Making the big polluters pay statement shows the greens basic lack of understanding of simple business operation.   Maybe the former school teacher Senator Milne needs to sit in on a year 10 economics class - "big polluters" don't pay anything.   A carbon tax or the cost of an emissions trading scheme  is merely a cost which flows through the costs of production and is multiplied by a profit margin and passed on in the form of price of goods sold.  In other words the every day voter, greens included, pay every time they flick a light switch, buy a loaf of bread, buy/consume  anything at all.

Many manufacturers like a carbon tax as the % mark up system  actually increases their total profit.

So "Christine the stupid"  there is no such thing as a big polluter as the only polluters both big and small are us when we consume anything.

If you seriously want to do anything about "carbon pollution" show us by example, no cars, no plane flights no mobile phones no electronic form of press conference, use recyled paper correspondence, use of paddle board or sail board to cross Bass Straight, horses and cart or bicycle up to Canberra , not likely as greens practice the mantra of do as I say not do as I do.

Christine Milne is losing the plot:

"Tony Abbott is saying to Australians as you lose lives in fires and floods and cyclones, the big polluters don't have to pay"

"This is devastating for the future of this country."

"Many people around Australia will be distraught today, as we are."

There must be a contest for who can say the most ridiculous thing:

Adam Bandt:

"This is the Australian Parliament's asbestos moment, tobacco moment".

Someone get Sarah Hanson Young in front of a microphone ASAP. This is too good. 

Barnaby Joyce:

"if you want the carbon tax back, you should vote for Bill Shorten. He still has it as his policy ...at least I think he does!"

 

As it happened in the Senate:

 

Senate votes  39-32 the Cabon Tax will be repealed .

The local electricity company is replacing power poles in our street today - l have limited iPhone comment-moderation capability until the mains are back on later.

The PC brigade is smashing education expert Kevin Donnelly re his views on corporal punishment.

Donnelly is a conservative ... so that generally means he must be condemned anyway by the media - and they haven't disappointed. 

Donnelly has argued: 

We should consider the use of corporal punishment for ill-disciplined children in schools if it is supported by the local school community.

Donnelly believes the cane was effective during his childhood and still has some merit.

Straight away, the group-think takes over:  "his views are out of line with modern thinking" or "contemporary views leave those kind of attitudes in the past".

Labor wants him sacked from his Government advisory role - and so does Fairfax. 

I went on the Channel 7 daytime show to argue that Donnelly should at least be listened to and not condemned. 

WATCH IT HERE

"Modern thinking" ... might well be our problem.

As with so many other aspects of education, a little like the way we teach kids to read today resulting in staggering levels of illiteracy - perhaps what worked once should be at least considered.

The elite has decided but I wonder what regular people think?

 

Ethos (/ˈiːθɒs/ or /ˈiːθoʊs/) is a Greek word meaning "character" that is used to describe the guiding beliefs or ideals that characterize a community, nation, or ideology.

"Ethos (Greek for 'character') refers to the trustworthiness or credibility of the writer or speaker. Ethos is often conveyed through tone and style of the message and through the way the writer or speaker refers to differing views. It can also be affected by the writer's reputation as it exists independently from the message--his or her expertise in the field, his or her previous record or integrity, and so forth. The impact of ethos is often called the argument's 'ethical appeal' or the 'appeal from credibility.'"

In English ethics derives from its Greek root ethos.   There is no difference between the two, save that sometimes English language speakers talk about their "ethos" because they think it sounds more impressive than talking about ethics.

Here's Sir Gerard Brennan on ethics for Australian lawyers.

Now to lawyers and their ethos, or fundamental driving force.   Here is the WA Supreme Court with a wonderful speech from The Hon Justice Kenneth Martin on lawyers and their fundamental or foundational duty:

The lawyer's duty to the court is paramount. It is acknowledged that there may be situations in which this duty is inconsistent with the lawyer's duty to their client. However, as Mason CJ observed in Giannerelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543, 556: 'The duty to the court is paramount and must be performed, even if the client gives instructions to the contrary'.

And here is the face that Slater and Gordon's Philip Pasfield shows to the world.   Mine is not an outside observation based on the firm's behaviour - it's Slater and Gordon's own considered position, the firm's opinion about itself.   Slater and Gordon itself reduces its driving force, its character - it's most fundamental element of its being, that is its ethos and here it is:

Phillip Pasfield came to Slater & Gordon attracted by the opportunity to be part of a national firm built on an ethos of looking after unions...

Slater and Gordon thinks it is built on something, just as a building is built on foundations.   And Slater and Gordon itself thinks it is built on an ethos of looking after unions.

The people within unions who sign off on the selection of law firms and the payment of invoices are union leaders.   If we examine the Slater and Gordon ethos from a human perspective the inescapable conclusion is that the firm thinks its reason for being is to look after union leaders.

That explains its behaviours.   And condemns it to ignominy.

 

I know a wonderful young woman who came from a promising background in the law only to be thoroughly subverted by association with this mob.   It is a tragedy.

Here's a paper from the University of Michigan on an associated issue - the first page is below.

Slater and Gordon's role in advancing the interests of union leaders would be benign and entirely uncontroversial if the union leaders it looked after were not corrupt.   But many are.   Lawyers should be able to tell the difference.

It strikes me that lawyers who help corrupt individuals should bear greater punishments because they should know better.   We have a right to trust them and we deserve institutions that make sure that trust is something all our lawyers live up to.