Hawke government considered carbon tax in 1991 to curb climate change
Key policy points under consideration in 1991:
* Carbon tax
* Detention of asylum seekers
* Protection visas

Quote:

Cabinet documents revealed today show the Hawke government considered a carbon tax as a way of combating climate change. A cabinet submission from 1991 mentions a "carbon tax for energy use" as well as a "carbon tax-type" tax based on "all greenhouse gas emissions, for all source activities, including industry, energy, agriculture, transport". The ideas, along with other schemes designed to curb carbon emissions through government incentives, were rejected because of a lack of information about their effects on the economy, which was then in a year-long recession The documents also reveal detailed policy plans to introduce detention of asylum seekers, and the introduction of a new visa class that would deny refugees automatic protection in Australia. Paul Keating introduced mandatory detention in 1992 as prime minister. John Howard introduced temporary protection visas almost a decade later. Then-immigration minister Gerry Hand argued in 1991 that the courts had become too lenient in the treatment of asylum claims, providing a strong incentive for boat people from Cambodia to try and land in Australia. In echoes of later arguments, his Cabinet submission attests that many claiming refugee status were doing so on economic grounds and that mandatory detention would help provide a deterrent. The National Archives will release cabinet papers from Paul Keating's first two years as prime minister next year.

Bam wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:43am:

Hawke government considered carbon tax in 1991 to curb climate change Key policy points under consideration in 1991: * Carbon tax * Detention of asylum seekers * Protection visas Quote: Cabinet documents revealed today show the Hawke government considered a carbon tax as a way of combating climate change. A cabinet submission from 1991 mentions a "carbon tax for energy use" as well as a "carbon tax-type" tax based on "all greenhouse gas emissions, for all source activities, including industry, energy, agriculture, transport". The ideas, along with other schemes designed to curb carbon emissions through government incentives, were rejected because of a lack of information about their effects on the economy, which was then in a year-long recession The documents also reveal detailed policy plans to introduce detention of asylum seekers, and the introduction of a new visa class that would deny refugees automatic protection in Australia. Paul Keating introduced mandatory detention in 1992 as prime minister. John Howard introduced temporary protection visas almost a decade later. Then-immigration minister Gerry Hand argued in 1991 that the courts had become too lenient in the treatment of asylum claims, providing a strong incentive for boat people from Cambodia to try and land in Australia. In echoes of later arguments, his Cabinet submission attests that many claiming refugee status were doing so on economic grounds and that mandatory detention would help provide a deterrent. The National Archives will release cabinet papers from Paul Keating's first two years as prime minister next year.

Seems that Hawke knew what needed to be done with economic migrants/country-shoppers but that Rudd, Gillard & Shorten are living in fantasy land.

Who was it that said we would be better of $550 a year, if the carbon tax went.  It wasnt Bob Hawke.  So now the carbon tax is gone.  Where is the $550 better off gone?.   :( 

wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:08am:

Who was it that said we would be better of $550 a year, if the carbon tax went.  It wasnt Bob Hawke.  So now the carbon tax is gone.  Where is the $550 better off gone?.   :(

ask the ACCC. they will tell you that you already have it. but you probably need to have a job, live outside mummy's basement and venture outside to get the real benefits.

wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:08am:

Who was it that said we would be better of $550 a year, if the carbon tax went.  It wasnt Bob Hawke.  So now the carbon tax is gone.  Where is the $550 better off gone?.   :(

all I kn ow is my direst debt for my electricity went down a HUGE amount... ::) ::) ::)

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 11:40am:

ask the ACCC. they will tell you that you already have it.

no they won't ... why do you keep bringing up that old lie?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/cabinet-papers-1990-91-bitter-labor-coup-allowed-former-pm-bob-hawke-to-marry-his-mistress/story-fni0cx12-1227694302814


he was also ,thrilled he got dumped by Keating so he could DUMP his wife HAZEL and marry his mistress... >:( >:(

gees they are good at that arent they...lefties...

dumping the wife who stood by them through thick and thin....

the usual Double Standards from the left..

and no loyalty whatever.. :(

Thank goodness the Libs got rid of a pricing mechanism that's ultimate goal was to reduce pollution and look at renewables as alternate power source. Thank goodness they saved us $550 per year and are doing their best to choke the states in to a GST rise , which is sure to cost us less than $550  :(

Do you have any idea how furkn ridiculous you righties sound opposing something that cost $550 and killed two birds with one stone and supporting something that will cost much much much more ?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:49am:

Bam wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 7:43am: Hawke government considered carbon tax in 1991 to curb climate change Key policy points under consideration in 1991: * Carbon tax * Detention of asylum seekers * Protection visas Quote: Cabinet documents revealed today show the Hawke government considered a carbon tax as a way of combating climate change. A cabinet submission from 1991 mentions a "carbon tax for energy use" as well as a "carbon tax-type" tax based on "all greenhouse gas emissions, for all source activities, including industry, energy, agriculture, transport". The ideas, along with other schemes designed to curb carbon emissions through government incentives, were rejected because of a lack of information about their effects on the economy, which was then in a year-long recession The documents also reveal detailed policy plans to introduce detention of asylum seekers, and the introduction of a new visa class that would deny refugees automatic protection in Australia. Paul Keating introduced mandatory detention in 1992 as prime minister. John Howard introduced temporary protection visas almost a decade later. Then-immigration minister Gerry Hand argued in 1991 that the courts had become too lenient in the treatment of asylum claims, providing a strong incentive for boat people from Cambodia to try and land in Australia. In echoes of later arguments, his Cabinet submission attests that many claiming refugee status were doing so on economic grounds and that mandatory detention would help provide a deterrent. The National Archives will release cabinet papers from Paul Keating's first two years as prime minister next year. Seems that Hawke knew what needed to be done with economic migrants/country-shoppers but that Rudd, Gillard & Shorten are living in fantasy land.

It's very amusing how you only see what you want to see and simply ignore the rest. Take off your blinkers, like this:


Quote:

Seems that Hawke knew what needed to be done with economic migrants/country-shoppers carbon pricing but that Rudd, Gillard & Shorten Abbott and Turnbull are living in fantasy land.

See? That wasn't so hard.

Its time wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 12:09pm:

Thank goodness the Libs got rid of a pricing mechanism that's ultimate goal was to reduce pollution and look at renewables as alternate power source. Thank goodness they saved us $550 per year and are doing their best to choke the states in to a GST rise , which is sure to cost us less than $550  :( Do you have any idea how furkn ridiculous you righties sound opposing something that cost $550 and killed two birds with one stone and supporting something that will cost much much much more ?

And many broken promises too.

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 12:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 11:40am: ask the ACCC. they will tell you that you already have it. no they won't ... why do you keep bringing up that old lie?

it has been shown to you multiple times, liar.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 1:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 12:03pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 11:40am: ask the ACCC. they will tell you that you already have it. no they won't ... why do you keep bringing up that old lie? it has been shown to you multiple times, liar.

bullsh1t .... the original claim was that removing the carbon tax would save you $550 off your electricity bill. The ACCC found that to be false, but ASSUMED that if you took into account the lower cost of food  etc, bought about by the removal of the carbon tax,  (something which failed to eventuate) then the average household would probably save $550.

To find a positive conclusion the ACCC had to ignore the stipulation on the original claim and make assumptions about possible future savings. :D :D :D :D
Of course, the fact that Abbott was at the time slashing everyones budgets probably didn't influence the ACCC's findings.

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 3:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 1:34pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 12:03pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 11:40am: ask the ACCC. they will tell you that you already have it. no they won't ... why do you keep bringing up that old lie? it has been shown to you multiple times, liar. bullsh1t .... the original claim was that removing the carbon tax would save you $550 off your electricity bill. The ACCC found that to be false, but ASSUMED that if you took into account the lower cost of food  etc, bought about by the removal of the carbon tax,  (something which failed to eventuate) then the average household would probably save $550. To find a positive conclusion the ACCC had to ignore the stipulation on the original claim and make assumptions about possible future savings. :D :D :D :D Of course, the fact that Abbott was at the time slashing everyones budgets probably didn't influence the ACCC's findings.

you are the kind of fool who will never be convinced of anything you dont understand. You are without doubt the stupidest, most ignorant and foolish person on here.  And just think of the utter more-ons that puts you BELOW

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 3:42pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 1:34pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 12:03pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 11:40am: ask the ACCC. they will tell you that you already have it. no they won't ... why do you keep bringing up that old lie? it has been shown to you multiple times, liar. bullsh1t .... the original claim was that removing the carbon tax would save you $550 off your electricity bill. The ACCC found that to be false, but ASSUMED that if you took into account the lower cost of food  etc, bought about by the removal of the carbon tax,  (something which failed to eventuate) then the average household would probably save $550. To find a positive conclusion the ACCC had to ignore the stipulation on the original claim and make assumptions about possible future savings. :D :D :D :D Of course, the fact that Abbott was at the time slashing everyones budgets probably didn't influence the ACCC's findings. you are the kind of fool who will never be convinced of anything you dont understand. You are without doubt the stupidest, most ignorant and foolish person on here.  And just think of the utter more-ons that puts you BELOW

you could of course dig up the ACCC's findings ... but we all know who would end up looking the most ignorant and foolish  :D :D :D

cods wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 12:06pm:

he was also ,thrilled he got dumped by Keating so he could DUMP his wife HAZEL and marry his mistress... Angry Angry gees they are good at that arent they...lefties...dumping the wife who stood by them through thick and thin....

So only lefties do that!

Faaark I hadn't realised that!

Thanks for the heads up cods!

I will tell my grand children to marry a young Liberal!  ;D ;D

cods wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 12:02pm:

wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 10:08am: Who was it that said we would be better of $550 a year, if the carbon tax went.  It wasnt Bob Hawke.  So now the carbon tax is gone.  Where is the $550 better off gone?.   :(  all I kn ow is my direst debt for my electricity went down a HUGE amount... ::) ::) ::)

No it didn't.

There's no need to lie.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 9:25pm:

cods wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 12:02pm: wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 10:08am: Who was it that said we would be better of $550 a year, if the carbon tax went.  It wasnt Bob Hawke.  So now the carbon tax is gone.  Where is the $550 better off gone?.   :(  all I kn ow is my direst debt for my electricity went down a HUGE amount... ::) ::) ::) No it didn't. There's no need to lie.

the return of the pointless public servant...

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 1:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 12:03pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 11:40am: ask the ACCC. they will tell you that you already have it. no they won't ... why do you keep bringing up that old lie? it has been shown to you multiple times, liar.

As it has been shown to you that the ACCC had nowhere else to go on the topic, that had to either say it had worked or admit that they had failed to do their job.

The ACCC were responsible for ensuring that the prices were reduced. If they said they hadn't they have shot themselves in the foot. Nobody else agreed with them / nobody who didn't have a vested interest agrees that the $550 is a genuine result or even close.

This underscores the view that the Hawke government were a very progressive, reforming government and considered policies well before others did.

It was already known that the Hawke government considered some form of carbon price, and that they recognised that some control over CO₂ emissions would be needed eventually. This is why CRA Mining (a predecessor of Rio Tinto) created anti-carbon price propaganda in 1989.

Another interesting policy was consideration of mandatory detention for refugees. This wasn't the controversial offshore detention we have now, but detention on Australian soil.

The full list of cabinet papers is here.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 8:12am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 1:34pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 12:03pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 1st, 2016 at 11:40am: ask the ACCC. they will tell you that you already have it. no they won't ... why do you keep bringing up that old lie? it has been shown to you multiple times, liar. As it has been shown to you that the ACCC had nowhere else to go on the topic, that had to either say it had worked or admit that they had failed to do their job. The ACCC were responsible for ensuring that the prices were reduced. If they said they hadn't they have shot themselves in the foot. Nobody else agreed with them / nobody who didn't have a vested interest agrees that the $550 is a genuine result or even close.

that's the kind of drivel that makes you look like a more-on.  why is it impossible to simply say that a generally saving of $550 was promised and generally acheived.  are you that averse to truth that simply cannot accept it?

Bam wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 9:12am:

This underscores the view that the Hawke government were a very progressive, reforming government and considered policies well before others did. It was already known that the Hawke government considered some form of carbon price, and that they recognised that some control over CO2 emissions would be needed eventually. This is why CRA Mining (a predecessor of Rio Tinto) created anti-carbon price propaganda in 1989. Another interesting policy was consideration of mandatory detention for refugees. This wasn't the controversial offshore detention we have now, but detention on Australian soil. The full list of cabinet papers is here.

Considered and failed on both. Or just pragmatic?