Getting rid of the Carbon Tax

[Dazz]

So I've been doing some research on the numbers, specifically what it would actually take to get rid of the Carbon Tax.


Like most analyses, a few fundamental assumptions need to be made of course, due to the exact numbers not being known. It can get a bit hazy, but due to the issue being the number one subject on which the next Federal election will be fought, it seems a worthy topic to chat about....not to mention it affecting every Australian in every aspect of their lives.


A fundamental assumption, the first cab off the rank, is that the Liberal Party / National Party coalition will have enough members elected to the House of Representatives to actually form Govt. This will be a minimum of 76 seats out of the possible 150.


The next assumption is that, as one the first priorities after being elected, is to do as they promised, and introduce bills to scrap the Carbon Tax. With a heavy expectation from the community to do so, this should be a given.


The next assumption is that the Bills will pass the Lower House - which it should easily if all coalition members vote as per their party lines. I think this is a given as well. Why would anyone vote against a bill that they had just ridden into Parliament promising to do....


The next assumption, and first hurdle, is that the Labor and Green Senators who rejoiced in introducing the legislation in the first place will automatically reject any bill to dismantle the Carbon Tax they just put together. Noises from both Labor & Green parties today are saying just that.


With 76 Senators, the Senate is currently split like this ;


Liberal Senators................28
Labor Senators.................31
Greens Senators...............09
National Senators.............05
Democratic Labor..............01
Independents...................01

Total..............................76


There is a bit of a time lag....this is important. The Federal election will change the House of Reps mix in August 2013....hopefully....but the Senate mix won't change until July 2014, and only then half of the mix are up for change. All those who entered the Senate in July 2011 will not change.


This is where it gets a bit fuzzy.


One can be assured absolutely nothing will change prior to July 2014.


Depending on the outcome of the election, and this was being spoken about on the media this morning, if the Liberals have a landslide victory, they MAY have enough Senators to just get the nod in the Senate after July 2014.


If not, they will have to go down the path of Section 57.


http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s57.html


This is the double dissolution / joint sitting of Parliament route, which has a precedence, back in 1974.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Sitting_of_the_Australian_Parliament_of_1974



This is where the numbers really get interesting, and predicting the outcome becomes really hazy. The two houses would combine, with a total vote count of 150+76 = 226.


So you'd need 114 to pass a bill. If the Liberals / Nats coalition remained at 33 Senators like they have now and ignoring the rest, they would need 114 - 33 = 81 seats in the lower house to push the Bill thru.


They currently have 72 in the Lower house, so would need to retain everyone they currently have, and pick up an extra 9 at least. This is the hard route......it involves yet another full election.....big turmoil.


The easier route would be to enjoy a whitewash on the Senate ticket in the August 2013 election and somehow pick up enough Senators to pass the bill, with most likely the assistance of the DLP and independent senator.....tough call.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...loss-to-repeal-carbon-tax-20120420-1xc8l.html


Of course, the biggest hurdle is what commentators are calling "maintaining the rage".

• The Carbon Tax was introduced and passed with a 74-72 vote in the Lower House on 12 Oct 2011
• Subsequently was passed with a 36-32 vote in the Senate on 08 November 2011.
• It will come into effect in 01 July 2012.

With all of the normal operations between now and July, then over a year of the Carbon Tax before the election, then a further year or so with it in operation whilst trying to dismantle it, I reckon it'll be a big ask to maintain the rage that long, probably into mid 2015 if the Senate result isn't a whitewash.


Anyway, I guess we'll see. I'd welcome people's thoughts, seeing as though it's the biggest item on the electoral agenda.

 

[D.T.]

Good write up Dazz.

Do you think it's a coincidence Bob Brown exited just before it's entrance?

 

[Belbo]

What? Did I read that correctly? "Maintaining the rage" could be a problem?

But we've been reliably and repeatedly told the economy will lurch and convulse, businesses and households will collapse into ruin, and Australia's international competitiveness will be destroyed.

Has your lot been making up porkies again, Dazz? Well, I never!

 

[Dan_p]

I hope your right.

The silver lining of the carbon tax would be housing prices would go up, but so too would everything else.

 

[Aaron_C]

Dazz what do you mean "They currently have 72 in the Lower house, so would need to retain everyone they currently have, and pick up an extra 9 at least. This is the hard route......it involves yet another full election.....big turmoil."?

Wouldn't the next election in 2013 presumably give the Coalition this 9 seat majority anyway?

 

[Dazz]

Good write up Dazz.

Do you think it's a coincidence Bob Brown exited just before it's entrance?

Thanks Dave.

For me, it's always interesting to look at the numbers and see whether things are possible or not....wanting to do something and actually being in a position to do something about it is altogether different.

Not 100% on the Bob Brown thing, but the word on the street is Bob's health is not too good.....and he's literally only got a while to live. I don't agree with any of his Green Party's policies, but I wouldn't wish ill health on anyone.

I fully expect to read some very bad news on that front in the near future.

I think there was a lot more to the comment "I shall be a Green 'til the day I die" than anyone let on in the media scrum. No questions were asked on the matter, and none were postulated afterwards either, but he looked awfully gaunt in the face....who knows, maybe something a good Wagyu eye fillet steak couldn't fix.

 

[Dazz]

Wouldn't the next election in 2013 presumably give the Coalition this 9 seat majority anyway?

Hi Aaron, hopefully it will...and then some more as well, but as described above in the initial post, gaining control of the House of Reps and forming Govt isn't enough to get rid of the Carbon Tax legislation (all 18 bills of it).

They need control of the Senate as well to pass the anti-Carbon Tax bill, whatever that is called.

Unless the half-Senate election is an absolute whitewash, the numbers in the Senate won't change all that much, and therefore the bill will get rejected.

If it gets rejected twice, then yet another full election has to occur, and then both the House of Reps and the full Senate are up for grabs again, and then after all that, they all need to sit together and vote. It'll be drawn out and very messy - hence why Gillard and co are very confident it'll never happen.


It all depends on whether the public have the appetite for getting rid of it or not. A fickle voter can turn quickly.


A Lib / Nat Govt might conclude, once it's regained power, that they don't want to risk being booted out just after they get back in by going to another election straight away. Tough call.....that's why it is the hard route.


Better to just vote in sufficient Liberal Senators in the Aug 2013 election such that they can overcome the Labor and Green resistance and pass it thru.....that's the easy way, but relies on the vast support of the public to reject the Carbon Tax on the Senate ballot.


Will they or won't they ??


I wish I had firmer Senate numbers to work it out. I presume 38 Senators are up for re-election.....at this stage don't know which ones though, the ones that got voted in during the Rudd election of '07.....which hopefully will be most of the Labor Senators.


Needs more digging and homework on that front.

 

[Dazz]

OK, something from Antony Green....very interesting stuff, if this doesn't bores you to tears ;

Under what circumstances can the Coalition win a senate majority at the next election? I grant this is an elementary question but I just don't quite understand whose fixed term expires when, etc. Is there a Green balance until the election following 2013 or could a massive Coalition swing bring them close to the balance of power in their own right?

COMMENT: The current Senate beginning its term today has 31 Labor Senators plus nine Greens, with 34 Coalition Senators, 1 DLP and Senator Xenophon. Unless something remarkable happened with the four Territory Senators whose terms are tied to House elections, or unless a Senator resigns from their party, these numbers will stay in place until 30 June 2014. They can only be changed by a double dissolution.

An opposition needs 38 seats to block government legislation, but a government needs 39 seats to pass legislation. If Labor and the Greens lost a net three seats between them at the next Senate election, they would be reduced to 37 seats and lose their joint blocking position if the Coalition won the next election.

From its current 34 seats, the next Senate election requires the Coalition to win a third seat in Tasmania and South Australia, states where it only elected two Senators in 2007. That gets the Coalition to 36 seats. The Coalition would then need to win four of six vacancies in one state to reach 37 and pass legislation with the the DLP and Senator Xenophon, a fourth seat in a second state to reach 38 and pass legislation with only one of the DLP and Xenophon, and a fourth seat in a thid state to pass legislation in its own right.

Since the half-Senate elections were expanded to six seats, there has been only one occassion on which one side won four of the six vacancies, and that was Queensland in 2004 when the special circumstances of the Liberals and Nationals running separate tickets created the opportunity to grab the extra seat. The Coalition would need more than 50% of the senate vote in a state to even have a chance of winning a fourth seat, and parties very rarely get to 50%. I would see Queensland and WA as the Coalition's best chances of getting above 50%.

 

[Tony3008]

But we've been reliably and repeatedly told the economy will lurch and convulse, businesses and households will collapse into ruin, and Australia's international competitiveness will be destroyed.

Surely at that point the dollar goes back to 70-80c US and for exporting companies international competitiveness is restored? My humble software business sells almost entirely to the UK - if the exchange rate went back to where it was when I came here in 2008 my income from the business would go up by 50% or more. I don't realistically expect this to happen, but then when the dollar was at 50c anyone who suggested parity within ten years would probably have been put away.

 

[buster]

Surely at that point the dollar goes back to 70-80c US and for exporting companies international competitiveness is restored? My humble software business sells almost entirely to the UK - if the exchange rate went back to where it was when I came here in 2008 my income from the business would go up by 50% or more. I don't realistically expect this to happen, but then when the dollar was at 50c anyone who suggested parity within ten years would probably have been put away.

At that point exporting companies will be kaput, and the cheap imports will become expensive .

 

[TomW]

They still haven't got a convincing story about what they are going to do about the foregone revenue if they junk the carbon tax.

 

[dan c]

I wish I had firmer Senate numbers to work it out. I presume 38 Senators are up for re-election.....at this stage don't know which ones though, the ones that got voted in during the Rudd election of '07.....which hopefully will be most of the Labor Senators.

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/guide/senate-results.htm

Found this online; it seems to indicate that 36 Senators were not up for election in 2010, and 40 were elected. Not sure why it wasn't a 50/50 split.

EDIT: It's because the ACT and NT Senators do not get six year terms, they are up for election at every House of Reps election.

What it shows is there are 22 non-Liberal Senate seats available at the next election. If the Liberal / National coalition picked up 4, they would have 38, or 50% of the chamber. Five would give a majority in their own right.

 

[Dazz]

Thanks Dan, good find !!!

I think securing those 5 extra Senate seats, primarily from Labor I would have thought, rather than those 3 Greens or 1 indi seat, would have been the easiest path for getting the coalition Govt agenda thru the Parliament.

All eyes will be on that side of the race.....as I have a sneaky suspicion the House of Reps battle is a foregone conclusion.

For some reason, no-one likes to put their hand up as the favoured candidate in Aussie politics. Under-dog mentality and tall-poppy syndrome I gather is behind that stance.

 

[Belbo]

They still haven't got a convincing story about what they are going to do about the foregone revenue if they junk the carbon tax.

An interesting conundrum Tom, isn't it?

To repeal the Carbon Tax legislation an Abbott government will need a senate majority, but waiting for that majority to form could see the electorate lose its 'rage' over the tax.

But surely, if the carbon tax is so damaging to the economy, the electorate could never lose its rage about such a travesty, right?

Not so, say's Dazz above. The "biggest hurdle" to repealing the carbon tax according to his original post here will be hoping the electorate will give a damn about the carbon tax a year or two after it takes effect!

How's that for a downright blunt admission of the Liberals playing shallow bogeyman politics over the carbon tax, eh? It's about as close to an admission as you can get that the carbon tax's material effects on the electorate will be so trivial that an Abbott government will have to remind people it's even there before abolishing it.

Then, as you correctly point out, how will an Abbott government plug the revenue hole created?

Very good question! I suppose if the Abbott coalition had any integrity at all on the matter it could state now their intention to quarantine and not deploy any carbon tax revenue between July 1 and the date of that tax's repeal, committing all revenue raised to a budgetry surplus provision.

But what are the chances of that happening, do you reckon?

 

[Dazz]

No Belbo, nice try, but that is just about the exact of what I said in the original post - which is right up above for you to read again.

What I said was the biggest hurdle was getting a senate majority, and now viewing the task in terms of Senate seats required, I believe the task is eminently achieveable.

Your view on this subject is very much in the minority.

hoping the electorate will give a damn about the carbon tax a year or two after it takes effect!

Fortunately, we will not need to guess on this at all.

With the Carbon Tax coming in on 01 July 2012, and an election likely to be in August 2013, some 13 months later, the public will feel the full weight of the cost impact, and the irrelevantly small "compensation package" offerred.

We'll all get a definitive answer from the Australian public, and all of the opinions and postulating will cease.

I very much look forward to the definitive result of what the Australian public think collectively via the ballot box. I know the Labor and Green folk are not looking forward to the carnage at all.

When Gillard and Brown stood up and said this was "right for Australia", they made a huge mistake and will rue that decision to proceed come Aug 2013.

 

[Belbo]

Oh, I see Dazz.

You're saying the Liberal legislators (not the electorate) will be struggling to maintain their rage against the carbon tax after its bedded in for a year or so.

No dissembling going on there, what!

 

[Ed Barton]

Assuming the libs don't get a senate majority why would they need to wait till July 2014 to trigger a DD? they could do so three months after their August victory (time required between rejection by senate). the law could be repealed before the end of 2013.

 

[dan c]

Assuming the libs don't get a senate majority why would they need to wait till July 2014 to trigger a DD? they could do so three months after their August victory (time required between rejection by senate). the law could be repealed before the end of 2013.

They'd have to wait until the parliament sat, write the legislation to repeal the 18 acts of legislation, then put it to a vote. If it was voted down in the senate, the ywould have to wait three months before putting it t oa vote again.

The senate also has the right to put the legisaltion to a senate committee, which would further delay passage.

Also, if Abbott knows he has a majority in the senate come July 2014, he wouldn't even bother putting it to the 'old' Senate. He'd just wait until he had the numbers.

 

[dan c]

From the age.com.au regarding the senate after the next election.

 

[buzzlightyear]

If the federal election is late 2013, the scenario placed above would in all likelihood take us into 2015 before the legislation is repealed....

Whilst unlikely, what happens if the US & Canada change their stance on emissions cap & trade scheme by 2015?