by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
TAS Country : July 7th 2011
Friday, July 8, 2011 Tasmanian Country 7 The people have spoken on carbon 'Do the politicians work on the premise that broken election promises are OK provided they are made early in the life of a particular parliament?' OVER the FENCE John Rich IT is interesting to observe the attitudes of federal and state politicians when opinion poll results are announced. If the outcome favours a particular person or party we can generally expect a fairly smug or low-key response, often without any positive reference to the actual poll results. On the other hand, if the poll does not provide a favourable picture, the responses are most often to the effect that ''I [or we] take no notice of the poll results because the only poll that matters is the one on election day''. This is a weak response from political leaders who quite clearly indicate they really have no desire to recognise the opinions of the voters, the people they are meant to represent. Opinion polls are based on telephone interviewing, typically a random sample of 1000-1400 respondents aged 18 and over. A long established opinion polling company is Roy Morgan Research. Another reputable local polling company is EMRS, based in Hobart. Most businesses regularly conduct opinion polls and/or organise focus groups to look at issues affecting their particular product and where the company sits in relation to its competition. This is considered to be very sound business practice and gives the company a direct line into the thoughts and feelings of its customers. It would be most unusual for any company to ignore the results of opinion polls they have commissioned about its products or services. Why is it the politicians cannot accept that they are a ''business'', fully funded by the voters, and therefore need to consider the opinions of the people who have elected them to represent their wishes? Politicians ignoring poll results makes me wonder if, when elected, they really only make decisions having regard to the relative term of office, until the next election. Are the difficult, sometimes idealistic, decisions made early in the term so that there is the hope that the voters will have forgotten any pain, discomfort or disturbance from unpopular decisions? Do the politicians work on the premise that broken election promises are OK provided they are made early in the life of a particular parliament? My informal poll of people clearly indicates that the voters are fed up with broken promises at the federal and state levels. I even think the ''died in the wool'' party faithful are far from happy with what is happening. Almost daily, we seem to receive news of yet more broken promises and/or distortions of the truth from the political leaders. This is not good enough from the people paid to represent the wishes of the voters. A case in point is the fact that Julia Gillard, our Prime Minister, when campaigning for the last election, made the solemn and very public election promise that Australia would have no carbon tax during the life of any Gillard Government. History now shows that this was nothing but a hollow promise, made by a person not planning on keeping her word. This is distasteful to most Australians. The debate about the carbon tax has been raging for some time and as this column is being written no one knows the level of the tax and its implications on the people of Australia. The various polls that have appeared on this subject clearly show that the majority of Australians are not in favour of what is being proposed. For instance are recent News Limited Galaxy Poll showed that about 60 per cent of the people surveyed were not in favour of a carbon tax, about 25 per cent are in favour and the rest (about 15 per cent) are undecided. Most people believe the introduction of the tax will leave them financially worse off and deliver little or no benefit to the environment. Julia Gillard, for whatever reason, does not seem to want to recognise that the people are speaking out loudly against what she and her Parliamentary colleagues are planning to deliver to the Australian public. The Government has now announced it is planning to spend $12 million dollars to advertise the carbon tax proposal to the general populace. I have not yet seen any survey results about this decision but I reckon I would be right in forecasting that it will go over like the proverbial ''lead balloon''. All polls point to Julia Gillard losing ground on the political front, as a result of the carbon tax and other issues deemed to be unpopular. It is acknowledged that there can be times when governments have to make unpopular decisions. These occasions generally require a solid and understandable explanation about the flow-on from such policies. This has not happened with the carbon tax proposal, hence the high degree of unrest. The clear message to the Prime Minister is that the people are speaking and it should be the PM's responsibility to listen to what is being said. Incidentally, the public (i.e. the voters) has not received any solid and fully detailed explanation from Julia Gillard and/or the Labor Party about the reasons why the pre-election promise was broken. No wonder the people are disillusioned. Opinion Farmers face petrol concerns PETROL will be ex- cluded from the Federal Government's plan to put a price on carbon. Fuel used by house- holds and small busines- ses will also be exempt, but farm groups are con- cerned at no specific guarantee that farmers' fuel will be exempt from the carbon price. National Farmers' Federation president Jock Laurie said the ex- clusion of petrol was good news for families, ''but it is not yet clear what impact the decision will have for farmers''. ''We are yet to see any clarification from the Government that fuel used in agriculture and by related industries will be excluded,'' Mr Laurie said. Victorian Farmers Federation president Andrew Broad ques- tioned how the Govern- ment could cut emis- sions by 5 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020 if it excluded petrol from the scheme. But he said applying the carbon price to pet- rol would have penalised country people as they could not change their behaviour. 460 CHAINSAW 60.3cc -- 20" -- 5.8kg ONLY $1169 44 CHAINSAW 5. cc 6" 5. kg ONLY $ 69 4 0 CHAINSAW 50.2cc 8" 5. kg ONLY $9 9 4 CHAINSAW 55.5cc 8" 5.8kg ONLY $1 69 N H W L TM y 455R & 460 R s ofa hainsaw* $79 44 I A TM CHAINSAW 5. cc 6" 5. kg ONLY $919 s va na a n a s H S A NA S ialis D al 1 6 37 Win g d n m chin s f om H s n o th $7, isit .h s n .com. fo d t i s om tition ni pper Burnie owers D v n ower ower H ba c ougall s ower uipment a n s n aunceston ower & hainsaw B o s f om on $3 9* * Refers to model 125B, only while stocks last. Available at participating dealers. 12 W 28.0cc 0.8k 58. m/s .3kg
June 30th 2011
July 14th 2011