Australia is supposed to be a DEMOCRATIC country and in a Democracy the people rule, therefore a REFERENDUM of the people should have been held because the CARBON TAX will effect all of us.
The Labour government and the Greens refused to let the people have a say by way of a referendum because of all the polls indicated the people did not want a carbon tax.
To soften the impact of their CARBON TAX they they realied on peoples human nature and included financial benefits which are nothing short of bribery, and they put in place a guarantee for the first 3 years but would not speculate further guarantees after the first 3 years.
When ever put to them a question of the guarantees after the initial CARBON TAX of 3 years, they answered with, "it will change to an E.T.S. Emmission Trading SCHEME". I noticed they fail to guarantee any finiancial benifits after changes from a CARBON TAX to an E.T.S. So I am skeptical and in nearly all things which virtually impacts on the people financially the word SCHEME stands out.
Although Australia is fundamentaly a christian country and regardless whether your are a christian or an agnostic or an athiest or any other religion we live in a DEMOCRACY and the levels of a true DEMOCRACY are as follows;
(1) GOD or THEOCRACY where GOD rules.
(2) MAN or DEMOCRACY where People rule.
(3) PARLIAMENT or BUREAUCRACY where Officials rule
(4) CORPORATIONS where these entities rule nothing.
People are natural living flesh and blood men and women with a soul and we have the ability to make decissions for ourselves. We elect the members of our constituants to represent us in the Parliament and the Government, so we the PEOPLE rule and our elected representatives have to do what we the people want and not what they want as they are have been doing. When Parliaments and Governments overrule our inalienable DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS and FREEDOMS then we are reduced to slaves.

@GrahamY: Otherwise this is just a redistribution of income, not an environmental measure

Maybe what you might expect from Labour, given they promised to do nothing. This is about as close as they could get to keeping the promise.

The great irony for me is the Greens had a hand in authoring this. It is weaker than Rudd proposal, which the Greens shot down for being too weak. So the nett result of all the Greens manoeuvring over the past 2-3 years was more seats to them at Rudd/Labour's expense, at the cost of weaker green policies. I am sure they think it is a fair exchange. I'm a cynical bastard I know, but I swear all these politicians are the same.

Still I think you may be being a bit harsh on the "not an environmental issue". So far all carbon initiatives have been brought using a thin edge of the wedge model. The rest of the wedge will be slipped after an election cycle or two, once everyone gets comfortable with the idea that a price on carbon isn't anywhere near as painful as some make out. In the mean time, Labour using the opportunity to do some income re-distribution along the way is also entirely expected, and consistent with their traditions and voter base. Our GINI Coefficient has been meandering upward in the last few years, so I don't think it was an inappropriate thing to do.

@GrahamY: Gillard et al must think we're all mugs.

Possibly. But right now her competition is a man who says is is going to balance the budget, give us all tax cuts, and pay the polluters to reduce CO2 - all at the same time. I presume if he thought turning the seas to ginger beer would get some short term votes he would promise that too. He makes her look reasonable and thoughtful. I think Gillard is an abysmal politician, so making her look reasonable real achievement. Kudo's to Abbott for pulling it off.

I am hoping both sides have better leaders waiting in the wings.

The government is made up of a Coalition of varied political and social interests, Labor, Greens, and Independents. As Penny Wong has said in the past it is important to make the first step no matter how small to achieve any programme. Under Kevin Rudd there was no compromise and the ETS was defeated twice in the Senate by the Greens.
The government does not deny that an escalation of the carbon trading will occur after the first three years (2015). There does appear to be a cost imbalance which according to the government will be corrected in due course. Without taking this first step - nothing will ever be achieved. The government has included all the alternatives suggested by the Opposition - such as carbon sequestration, planting trees, and a variety of other measures. I'm sure that in due course the polluters will develop alternatives to off-set their expenses and alternative measures of dealing with carbon emissions will develop some more efficient than others.

Unless we take this first step - nothing will be achieved.
BTW: Watch "Q and A" this evening (Monday, 11th July 2011) - the PM will be there to answer the public concern and questions.

Let us assume the Liberals are in government. They would face the same amount of opposition and obstructionism from their opposition - Labor, Greens, and Independents. And nothing would ever be achieved. Now wouldn't it be a good idea if the politicians got together and learned to work in the interest of the nation? It would also be advisable for the voters to recognise the difficulty of any major change - and let the government do its job before making judgements on a programme that hasn't even gotten off the ground.

While there is the intent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Australia via the carbon tax, we are still going to have very rapid population growth, which will just override and cancel out any gains.

We might be able to make small average per-capita reductions but what is the likelihood of us making a national reduction? Nil!

SURELY a reduction in the immigration rate HAS to be part of any genuine carbon-pollution-reduction strategy!

Gillard has said that she is not a proponent of a big ‘Austroilya’. Well, wasn’t this carbon tax business the perfect opportunity for her to announce a significance reduction in immigration??

Lexi,

Where is the "major change?"

Our towns and cities are now designed to centralise goods and services. A car is "required" to get to almost everything. In fact, our sense of community has been compromised to such an extent that we wouldn't know where to begin in an attempt to kick-start a more eco-friendly way of living.

I don't believe, under the present paradigm, that the Australian population would be willing to alter its pattern of energy consumption without a major revision (reversion) in our community design and operation.

Dear Poirot,

We have to start somewhere. Surely you're not suggesting we don't require industry to clean up their mess just because certain members of the population are not able to change their habits or because certain members of the population don't want to change?