The calls in recent days from various business sectors wanting compensation for the decision by the federal government to place a price on carbon are interesting. Big business polluters want compensation for the impact of this policy decision by government. They look set to receive this compensation.
Newsagents were impacted by a government policy change in 1999 when the distribution of newspapers and magazines was deregulated. We were not offered and did not receive compensation. We were left to fund the cost ourselves.
It says something about the small business commitment (or lack thereof) of politicians (of all colours) that small business family run newsagents receive nothing for seismic policy change while pollution generating big businesses are set to receive hundreds of dollars of compensation for introduction of a price on carbon.
I am disappointed that politicians appear set to get away with once again showing that small business does not matter. Shame on them and shame on us for letting this happen.
Your last sentence is the killer, this is of our own making, people voted in the greens as a protest vote and look what we have to deal with for the next 6 yrs in the senate. Unions voted in Gillard but will now see their members struggle to make ends meet due to higher prices as fuel on transport will be taxed and the costs passed on, and also more pressure to move investment offshore. I’m not saying Abbott is the answer but you get what you voted for and at the moment we are getting the bottom of the barrel. Newsagents do not have a strong voice due to the factions in the ANF and the lack of coordinated action. Unions threaten to strike and it gets attention, we whinge as individuals and nothing happens.
Luke I disagree. The difference between what we in small business and in newsagencies got (and get) is not a function of associations. No, it is a function of politicians caring less about small business.
John Howard’s government, the much touted friend of small business, presided over the deregulation and did not even give newsagents crumbs in return.
personally, I think we have a better chance of traction with the Greens and Independents than any other politician. that is what I am finding through the debate of rising EFTPOS fees.
The political trainwreck that is todays Australian parliament has coming at us for several years.
You’re right – politicians (on both sides) no longer care about small business.
‘
Actually they no longer care about anything.
Todays politican doesn’t, in practice, represent the electorate that voted for him/her.
They are mostly all party hacks. They place their gratitude for election in the party pre selection system and don’t give a hoot about the voters issues.
Parties set their policies and (numerous) consequent reactions by balancing off opinion polls with lobbyists’ pleas. They no longer listen to the back bench, who in turn have stopped listening to the electorate.
Any thought of small business is long long way back in the past.
Big businesses got compensation because they made noise. If newsagents and small businesses are happy to sit their and take it quietly, that’s what will happen. I think it is very unlikely politicians have some kind of vendetta against small businesses.
Rob I disagree. Small businesses, including newsagents, have lobbied in a range of issues and achieved little.
I am not aware of any evidence of Labor, Liberal or National Party achievements, beyond hot air, for small business.
gee, i love more taxes. What is it really to do with saving environment? NOTHING.
Yer right the independents are going to look after small business, look what we got Oakshoot and Windsor who don’t give a flying… about who voted for them and are out for revenge for something that happened years ago. no one will ever trust them again. What should be said is when this carbon tax hits it’s going to affect discretionary spending patterns in a way that will have us in a recession full time. The only good independent is a….
during Howard era , my freind invite me to LIb dinner function and he bid a dozen of empty red wine bottle signed by 12 ministers for some big figure. that is called lobbying
if small bus wants to be heard then satrt slush fund . NO $$ NO HONEY
Mark, I have yet to see a newsagent on the news or tv complaining about their lot. I see miners and big business every second minute. If you are lobbying, your not doing enough.
Fred,
Almost all reputable Australian economists disagree with you. And as far as I am aware, so does every independant economic body in this country.
I believe it was Windsor that made the strong argument for fuel to be excluded from the carbon tax – largely on the basis that it would unfairly disadvantage regional/rural/outer-suburban populations and small business.
Rob, your correct – small business is not seen in mainstream media. Small business may lobby, but it only does it at a non-public level.
I’m not advocating for or against public campaigning (which more often than not tend to be superficial and misleading) but it is fair to say that we don’t do it. Having said that, I very much doubt small business could organise any meaningful campaign when by, its very nature, there are so many different opinions within that very large group.
Luke,
I think you will find that union heavyweights were not the only force behind the installation of Gillard as Prime Minister. The ‘right’ factions of the Labor part and a very large group of Labor parliamentarians that were disgruntled with the exclusivity and un-collaborative nature of the Rudd executive cabinet played a big, if not the biggest, role in the move – particularly disgruntled backbenchers. It was also a point of discontent within the party that Rudd managed the office of Prime Minister very poorly.
What we have in the senate is exactly what was intended when the system was designed. The Upper House should not be dominated by the party that controls the House of Reps because it simply becomes a rubber stamp. A good senate provides a strong system of review and is actually a more accurate representation of how people voted when compared to the Lower House.
Jarryd
Hurry up and get your blog up and running….I think you really need to channel your thoughts and knowledge their.
Derek,
Sorry to dissapoint but my website is actually going to be converted into the front page for my own business (not retail). Should have it up sometime within the next 3-4 months while the first project is being completed.
Jarryd, you seem to miss that the Greens are in bed with labor up to their necks, their futures are tied together, so the senate is simply a labor rubber stamp as long as they bow to the greens on whatever issue they want. How can you believe ANY economist or industry body on the impact of a carbon tax when the details have not been released yet as to what is in or out?
Jarryd if you think that the labor party is not run by the unions then it must be a dark little world you live in.
Luke,
The Greens have proven to be very willing to negotiate. Labor is not simply bowing to their demands, nor are they bowing to the demands of the independants. They have all been working together collaboratively – they have to to make a minority government work. A house of reps that works collaboratively is better than one controlled on a one party basis.
Luke,
Their is enough detail for then to estimate the economic impact. And the statements from economists and economic bodies have usually been a comparison of the carbon tax/ETS and the alternative – direct action policy. None that i know of have come out in support of the alternative – many have directly spoken out against it.
I certainly don’t dispute that the labor party is most heavily influenced by unions. But certainly not to the extent is has been in the past. Since around the time Rudd became leader their public discontent with labor over a number of issues has been made very public.
On tv last night it was reported that the Europeans are warning us off an ETS scheme because it has not reduced pollution there. They claimed that any reduction was only due to the economis down turn. Personally I fail to see how a tax that is compensated to some groups, passed down to others and allows big polluters to buy the right to keep polluting will achieve much. Is this simply a way for the present government to create cash flow for themselvesd while they look to be doing something about the environment even if it will not achieve what they claim? I have little faith in them I’m afraid.