In Australia, hatred of carbon tax drives voters to opposition
By The Associated Press
Published: Friday, Sept. 6, 2013, 6:51 p.m.
SYDNEY — The ruling Labor Party's expected collapse in Australia's vote on Saturday is largely the consequence of its qualified success in the last election three years ago. To form the coalition, then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard agreed to place a carbon tax on major polluters.
Voters have never stopped hating the tax and its effect on their electric bills. Longtime Labor Party supporters — even people who have helped cut pollution by installing solar panels at home — have flocked to the opposition.
“Whoever gets rid of it will get my vote,” said Mark Keene, a 54-year-old maintenance worker from Sydney who, for the first time in his life, won't be voting for Labor.
Opposition leader Tony Abbott has declared the election a “referendum on the carbon tax” — a sure sign of confidence that most voters remain staunchly against it, with many believing that companies forced to pay the tax are simply passing the cost onto consumers.
Its unpopularity has already produced the downfall of Gillard, who lost her job to Kevin Rudd in a June vote of party lawmakers desperate to avoid a crushing election loss that could send them into the political wilderness for a decade. But Labor candidates for Parliament trail badly in opinion polls.
The tax on big polluters such as power plants and factories has been in place since July 2012. It started at $21 per metric ton of carbon dioxide produced and has risen more than a dollar per metric ton.
The government estimated the tax would cost the average person less than $9 per week, but it ended up costing more than twice that much.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Robert Gumbita retains Mt. Pleasant School Board president seat
- North Korea leader apparently boots uncle from post
- ‘Dangerous’ radioactive material found in Mexico
- Did Comet ISON survive?
- China scrambles jets to track U.S.
- Mexican cartels get into mining
- Moody’s ups Greece rating
- Killing allegedly arranged over Internet
- Former Italian Premier Berlusconi accused of paying off witnesses
- Vatican’s centuries-old almoner role continues with modern twist
- U.S. can’t get China to yield on contentious air zone