The Australian Greens say Palmer United Party senators should abstain from voting on the carbon tax repeal bills because of a conflict of interest.

PUP leader and businessman Clive Palmer abstained from the vote on the bills in the lower house because of a possible conflict of interest over his mining firms, which are impacted by the tax.

His party's senators Glenn Lazarus from Queensland and Tasmania's Jacqui Lambie, and possibly a third in Western Australia after this weekend's election, will have a crucial vote in the upper house.

Mr Palmer says the carbon tax repeal should be made retrospective, which would financially benefit his companies.

"Surely his two senators cannot vote to personally and directly financially advantage the leader of the political party to the tune of multi-millions," Greens leader Senator Christine Milne told the National Press Club in Canberra on Tuesday.

"If it's good enough for him to abstain in the House, then it is good enough for them to abstain in the Senate."

She said if this did not occur it would set a precedent for corporations to use their profits to elect senators and MPs to change laws that adversely affect them.

"Forget the national interest - it would be democracy for sale," Senator Milne said.

One of Mr Palmer's companies Queensland Nickel reportedly owes more than $8.4 million in carbon tax liabilities with a potential penalty of more than $35 million if it is not paid on time.


http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/04/01/no-vote-palmer-senators-tax-milne


Should PUP Senators vote for financial gain for Palmer ... or should they abstain from the vote?

____ wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 2:39pm:


Yeas, they will have a crucial vote.

Quote:


Nah.  Palmer has a clear personal and material conflict of interest, and that is why he abstained in the HoR.  Neither Lazarus nor Lambi have any personal or material interest in the matter, and if they did not vote, they would be disenfranchising those who voted for PUP.

Quote:


What the hell does she think we have now, with all the money the Libs and Labor throw at elections, and campaigns?  Money can buy you advertising, but the influence of people like Murdoch is far greater with his many media weapons.

Quote:


Bloody hell, every time I see this issue raised, the disputed alleged debt changes.  The matter is the subject of litigation, so let's wait to see the outcome before we shoot our mouths off

Further, on the issue of what PUP Senators ought do.  It really is quite simple.  It is PUP Policy taken to the 2013 Election that a repeal of the carbon tax had to be retrospective.  Lazarus and Lambi were elected on that Policy.  When they vote, they do so in accordance with the wishes of those who supported them in the well informed knowledge that a repeal would be made retrospective.  So.....for those who embrace the 'mandate' argument, Lazarus and Lambi have one from their supporters who put them there.

Abbott has, for three years, been telling us all how this is a bad tax, and that the tax must be axed.  If it was bad from day dot, as Abbott says, then when it is repealed, it ought be back-dated to when it became 'toxic' and 'bad' ~ day one, according to Abbott.

The closest analogy I can come up with us this.  If the High Court strikes down legislation as unconstitutional, that striking down does not take effect from the day the judgement is delivered, and dates back to day one minus a nano-second.  It is a nullity....it never existed.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:16pm:


There is zero reason for Lazarus, Lambi and the possible WA person to abstain.  They are obligated to their supporters to vote in accordance with their published Policy document.

____ wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:25pm:


I reckon it is inevitable there will be a DD*.  The post July 1 Senate will still be opposed to Abbott on carbon tax repeal, as he presently proposes it.

*Of course, Abbott could fail to keep his promise about the matter.

There will be no double dissolution and PUP will vote to repeal the carbon tax.

Clear?

If the carbon levy is as bad on the economy as Abbott makes out then retrospective repeal means massive mining investment from the repealed cash. And that means jobs.


If Abbott doesn't agree with PUPs demands then Abbott is anti the economy and anti jobs ... unless Abbott has lied all this time and the carbon levy isn't as bad as he has made out.

PUP has everything to gain from screwing abbott and we know Palmer is looking for revenge.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 3:44pm:


Yeas, all of that.  But, let's see if the participants play the cards they have been dealt and abide by their pre-election promises, and policies.  That is the game I am interested in.

Ya see, Gillard presented pre the 2010 election as though she was about to be dealt four aces, hence her bold statement about the carbon tax.......yet, as it turned out, she was given a dud hand, as was Abbott.  The game changed, and she had to fold, or lose the entire 'guts.'

Really, Abbott should just call Palmer's bluff - goes for both his shenanigans with the mining tax orphan payment thing, and the carbon tax. Tell him straight up: "we won't give one inch of concessions - because we know you want these taxes repealed. Oppose if you dare". Palmer will have no choice but to agree - and in the process prove that he is all bluster and no substance.

Abbott could destroy Palmer if he plays his cards right.