PM Gillard faces barrage of tax questions online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers Updated Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:10pm AEST
Slideshow .. MULTI videos .. other related inside ..
Newly sworn in Prime Minister Julia Gillard has faced a concerted Opposition attack over the Government's proposed mining tax in her first Question Time as leader.
Just hours after she was sworn in Ms Gillard faced off against Opposition Leader Tony Abbott in what may be the last sitting day before the election.
Ms Gillard and her new deputy Wayne Swan were forced to answer questions about their loyalty to Kevin Rudd after he was dumped by his party in favour of Ms Gillard.
The Parliament was also rocked by Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner's announcement that he will quit at the next election.
The proposed tax and Mr Rudd's inability to find a resolution to the fierce resistance from the resources industry has been causing angst amongst some Labor MPs anxious about retaining their seats.
In her first media conference as Prime Minister, Ms Gillard said the Government would suspend its ads about the tax and urged mining companies to do the same in a bid to break the deadlock.
BHP has since announced it will suspend its ads and there are reports the Minerals Council of Australia will do the same.
But Ms Gillard faced a series of questions from Mr Abbott over the tax, which will apply to companies' super profits at a rate of 40 per cent.
"Given the Prime Minister's claim to want genuine negotiations over the design on her great big new tax on mining, I ask as a sign of good faith, will she remove from the budget the $12 billion in net revenue estimated to be generated by the tax in its current form?" he said.
Ms Gillard replied that the Government was committed to negotiating in good faith over the design of the tax.
"I have said to the mining companies of this nation that the Government is opening the door and we are asking them to open their minds," she said.
Midnight knock
Ms Gillard and Mr Swan also faced several accusations that they were disloyal to Mr Rudd, who watched the proceedings from the backbench.
Opposition education spokesman Christopher Pyne took the opportunity to question whether Ms Gillard was too busy securing the leadership to pay attention to allegations of waste and mismanagement in the Building the Education Revolution program.
"Rather than delivering her programs successfully, has she been more focused on delivering the bloodstained knock on the door at midnight?" he said.
Ms Gillard defended her decision to run for the leadership because she felt the Government had "lost its way".
"I did also form the view that the best way of making sure that this Government was back on track, providing to the Australian people the leadership they deserved... was to take the course that I took last night and this morning," she said.
She also acknowledged that she was responsible for all of the Government's decisions to date, including the mistakes made.
And she sought to turn the focus back on Opposition policies by accusing Mr Abbott of wanting to bring back WorkChoices if he was elected as prime minister.
As debate continued well into the afternoon Ms Gillard declared it was "game on" between her and Mr Abbott while the Opposition accused the Government of being run by union bosses.
Before the Opposition commenced its attack both sides of politics paid tribute to former prime minister Kevin Rudd, who still looked emotional as he sat on the backbench following his teary press conference earlier today.
"I believe that every member of this place would be full of admiration for the remarkable and dignified way he has conducted himself today," Ms Gillard said.
Earlier today Ms Gillard pledged to lead a more inclusive Government after criticisms the "gang of four" dominated decision making.
She also indicated she would revive the Government's climate change policy after the Government's decision to shelve its emissions trading scheme was seen as a major contributor to the dive in Mr Rudd's popularity.
The party's decision to dump Mr Rudd for Ms Gillard was executed in less than 24 hours after factional leaders and key unions last night switched their support to Ms Gillard.
Key powerbrokers were convinced that under Mr Rudd Labor could not win the next election. He is the first Labor leader to be dumped before the end of a first term.
Ms Gillard says she will call an election in the "coming months" and will not live in the Lodge until after the election if she is returned as prime minister.
Mr Abbott says Ms Gillard's ascension to the leadership does not change the policies of the Government and the only way to get rid of the mining tax is to vote Labor out.
The Virtues of Standing Fast: The Lessons in the Fall of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd by Daniel Berman .. 6.24.2010
It’s not often that a leader who came to office with the highest popular vote total for his party in nearly three decades is ousted before he has had a chance to face the voters a second time. Its even rarer that his fall follows two years as one of his country's most popular Prime Ministers. And it is almost unheard of for a party insider to call his leader a crypto-fascist. Yet that is exactly what an Australian Labor Party insider used in regards of now-former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, noting that “This crypto-fascist made no effort to build a base in the party. Now that his only faction, Newspoll, has deserted him he is gone."
The fall of Kevin Rudd, Australia’s first Labor Prime Minister in 11 years, came as a shock to observers with few expecting it to occur as quickly or decisively as it did. Less than a week ago he appeared largely secure, and while a number of commentators, including myself for fivethirtyeight.com, were working on pieces suggesting he faced challenges as his government appealed to the Australian people for a second term, few expected the collapse to come so quickly. All in all, the leadership coup which toppled Kevin Rudd occurred in half a day, with less than twelve hours between the announcement of a challenge by his deputy, Julia Gillard, and his decision to resign in the face of almost certain defeat.
The immediate cause of the coup was the crushing defeat suffered by Rudd’s Labor party in a by-election at a state level in the New South Wales seat of Penrith. Normally this might not have mattered immensely, but the by-election is likely to be the last major electoral battle that will occur in Australia before the country goes to the polls, perhaps as early as August. With signs ranging from the decision of both parties to have their retiring members make their valedictory speeches this month to reports that both the governing Labor Party and the opposition Liberal National Coalition have reserved space for campaign headquarters, all indications seem to point to new elections.
As such, the result in Penrith took on a serious note. While Penrith was not a completely safe Labor seat -it required a swing of 9.2% to deliver it to the Liberals, substantially above the 6.9% they needed to win government at the state level - Labor had failed to win it only once in the last 40 years. In the end however, it was not the result that shocked observers so much as the margin by which it was delivered. The Liberals recorded a swing of nearly 26% in the two-party preferred vote, Australia's system of preferential voting, which is similar to the proposed alternative vote electoral system being discussed in the UK.
To be fair, the shift represented by the Penrith by-election is not unknown - a similar by-election in Sydney in the fall of 2008 showed a swing of 23% to the Liberals. Nevertheless, it was a mortal threat to Rudd exactly because of the reasons outlined by the Labor insider above. Rudd, who had been swept to power on a campaign focused on bringing about change after eleven years of conservative rule, had alienated every major constituency in his party such that the only thing keeping him in office was his popularity. And when that was gone, to paraphrase the insider “so was he.”
Below are the results of the Penrith By-Election:
Party ... 2007 ....... 2007 2PP .. 2010 .. 2010 2PP Labor .. 48.7% ......... 59.2% .. 24.4% .. 33.7% Liberal .. 32.6% ...... 40.8% ... 50.9% .. 66.3% Green .. 5.6% ................... 12.6% .. Christian Democrats .. 6.2% ................ 4.5% Other .. 6.9% ...................... 8%
At first it may not seem apparent why Rudd’s fate may be important beyond the shores of Australia. But in many ways Rudd’s election and subsequent problems mirrored those of another candidate of change, and his difficulties may well preview the challenges Obama would have faced had he buckled and failed to pass health-care in February, as many observers urged him to do. And the lesson from Australia seems to be a reinforcement of the axiom that “one who stands for nothing, is nothing.”
At first, any comparison between Australia and the US may seem odd. Australia, after all, has a parliamentary system of government in which the Prime Minister is elected by a majority of the House of Representatives rather than the voters directly. Yet, it is arguably one of the most “presidential” of the Westminster systems, one in which leaders debates are an electoral institution, rather than a novelty as in the UK, and where party loyalty is often far more mutable. Partially this is due to the preferential voting system that makes minority governments all but unheard- of, and partially to the dominance of the political system since the Second World War by a few strong individuals. While the total number of Prime Ministers at 11 is only one-less than the UK had over the same period, 4 of them accounted for 43 years between them, with Liberal Robert Menzies serving for 16 consecutive years in the 1950s and 60s. John Howard served for 11 years from 1996 to 2007, and if his triumphs in 1998, 2001, and 2004 were about his leadership style, so too was his defeat in 2007.
John Howard, while undoubtedly being a strong Prime Minister, was never quite a popular one. He was too conservative in politics and too abrasive in style to enjoy the sort of broad popularity that a Blair or Reagan enjoyed. His victories in 1998 and 2001 were close-run things, with the Liberal-National Coalition losing the popular vote to the Labor party 51-49 in the former, and winning it by the same margin in the latter. In between the two, he recorded some of the lowest poll ratings ever achieved by an Australian Prime Minister. Yet when it mattered the voters were there. In a sense one could draw a parallel with former US President George W. Bush, and not just because of the close personal relationship between the two men and similar politics.
Howard’s political trajectory followed a similar pattern to that of his American counterpart. By 2004, it seemed his luck might well have run-out. With an unpopular war in Iraq and with voter fatigue dragging him down domestically it seemed his luck had run out, but a controversial Labor leader, and a strong campaign, allowed him to win another term by a surprisingly large margin.
After 2004, George Bush had the luxury of not having to consider reelection, and was content to watch his political situation deteriorate over the next few years with something akin to equanimity. Howard, who should likely have retired after his triumph, instead seemed revitalized by it, launching an agenda more ambitious than ever. Even as the 2007 elections approached he seemed utterly convinced he could repeat his 2004 feat, despite polls showing his party down as much as 20 points in the polls.
Insert: Howard's, ego took him to attempt the record of the longest serving. Cost him and his party. He was the first sitting PM to lose his own seat.
Unfortunately what he had not bargained on was that the new Labor leader would be an inoffensive former diplomat, Kevin Rudd, who calmly ran a campaign focused on restoring Australia’s place in the world. This meant restoring relations with countries like Indonesia, improving relations with China, and dealing with challenges like global warming, which Rudd declared was the “greatest moral challenge of our generation”.
By contrast the Liberals had few issues, and with even the US seemingly turning against George Bush, Howard’s strongly pro-American tilt was a liability. Howard, speaking about the threat international terror, immigration, and staking out socially conservative views, seemed out-of-date in late 2008. In the end, the Labor party won a comfortable victory, and Howard’s humiliation was made complete when he lost his own seat.
Kevin Rudd took over as one of Australia’s most popular politicians, but things seemed to move much less rapidly than many of his supporters had hoped. Rudd reiterated his determination to keep Australian troops in Afghanistan, and went so far as to block a number of progressive policies, intervening to invalidate a law passed by the local government of the Australian Capital Territory legalizing Gay Marriage.
On the major issue, global warming, and its policy heart, the Emissions Trading Scheme or ETS, effectively identical Obama’s proposed “Cap and Trade” system, the government seemed in no hurry. The inclination seemed to be to wait for Barack Obama to take office in the US to join a world-wide effort rather than to push it through unilaterally. While it was widely noted that the Liberal-National Coalition’s strength in the Senate allowed them to block it, it was also noted that the Prime Minister in Australia has the ability to call a so-called “double-dissolution” election in which both the House and the entire Senate are up at one time, rather than half the Senate being elected in 3 year increments as is normal. It was noted that the Labor Party’s lead in the polls; as much as 20 points throughout much of 2008 and early 2009, would likely have allowed them to win a majority on their own in such an election, and a guaranteed one when combined with the Greens.
Rudd’s confidence was likely increased by the chaos in the opposition. Peter Costello, Howard’s deputy and presumed successor, retired from politics after the 2007 defeat, and Malcolm Turnbull, a moderate Liberal from Sydney, was narrowly defeated by the mostly unknown but more right-wing former Defense Minister Brendan Nelson, who struggled to break double digits in polls on the preferred Prime Minister. In June of 2008, Nelson, trailing by 30 points, and tired of sniping from the Turnbull camp, called a surprise leadership ballot, which he perhaps less surprisingly lost. Malcolm Turnbull, the charismatic moderate from Sydney took over the leadership.
On paper Turnbull should have improved things for the Liberals. He was modern, socially liberal, and believed in fashionable things, including sharing Rudd’s belief that battling climate change was the moral issue of our time. Initially he did improve things marginally. But he faced the problem facing any leader ideologically out of step with his party – constant back-stabbing, incessant negative leaks to the media, and constant plotting. That he proved gaffe-prone did not help matters, and as he consistently failed to make headway against Labor’s lead in the polls, back-room sniping and leaking turned to outright rebellion.
Rudd seemed to assume that he could rely on Turnbull to at least pass Cap and Trade through the senate at any time, while at the same time hoping that doing so would maximize damage to the opposition. As such they seemed to deliberately strong out the issue so as to maximize the damage to Turnbull, while still expecting him to help pass it. He might even have been able to, or at least able to deliver enough abstentions among his senators for it to pass had Rudd returned from the Copenhagen conference in 2009 with a plan for worldwide action under American leadership. But if Copenhagen was a temporary setback for Barrack Obama’s plans to battle climate change, it was a disaster for Rudd’s. It left Australia to act alone, in the middle of a recession, and this was something the Liberal senators and the party refused to do. In December of 2009, Turnbull was challenged for the leadership, and lost the run-off not to the expected winner, Joe Hockey, but to one of the most right-wing members of the former Howard Government, former Health Minister Tony Abbott. Abbott rapidly moved to block the ETS program in the Senate, and Rudd, rather than facing down the senate with a double-dissolution, announced that implementation of the ETS would be delayed until 2013 at the earliest.
From that point on nothing has gone right for the Labor government. In December, the Labor party still had a lead of 16 points in the Morgan poll, as opposed to 2 points last week. On paper this should not have been the case. By all accounts, the nomination of the Conservative Abbott was universally expected to seal the doom of the Liberal party. A former trainee priest dubbed the “Mad Monk”, Abbott is an outspoken social conservative who had a history of opposition to gay rights, abortion, and stem cell research, and favored a tough line on both immigration and aboriginal policy. Many Labor members rejoiced at the thought of running against what they saw as the the worst example of the Howard years.
And perhaps that has been Labor’s problem. With any action on ETS delayed until 2013, and the federal government not only taking an oppositional stance to social reforms like gay marriage but outright blocking them at the state level, Labor has had little to run on except opposition to Abbott. And it is far from a foregone conclusion that such a strategy cannot work. Howard famously managed to turn 2004 Labor leader Mark Latham into a figure of hate, the success of which is testified to by a June 15th poll finding that only 4% of Australians had a favorable opinion of Latham, compared to 61% with a negative view. But the Labor attacks on Abbott have so far failed to take effect, and if anything have backfired. When Abbott first became leader, Rudd led him in the Morgan poll’s preferred Prime Minister Question by a 60 point margin, 78% to 18%. Last week that lead had shrunk to 48% to 38%, a lead of 10.
Part of the problem may have been that the Howard years aren't looking quite so bad as they did a few years ago. Contrary to being a hated figure, as he arguably was when he left office, Howard, according to recent polls, is now viewed the most favorably of any Prime Minister of the last 30 years, with 51% having a “good” impression of his tenure compared with 26% who rated it generally poorly. This is far better than Rudd or Abbott’s numbers which are 38/34 and 30/34 respectively. And polls show that the public does not see why they should reject Abbott because of his “extreme” positions on global warming or gay marriage when the Rudd government has demonstrated similar positions.
As a result, despite the efforts of the Labor party to make the upcoming election about Abbott and the opposition, increasingly it was shaping up to be referendum on the incumbent government, and one that Rudd looked very likely to lose. As Julia Gillard, his deputy, noted in her challenge, by dropping ETS, Rudd abandoned any affirmative reason to support Labor. At the same time by adopting conservative issues on foreign affairs and social issues, he made it difficult for Labor’s attacks on Abbott to stick. After all, how could Abbott be an extremist if the government held generally the same views on the issues? In the end, the government was left with a campaign based on running as the lesser of two evils, without any clear way of distinguishing themselves as the lesser of the two.
While his failure to make progress against Abbott was the final nail in the coffin for Rudd, his rise and fall has implications for politicians outside of Australia. In the US, where Democrats lack the option of dropping Obama before the midterms, or even realistically before the 2012 elections, they are putting their faith in Sarah Palin and the “extremist” Tea Party to save them from defeat by alienating middle-of-the- road voters. There is a warning, however, in Rudd’s failure, for Democrats who expect a fear-mongering campaign against Palin or the Tea Party movement to deliver them victory. The reason the Labor party is currently being forced to run a campaign based around demonization of the leader of the opposition rather than their own achievements is because they are perceived as having so few achievements to run on. Obama too faces disenchantment with his base, and if voters in Australia do not let fear of the “extremist” Tony Abbott prevent them from voting out Kevin Rudd, then perhaps Democratic strategists should find a better strategy than simply waiting for their opposition to destroy themselves.
The evidence indicates that contrary towards the accepted view, obstruction, even of an ostensibly popular program like the ETS, actively helped the opposition by rallying their own supporters and dispiriting the government's, whereas the opposition's support for the plan under Turnbull only divided them and made them look disorganized. In fact, that obstruction arguably moved the debate, making ETS unpopular, and forcing the government to drop it from their political platform. This is not to say that the Liberal-National coalition will win; they are still marginally behind within the margin of error in polls, and there is still significant infighting over candidates in winnable seats, including two who are under the age of 21, and facing challenges for that reason. But obstruction has carried them from the threshold of a historical defeat in 2008 and 2009, to the verge of victory in 2010.
Obama did not imitate Rudd in retreating when health care ran into difficulties, and Rudd’s fall provides evidence that as bad as the political fallout from that passage might be, that the consequences of the abandonment of such an effort after so many resources were expanded on it would have been far worse. Nevertheless, Obama should be worried that if obstruction still manages to carry the otherwise unelectable Mr. Abbott to Canberra, that perhaps he needs another strategy other than running against Republican extremism if he wishes to win reelection.
This piece was composed by Research Assistant Daniel Berman. Originally composed with the intent of predicting Rudd's future difficulties, it ended up cataloging his fall, reminding us all of the mortality that faces world leaders each and every day.
Ben Chifley was seen as the archetypal 'Aussie battler’. Chifley was the first son of an Irish Catholic blacksmith of Bathurst, NSW, where he was born in 1885. As a boy, he spent nine years on his grandfather's small farm at Limekilns where his education suffered because the local school opened only two or three days a week. But Chifley became an avid reader, even poring over a book while waiting to bat in cricket matches.
When he returned to Bathurst, he spent some time in a Catholic high school then worked at various jobs before joining the railways. He became a locomotive cleaner at 18 and, for 15 years, continued his education at night school while he climbed steadily toward the position of first-class driver and instructor.
Chifley grew up during the years of Labor's emergence as a political power and the rapid growth of the union movement. He was a loyal, though not militant, union man and his reading and experience made him 'a devout socialist'. He participated in the anti-conscription movement and in the 1917 railway strike which, he said, "left a legacy of bitterness and trail of hate". His part in it brought him demotion for eight years.
After an unsuccessful attempt to win a parliamentary seat, he won Macquarie in 1928 and, as Minister for Defence and Assistant Treasurer in Scullin's government, he was soon flung into the great Depression-years battles between the right and left wings of the party. Chifley was one of the casualties, losing his seat to a left-winger in 1931. He did not regain it until 1940, when he became Curtin's firmest friend and sturdiest supporter.
Between 1941-45 he was Treasurer and Minister for Post-War Reconstruction in Curtin's government and was the architect of Labor's post-war policies. Curtin's death, Chifley's defeat of Forde in the election for Prime Minister and the abrupt conclusion of the war by the atom bombs meant that Chifley could start to put these policies in place late in 1945.
His 'welfare state' policies included some of the most notable reforms and initiatives in Australian history. The Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority doubled the nation's output of electricity. The immigration programs opened the way for a huge influx of British and European immigrants. Support of the motor industry enabled 'Australia's own car', the Holden, to roll off the assembly line on 29 November 1948. The introduction of civilian widows' pensions and unemployment, sickness and hospital benefits aided countless families. The establishment of Trans-Australia Airlines and the nationalisation of QANTAS launched Australian aviation into a new era. Other schemes included the regulation of coal marketing and waterside labour and Commonwealth support of state housing finance.
Chifley's aims included nationalisation of the banks, which he had advocated since the mid-1930s. But the private banks defeated this move with an appeal to the High Court. This setback intensified the Liberal-Country Party assault on Labor. The LCP more than hinted that Chifley was leading Australia toward Communism.
In the turbulent election campaign of December 1949, Chifley enunciated sensible, humanitarian and progressive policies. Probably Menzies' most potent weapon was a promise to end petrol rationing. In any case, he won the election.
Chifley suffered a heart attack in 1950. But in 1951 he returned to the fray when Menzies called a double dissolution of Parliament. Often staggering with exhaustion, Chifley led the Labor campaign but Menzies won again.
It was almost the end of the road for the blacksmith's son who had become Prime Minister. On the evening of 13 June 1951, while working at his desk in Canberra, he suffered another heart attack and died. http://www.australianhistory.org/joseph-chifley.php
Excerpt .. Illusions of power ... The fate of a reform government .. Michael Sexton .. p 128 ..
After the May 1974 double dissolution at which the ALP returned 29 Senators and the LCP 29, with two Independents, neither side could be absolutely guaranteed a majority. But the Tasmanian Liberal Party rapidly came to an agreement with the Independent Liberal Michael Townley The opposition was then certain of 30 votes, and sometimes had 31 when the South Australian Liberal Movement leader, Steele Hall, voted with them. But even with 30 votes, the Opposition numbers were adequate, as the Senate Standing Orders provide that if a vote is tied, the motion is defeated. The tactic of outright rejection was used frequently, both in the first 18 months and later, with the support of Townley. This tactic amounted for the defeat of 93 Bills in the government's 35 months of office. In the previous 75 years of the Senate's history, it had rejected outright a total of only 68 Bills.
BHP CEO calls for Australian carbon tax .. BHP's move puts carbon tax back on Gillard's agenda Tom Arup and Adam Morton .. September 17, 2010
BHP CEO, Marius Kloppers, calls for the introduction of a carbon tax in order to set price certainty for business. .. VIDEO inside ..
JULIA GILLARD has left open the possibility of abandoning an election promise to not introduce a carbon tax amid a concerted push by energy and mining leaders for swift action on climate change.
Responding to BHP Billiton chief executive Marius Kloppers' call for Australia to embrace a carbon price ahead of other countries, Ms Gillard yesterday refused to rule out a carbon tax, promising that a new cross-party climate change committee would look at all options "in good faith".
HAHA .. YOU HAVE TO SEE TONY ABBOTT in the video this one!!! .. conservative HYPOCRITE .. so big on breaking one promise, t hough conditions have changed dramatically .. farting cows excluded .. that's good ..
Julia Gillard strikes deal with Greens on carbon pricing
* Phillip Hudson and AAP .. * From: AAP, Herald Sun .. * February 24, 2011 11:46AM
Prime Minister Julia Gillard with Greens Leader Senator Bob Brown and Greens deputy Christine Milne along with Independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott announcing their agreement to pursue a carbon price. Climate Change Minister Greg Combet (obscured behind Ms Gillard) Picture: Kym Smith Source: Herald Sun
UPDATE 6.30pm: TONY Abbott says Julia Gillard's new price on carbon pollution is a "betrayal" that will increase average family power bills by $300 and hike petrol prices by 6.5 cents.
The Prime Minister today announced a carbon price would start on July 1 2012 if she could get legislation passed in federal Parliament.
In a deal with the Greens, Ms Gillard said tackling climate change and cutting pollution was critical for Australia’s clean energy future.
While she conceded that power-hungry goods and services would be more expensive under the new scheme, she stressed every cent raised would go to compensating industry and households.
But while the carbon price is yet to be set, Mr Abbott was quick in his attempts to skewer the proposals before they are put to Parliament.
Mr Abbott said Ms Gillard had ruled out a carbon tax under a Labor government in last year's election campaign.
Related Coverage .. links for the rest of these inside if interested .. * Pricing: Businesses fear cost of carbon plan * The Punch: Carbon price debate is PM's biggest fight * Dummies guide to carbon pricing Herald Sun, 18 minutes ago * Greenhouse tax to push prices higher Courier Mail, 7 hours ago * Price fears on carbon backflip Adelaide Now, 8 hours ago * Gillard, Greens brace for tough talks The Australian, 8 hours ago * PM ready for carbon tax fight The Australian, 8 hours ago
"Today's announcement is an utter betrayal of the Australian people," he said in Canberra.
"If the Australian people could not trust the Prime Minister on this, they can't trust her on anything."
Mr Abbott said the carbon price - which has yet to be set - would push up the average family's power bill by $300 a year and fuel prices by 6.5 cents a litre.
"This will be paid every day by every Australian," he said.
Mr Abbott vowed to fight the scheme "every second of every minute of every day of every week of every month".
"I think there will be a people's revolt against this carbon tax," he said.
He claimed the decision showed it was actually Bob Brown who was heading the minority government.
Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said Ms Gillard was afraid to say the carbon price was a tax, leading to “massive increases in power and petrol prices”.
"That's why she uses carbon price. She doesn't have the courage to say to the Australian people that this is a carbon tax."
Mr Abbott's office put out a press release today that included examples of "what Julia Gillard and Labor used to say about a carbon tax".
On the day before last year's election Ms Gillard said: "I rule out a carbon tax."
Earlier, in August 2010 she said: "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead."
'Time is right' for carbon price
Today the Prime Minister, speaking to reporters in Canberra, admitted price hikes were inevitable if she won support for a carbon price.
But Ms Gillard stressed every cent collected from the tax would go towards giving compensation to families to pay for the rising cost of household bills, helping business to make the transition and tackling climate change.
“And the Government will always support those who are in need of assistance with cost of living pressures.''
Ms Gillard said there was “work to do” on industry and household compensation arrangements, and expected some “hard conversations” before those matters were finalised.
But despite the price effects, putting a price on carbon was the most efficient way to cut carbon pollution, she said.
“If you put a price on something - people will use less of it.''
Ms Gillard said the carbon price set by the Government would be fair.
While she expected the Opposition would try to brand the push as a new tax, she said "history tells us you need to be on the wave of change".
She predicted a tough fight ahead with Mr Abbott and expected he would immediately be spruiking a fear campaign “and talking to Australians about a great big new tax on everything''.
''(But) can I make it very clear that in the debate that will ensue I am not intending to take a backwards step," she said.
“I'm determined to price carbon.
“History teaches us that the countries and the economies who prosper at times of historic change are those who get in and shape and manage the changes.
“The time is right and the time is now.''
She announced a two-stage plan that would start with a fixed price on carbon for between three and five years, with the second stage being an emissions trading scheme.
Ms Gillard said after the fixed carbon price began in 2012, the country would move to a “cap-and-trade” emissions trading scheme within three to five years.
Agricultural emissions will not be included in the carbon pricing system, because Ms Gillard said trying to account for those emissions was “too complex”.
Independents, Greens support vital for carbon scheme
The breakthrough comes after the Government last year abandoned its previous emissions trading scheme after it failed to get it through the Senate.
At the time, the Greens sided with the Coalition to vote against an emissions trading scheme, arguing the carbon reduction targets were too low and industry compensation was too high.
While Ms Gillard has now locked in the support of the Greens, the support of Federal Parliament is uncertain.
Independent Rob Oakeshott said he was strongly in favour of the proposals, and if there was a favourable plan he would "sign it tomorrow".
But Independent Tony Windsor, also at the announcement, did not declare his hand: "Nothing's settled in my view."
The PM and the Greens leader announced their heads of agreement today at a joint press conference in the Prime Minister’s Courtyard at Parliament House.
The Government and the Greens have been regularly meeting to discuss options for putting a price on carbon to reduce greenhouse emissions.
A climate change committee - which involves the Government, Greens and independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott - has held four meetings since it was set up in September last year, in the aftermath of the election.
The failure of the emissions trading scheme breached a promise by former prime minister Kevin Rudd to tackle climate change and was blamed for his drop in opinion polls and eventual toppling by Ms Gillard.
The Opposition has said it will block any new “carbon tax'', so the Government will rely on the votes of the independents and Greens to secure the passage of its legislation.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
