AUDIO
![]() |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
After a failed attempt at legislation, the loss of a leader, a knife edge election and a broken promise, voters now have a carbon tax package ready for the parliament’s assent. And people don’t like it, deserting Federal Labor more quickly than a David Jones shop floor.
Matters now look as bad for Federal Labor as they did prior to the departure of Kevin Rudd.
Until the announcement of the carbon price, it was hard for average voters to understand exactly what it was all about. Some heavy industries would get charged for dumping pollution into the environment and there would be more investment in renewable energy and new technologies. But to many Australians it just looks like higher prices, so much that the Government will compensate people for it. The problem with this new tax is that the thread running from the hip pocket to climate change seems almost invisible to the average Joe and Joan in the street. Moreover, public trust has been eroded in the face of a broken election commitment.
This policy is either political suicide or visionary leadership. With the media focusing on Gillard’s plummeting polls, it looks like the former, but it is too soon to tell. Abbott has promised to repeal the carbon tax, but as one commentator has already observed, once these big initiatives are implemented, they are very hard to unpick. If Tony Abbott gets into government some time in the next two years, business will have factored carbon costs into business models, budgets and operating systems already.
It is hard to discern what a particularly Christian perspective might look like in the specifics of this debate. In 2007, the Social Issues Committee developed a detailed position paper on climate change, which accepted the scientific evidence (‘Christian Ministry in a Changing Climate’) but did not discuss the detail of possible government policy responses. At this point, it would be perfectly valid for a Christian hold a view either ‘for’ or ‘against’ Labor’s carbon tax, holding either position in all sincerity having understood the issues.
The exercise of stewardship over creation is a mark of the special role God has ordained for humankind, therefore it is right in principle to take steps (however small on a global scale) to mitigate the effects of climate change. But it is also right that business has the continued capacity to create and maintain jobs, so that people can be gainfully employed and thereby support themselves and their families. Godly wisdom is required to understand and mitigate the plight of the poor in the face of higher living costs caused by a carbon tax. Restraint is needed to consume less and reduce our personal and corporate carbon footprint.
Importantly, if Christians are to engage in the carbon tax debate, judgement is required to avoid name calling and slander. The recent vilification of Julia Gillard in some sections of the public and the media has been repulsive. Although we might take issue with Gillard, Abbott and their colleagues, they are attempting to develop policy with the best interests of Australia at heart.


This amounts to less than 300 people. Their will is not more important than the 22.7 million people who they govern, which is what they are currently discovering in this electronic age.
Julia Gillard is equal to Whitlam as Australia's worst prime minister. At the moment, she makes Kevin Rudd look like William Pitt (either of them). Criticising her demonstrable incompetence and her lies about the carbon tax is not just permitted but is entirely justified.
RJE
If Mr Mackinnon's '300' refers to the Parliament (it isn't quite clear), I think he misrepresents the nature of political representation. Someone has to implement policy -- that is, make a call -- on behalf of 22.7 million. It may be the wrong call, but doing so is not the problem.
I don't see anyone censoring criticisms of this leftist government. In fact I think there's been quite enough very bitter critisicm, not all of it well informed.
I challenge your commenters to discuss the facts of the policy, rather than impugning the character of our elected leaders.
> This is the biggest reform in Australia’s history, yet the government is not prepared to correctly call this a carbon dioxide tax and has instead incorrectly called it a carbon tax.
> Carbon dioxide exists in the atmosphere at less than 400 parts per million which is less than 1 part in 2,500. Therefore, I don’t accept that carbon dioxide is causing global warming. I also don’t accept that global warming is occurring. I don’t believe that it has been proven.
> Household transport fuels are excluded from the carbon dioxide tax. Therefore the government is obviously not serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions anyway. Their objective is to conform Australia to the agenda of the United Nations, which is to form global government. The fraud of carbon-dioxide-driven climate change is the vehicle that the United Nations is using to deceitfully attempt to establish global government. This is why a percentage of the carbon dioxide tax will be paid to the United Nations.
Continued...
1. It is right to call our political leaders to account for what they say. Whilst many have focussed on a broken election promise, I'd also focus on attempts to mislead the public in the debate by misrepresenting government policy. Our leaders need to be encouraged to debate the actual policy, not inaccurate caricatures of it.
2. Our motives for what we want from Govt policy need to be examined. If we pay more, does that mean it is bad policy? Not always.
3. We need to be careful not to impute motives based on too little evidence. @Andrew, I take issue with you suggesting the tax free threshold change is a 'bribe'. It is actually based on the Henry review of the tax system, and is a way of compensating lower income earners when the carbon tax comes in. To suggest the motive of trying to bribe is based on no evidence that I can see.
Finally, let's remember that those who govern us are God's servants to rule us with justice. Let's pray for them.
Thanks for the article and for the balenced perspective on these issues. As I have been overseas for several weeks I wasn't around locally when the announcements were made, and can't comment on the honesty question. However I can say that they featured in the mainstream news in both New York, London and Singapore whilst I was there and the flavour of the coverage was that "Australia had announced bold and far reaching policy on reducing carbon emissions". The message was positive and it felt good to me that whilst the world was struggling with this issue Australia was actually proposing to do something! I agree that the political suicide or visionary leadership question is not yet settled.
However, I respect the office of Prime Minister. It is the most powerful national office and its occupant is trusted to daily determine national questions, especially on the national security front.
I do not respect Julia Gillard. She lied blatantly over the carbon tax, as did Wayne Swan. The widespread dislike for her is reflective of this. The Left like to blame talkback radio, Andrew Bolt, whoever but the majority of the public would hold Ms Gillard as a liar regardless of the media. To criticise Ms Gillard as a liar and unfit to hold the Prime Minister's office is not uncivil but stating the truth about the country's situation.
At some stage, we have to be adult here and realise that for all of her confected outrage, there is no core to Julia Gillard. She is taking the ALP down the NSW path, where a despised Labor Party will be annihilated at the next federal poll. Sadly this will mean the Greens will be more powerful and they are populated by such persons as the ex-communist Lee Rhiannon.
RJE
We are called on to be stewards of God's creation. It is not ours, we are here for a short time only. We will all be called to account for how we acted in our short time of stewardship. Will God see us as faithful or not?
Some debaters suggest that carbon dioxide emissions are not a worry, are not sufficient to make a difference. But there are many scientists who take a different line.
How then should God's people respond?
I believe that the precautionary principle applies, and that from a Christian ethical position this is the right approach.
Is a carbon tax and emissions trading scheme the best approach to tackle carbon dioxide and greenhouse effect? I do not know.
But I do know that this is the first really positive approach from Australian political leaders. I find writings of commentators such as the Herald's Ross Gittins helpful here. He does not have a political barrow to push, but suggests that for most of us the impact will be negligible. His article in SMH on Monday 18Jul2011 is worth a read.
The GST ended up not producing the doom and gloom some of us expected.
So is a carbon tax a useful tool to help us as stewards of God's creation? Quite possibly yes. If it fails, Gittins suggests the pain won't be too bad.
Probably what is most annoying about Julia Gillard is that when she is caught out on the lie, she plays some teary, working class hero, feminist card, which is completely irrelevant to her lying and deception of the electorate. Is her lying forgivable because she had some deprived childhood in Adelaide? This is absurd. Perhaps Kevin Rudd is right to call the Lodge "Boganville" after all.
RJE
There is a big difference between a lie and a change of heart. In this case it was a serious change of commitment.
If the PM genuinely believed what she said during the election campaign, it was not a lie, no more than John Howard's "there will never ever be a GST".
In both cases, many believe that the change of commitment demonstrates a lack of trustworthiness, even a broken promise, but if they intended to do what they said, it was not a lie.
Maybe we should apply the injunctions about teachers in James 3:1 as: "Not many of you should presume to be POLITICIANS, ... because you know that [THEY] ... will be judged more strictly."
GR
Grant: John Howard went to a new election in 1998 to get a fresh mandate to introduce the GST. Julia Gillard has not done this with the carbon tax, despite ruling it out only days before the election last August. The difference in conduct between Howard and Gillard is stark.
http://vidcall.com/index.php/videos/show/2090/
(This presentation is delivered by a hired public relations consultant, however the content of the message is very good.)
http://www.solidprinciples.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Anders-Behring-Breivik-FACEBOOK.pdf