?'

He's a one hit wonder, not a hollywood red carpet darling.

'Speaking of being rich, famous and having "lucky genes", what's the difference between listening to Cate and listening to Gina Rinehart?'

One is rallying for the government to control the money, the other is rallying for employers to control the money. Neither is appealing to me, but one is asking for a hand out for a 'good cause' (Not a good look for someone associated with the Arts) and the other is asking not to pay more tax, something all Australians can relate to.

BTW Steele, what's hypocritical about knowing whose side you are on, and shooting the messenger when the messenger has been chosen to obscure the issue and 'dazzle' us? When you make it about celebrity endorsement, you are making it about the 'brand'. I can legitimately dislike that brand. No hypocracy.

Oh, no policy yet released?

But you don't want it, that's for sure.

You just want Cate's butt out.

Houellebecq <"No policy has been released? What are you basing this on? How will it work in practise?"

Well if you don't know what she is on about, why are you so upset about her being on the advert then?

Maybe you are jealous of a fellow Aussie's success and the fact she was asked to do the advert and not you :)

Australia's richest person doesn't want to pay more tax?

Yes, I'm sure we can all relate to that.

I would be interested to see how much personal impact Cate and Michael expect the tax to have on their lives. I suspect that it will be a slight increase in costs but no real reduction in their ability to travel or otherwise go about their lives.

What's most interesting is how much the theme of "we need to do something" seems to dominate the yes case. I get the impression that few have any idea how the proposed something will actually help the world's environment but at least we will be doing something.

I've also been pondering the economics of what I understand the proposal to be. As I understand it the basic approach is to tax polluters, giving rebates to lower income people from the proceeds to soften the inevitable rise in prices with an overall goal of making cleaner energy sources less uncompetitive.

What happens when the big polluters are no longer big polluters and don't need to pay the tax any more but costs are still higher than they were? Where does the money to help the poor cope with the increased cost of living come from then?

R0bert