In the limited time one can not do the injustice the horror script called The Clean Energy Future Bills (a.k.a. Carbon Taxes, Carbon Gestapo & Carbon Deceit laws) deserves. As mentioned by Antisthenes in Taxpayers of no consequence a few days ago here, the time for our submissions expires tomorrow. I did what I could and in my submission (bellow) I referred to s.116 of the Constitution. Some others ( http://barnabyisright.com/2011/09/19/this-is-how-we-will-stop-the-carbon-tax/ ) are mentioning s.51(ii) and s. 55 but without reading the whole pitiful package I can not comment.
Our desperate government in those desperate times would not be swayed by any number of submissions, neither flippant nor erudite. Our submissions though may perhaps provide some encouragement to the future government to do the right thing.
21st September, 2011
Dear Members of the Committee.
Please accept my very submissive submission on the proposed Carbon tax legislation.
I am sorry that I am unable to respond more comprehensively. Firstly, most of the background material on AGW and on the various Emission Trading Schemes, Carbon Dioxide Taxes and assorted Ponzi schemes collected before our Prime Minister solemnly promised that there would not be any carbon tax I ditched, assuming they would not be needed ever again. Secondly, even though I am a retired lawyer, I found reading 1100 pages of muddled legalese somewhat difficult. It seems that erudition and the clarity of thought were, in the current politically correct crop of parliamentary draughtswomen, replaced by deviousness and malice. I am reasonably sure that neither of you read those sorry documents in their entirety. It an indictment of the state of legal education in Australia. If the Bills become the Acts, many lawyers, accountants and Porsche dealers will rejoice.
I object to the proposed legislation on the grounds that it is misleading, deceitful, badly drafted and certain to cause detriment to the majority of Australian people. In so far as it attempts to bind any future government it is contrary to the principles of democracy. It is based on wholly erroneous assumptions about carbon dioxide and its effect on environment. Despite shameless propaganda of amateur gorovchiks and professional lysenkovs, there is no evidence that the planet is warming to any significant degree. If it is warming, there is no evidence that it has anything to do with the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which rises with approximately 800 years delay behind the temperature.
It may not come as a great surprise to you that people and most living organisms exhale carbon dioxide. Even plants produce CO2 during a process known as photo-respiration, which is usually described in first fifty or so pages of basic biology textbooks. Mostly, of course, chlorophyll containing plants use carbon dioxide, water and sunlight to produce sugars, rather useful stuff. Life, at least on this planet, is carbon based. Calling carbon or carbon dioxide a pollutant is even more absurd than calling the Australian Labor Party a party of workers.
Admitting my bias, I personally believe it is dangerous not to exhale CO2. A simple experiment might convince you that non-exhalation is unhealthy. Please note that I am not counseling you to do so, as, at least in Queensland, it is unlawful. (Criminal Code s.311 (2) ..”counsels another to kill himself..”) I will leave it to you to consider whether the proposed laws could possibly amount to counseling (or worse) to suicide. Suggestions that we ought to eliminate or reduce CO2 emissions are, of course, very close to it. Taxing CO2 is an obvious national economic suicide.
Unless the section 116 (“the Commonwealth shall not make any laws for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance ….”) of the Constitution has been judicially interpreted into oblivion, it would appear that the Green – Labor minority government is perilously close to breaching it. A factually baseless faith, whether it calls itself scientific Marxism, environmental science or “the anthropogenic-(debate-is-over)-global- warming-science” it is still a religion and the proposed law would establish it and impose its observance.
Lastly I suggest that the time limit for submissions be extended and that further public hearings in all the States are scheduled. One hearing in, of all the places, Canberra amounts to cynical contempt of Australian citizens.