Industry welcomes carbon tax repeal plan

Government legislation to kill the carbon tax has been warmly received by printers who believe it is an unnecessary cost to business and should never have been introduced in the first place.

The Abbott Government yesterday introduced a bill to repeal the tax, hoping to ram it through the lower house this week before tackling the more difficult Senate when it begins sitting on July 7.

The government is hoping support from the Palmer United Party, which is due to announce its position tomorrow, and other crossbenchers will overcome opposition from Labor and The Greens in the new Senate.

It would then backdate the repeal to July 1 and give businesses back money they paid in the meantime.

Public opinion seems to be turning against the government, however, with a JWS Research survey finding only 41 per cent of voters think the tax has left them worse of, verses 65 per cent when it was introduced in 2012.

Additionally, 62 per cent of voters don’t accept spending money to get business to cut carbon emissions, as proposed by the direct action plan, with only 22 per cent in support.

[Get news first: Subscribe to ProPrint daily newsletter]

PIAA chief executive Bill Healey, who called for the repeal of the tax last November soon after the government took power saying printers were finding it hard to pass the tax on, tells ProPrint the government should be given a chance to address the climate change problem with its direct action policy.

“This is really getting rid of bad policy that came about from a hodgepodge of political compromises between Labor and The Greens needed to form government,” he says.

“We were paying about $23 a tonne when it came in while Europe was only paying $11 on its emissions trading market, leading to an excessively high impact on Australian businesses.

“Let’s get rid of it and start again with something else, it’s time to let this government have a go.”

Healey says science showing carbon emissions is causing climate change cannot be ignored, but that the tax is hurting the industry and should be replaced with something else.

“It has just added costs to electricity that are hard for printers to pass on,” he says.

“In this market, they are not in a position to afford that, so it hurts their margins further.

“It is good that initiatives funded by the tax have led to grants to printers improving their energy efficiency, but I’m not sure that outweighs the cost to the industry.”

Healey says he will consult with the government on how to implement the direct action policy and wants to see it given greater discussion.

“I think it will have more tangible and transparent results by nature, though there is some criticism of it that has to be addressed,” he says.

“The main thing to be considered is how to pay for it without the tax.

“The issue has become so polarised and the intrusion of The Greens has not helped and it makes balanced review difficult.”

WHO Printing managing director Daniel Ogle says his electricity costs have gone up and eaten into his margins.

“In this market we need to save as much money as we can so not having it will be good,” he says.

“It should never have been introduced in the first place.”

Oxford Printing general manager Andre De Waele says his company managed to sidestep electricity cost rises by using a Dutch auction, where power companies bid to be its supplier, which locked in its costs long term at 20 per cent lower than before.

However, he says the paper merchants cited the carbon tax as part of their reasons to raise prices by up to 10 per cent in March, and that has hurt business since paper makes up about 35-40 per cent of costs.

“That really hurt, it hits our margins quite a lot on some jobs where the client won’t let us pass the cost on,” he says.

“I’m glad to see the end of the tax, but I’m a bit of a greenie so I think we should be doing something about carbon emissions and I would like to see a healthy debate about the alternatives.

“I’m in my 60s so I like many my age am guilty of putting a lot of it in the air when we didn’t know better, but we need a different system.”

[Related: More environment news]

Tony Wolf & Son managing director Ian Wolf says the carbon tax was not high enough to have the behaviour-changing impact the government wanted, and thus was a bad idea that did not help the environment enough.

“If they put realistic incentives for business to go green, I’d do it tomorrow,” he says.

“We have a done some things because it’s the right thing to do, but the return on investment for a lot of measures just isn’t there yet to be viable for most printers.

“The government’s direct action policy could be good if it includes more things like that.

“There is more we can do to reduce emissions but I think there are better ways to do it than a carbon tax.”

Former PIAA national manager for policy and government affairs Hagop Tchamkertenian says there was a modest cost impact to the supply chain, including raw materials and electricity, that was passed onto printers.

“Any lowering of costs are welcomed at this point in market,” he says.

He says while the printing industry did not get any direct compensation from the government, unlike many industries, one good thing that came out of it was forcing printers to become more energy efficient – some even getting grants to do so.

“Without the carbon tax there won’t be as much incentive to invest in energy efficiency, but I hope printers will continue to look at it. All savings will now be directly to bottom line and good for business,” he says.

“If you can do something to become more efficient without hurting your business, why wouldn’t you?”

Comment below to have your say on this story.

If you have a news story or tip-off, get in touch at editorial@sprinter.com.au.  

Sign up to the Sprinter newsletter

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be published. All fields are required

Advertisement

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team.
Advertisement