Share
clock Created with Sketch.
20/12/14
05:53
Share
Originally posted by jasonobrien1984
↑
1) These are two different issues and should be separated out. Moreover, for the ordinary Australian I do not see how "why gillard is hated" can be linked to "because Australia has a lot of investment exposure to resources". This probably needs to be rephrased.
2) Probably pushes your own barrow a bit, or you have been selective with the sample of individuals you surveyed - given your point on false science. Whatever the debating point, the CT was was levied at a defined group of polluters where the cost was passed through the supply chain, down to the consumer. The revenue brought in was subsequently spent - in a large part, distributed back towards lower and middle income earners in the form of compensation for the increase.
3) It was the sexism card, not feminist card that was pulled out.
4) This point is probably relevant to any tax payer. I'm yet to meet a taxpayer who believes they're not taxed enough (even Packer)
5) Her management was discussed largely as incompetent, not socialist.
I would argue that your end point is merely an opinion, an inaccurate opinion of the advisor given that all laws are open to be challenged by the High Court who interpret the Constitution accordingly to determine the law's validity. Your end note also could be argued that the Carbon Tax was constitutional, as no constitutional challenge was made against it - despite it being in effect for a period of time (there was a lot of 'bluster' around lodging one by Clive Palmer, that appeared to receive some level of support, however, you know Clive).
Expand
You'd think that an Adviser would, if nothing else, give consideration to the PR mess that could arise by not considering constitutional implications on proposed laws. Otherwise, they're really just giving a potential freebie to the opposition if the law is struck down by the High Court.