An Open Letter to WA Senator Michaelia Cash, regarding the Carbon Tax

[megpie71]

Dear Senator Cash,

My partner recently received your lovely little screed in the mail - the one about the carbon tax and how this is going to cost local employers and local industries vast amounts of money, and leave them vulnerable to excessive competition from overseas interest. You cited a total of ten companies which employed people in the electorate of Brand (or, more specifically, on the Kwinana industrial strip) by name. Curious, I decided to do a little bit of research on the internet.

Of the ten firms your leaflet mentioned by name, precisely two are actually based and headquartered here in Western Australia (Wesfarmers and Coogee Chemicals - both of which are fairly large companies). Of the rest, six are owned pretty much entirely by multi-national corporations. The other two are Australian-based, but one is based in Queensland, and the other is based in Melbourne.

To give you a quick run-down of the rest:

* BHP-Billiton is a joint Australian-Dutch company (so no, it's no longer the Big Australian, and you'll notice BHP-Billiton doesn't use that slogan any more);
* Alcoa is an alumininum mining and refining multinational firm, with the overall headquarters for the company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA;
* Tiwest is a joint-venture between two Australian subsiduary companies of two different multinational firms - Tronox Incorporated (USA) and Exxaro Resources Limited (South Africa);
* BOC is part of the Linde Group, a large German-based multinational corporation;
* Air Liquide is part of the Air Liquide group, a multinational corporation first incorporated in France, and headquartered in Paris;
* Bradken (while having a wholly Australian company name) is actually owned by a combination of Castle-Harlan Australian Mezzanine Partners (a subsiduary of Castle Harlan, a US-based private equity firm); ESCO Corporation (US owned and based multinational) and Bradken Management (as minority shareholders);

Forgive me for seeming sceptical, but aren't these multi-national corporations exactly the sorts of international competition that your leaflet is implying our local industries and employers will be attempting to match? Given this information, I doubt they'll be having huge amounts of trouble.

(Incidentally, finding all this information took me approximately thirty minutes all up. It's amazing what you can find out from the internet. The information was on the websites of the companies concerned - all it took was a few seconds on google to find each one).

I took a look down the rest of the list of "facts" you provided, and noticed you failed to mention the various tax offsets which were planned (an important part of the carbon tax package) in order to compensate average Australian householders for the increased expense. Since these offsets and compensation are being introduced at the same time as the carbon tax, not mentioning them seems a little disingenuous, to say the least. Particularly since energy bills (both domestic and industrial) in WA have already risen by at least 10% thanks to the actions of the (Liberal) state government.

You failed to mention whether carbon emissions will continue to be rising by the same amount under a carbon tax package as is currently forecast. You failed to mention whether overall carbon emissions per capita will be rising, falling, or remaining steady (and whether there are any changes expected in the size of the Australian population between now and 2020 as well). You fail to mention whether the rise in carbon emissions overall between now and 2020 (from 578 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes) will be a greater or lesser rise than the equivalent period between 2002 and now.

Your leaflet also fails to mention anywhere (a grievous omission, given your final "fact") that you, in fact, represent the political party which gave the Australian political environment the terms "Core" and "Non-Core" promises. It was the Liberal Party of Australia, under John Howard as Prime Minister, which made it excessively plain to the Australian people that the majority of political promises made by them during an election campaign were in fact "Non-Core" promises - or in other words, outright lies made in order to get elected.

I therefore find it somewhat hypocritical, to say the least, that it is the Liberal Party of Australia who are now harping non-stop on a single "broken" promise made by a member of the ALP.

(Again, this internet thingy is amazing.)

Having said all of this, here is my statement as a voter living in Brand, and a voter living in Western Australia.

I support the carbon tax as an overall good not only for people Parmelia, not only for people in Brand, but for people in Australia, and people the world over. Global climate change is occurring, and we here in the south-western corner of Western Australia have been seeing the effects of it for the past thirty years or more. Something needs to be done to at least begin to tackle the problem. The carbon tax may not be the optimum solution to the problem, but it's better than nothing.

I find the highly negative style of advertising, polling, and campaigning used by the Liberal Party of Australia to be highly offensive. The Liberal Party of Australia has a strong tendency to provide such negative statements particularly surrounding policy areas where their own solutions are lacking either in detail or in existence (I checked your party's website - the last constructive thing I can see about a climate change policy is dated almost a year ago - all the more recent stuff is basically slinging off at the ALP, without offering constructive solutions). I'd be more willing to at least listen to your side of the argument if your party showed any signs of willingness to either fish or cut bait. Instead, the Liberal Party of Australia gives the strong impression of a bunch of whiny toddlers who are sorely in need of being put down for a nap while the grown-ups get on with business.

Sincerely,

Meg Thornton (Ms)

Comments

[princess_kessie]

...the various tax offsets which were planned (an important part of the carbon tax package) in order to compensate average Australian householders for the increased expense...

What a shame average Australians will mostly not benefit, but pay out a lot more than their forecast. We are a one-average-income family, yet their own calculator states we will get precisely $3.00 in compensation, and will have to shell out a minimum of $696.00 a year in direct costs. That doesn't even begin to take into account the indirect increases in such things as food and transport as their own costs go up and they pass it on to the rest of us.

Oh and FYI, Synergy's price has increased 60% over the last two years, not 10% as you noted, and it will go up again both when the Carbon Tax is implemented, and on August 1 with their own increase schedule. Alinta just put gas up by 10%, and it too will increase at least twice in 2012.

It's also a shame that carbon taxes implemented in other places have done little to nothing to reduce the carbon emissions. And it won't work here, either. It's just another excuse to tax us into oblivion.

[ariaflame]

Wow? Are you earning that much? I'm a reasonably well off single person and I think I get more than that.

The cost estimates are just that. Estimates. People who reduce energy usage and choose cleaner options will in all probability be as well off as before, if not more so.

I like Meg see no problem in levelling the playing field so that the people who have been polluting our air without having to pay for this negative externality will be paying for some of what they have been doing.

It has been harder for cleaner technologies and power generation systems to compete largely because the conventional technologies and power generation is not paying their way and thus unnaturally cheap (and yes, compared to other places our power is cheap).

The polluting companies are making the mess, we're benefiting from it and people are moaning that it's not really that messy and why should we have to pay to clean it up?

As Meg said. It's probably not perfect, but it's a start and it's far far better than Tony's 'Direct Action' Bureaucratic nightmare.

[princess_kessie]

Next year will be way less than last year, because Da Hubby got leave paid out in a lump sum, but on current income, that's what the Clean Energy Future estimator threw up, based on the fact we are SINK's (single income, no kids). I am aware it may be different when the Tax is implemented, but regardless, I am appalled we will have to shell out so much.

Especially when it will not work anyway.

[megpie71]

Okay, you're saying it "will not work". Can I get you to state the criteria you're using for "will work" - or in other words, what has to be achieved in order for the carbon tax to "work" in your opinion?

[princess_kessie]

In my opinion?

For a Carbon Tax to be successful, industry that pollutes should bear the cost of cleaning up their act. They've had plenty of time to do something - anything - to make an attempt to clean themselves up, but they haven't. Now it's time to bring out the big stick, but everyday people should not be made to suffer.

While the industries can pass on their cost increases to their customers, they are not the ones feeling the effects - we are. And while they don't suffer for their actions, they will not do anything about cleaning up their act. Especially when we as consumers, have no choice but to consume their services because there *is* no other choice (Synergy, Alinta etc) - it's not like we can vote with our money and take our business elsewhere...

But then, I believe it's all too little, too late anyway. We - humanity - did not act soon enough, and now there's nothing we can do that will have any positive effect.

[megpie71]

Given at least one of the tax offsets involves trebling the tax-free threshold (from the current $6000 to $18,000) I doubt the federal government is actually aiming to "tax us into oblivion", as you put it. Under the current rules, I earned about $11,000 all up last financial year (a combination of 6 weeks paid work, plus Centrelink benefits) and I have to submit a tax return to figure out whether or not I'm going to receive any of the tax I paid on that figure back again (doubtful - unfortunately more than half the Centrelink benefits weren't having any tax withheld at all, which immediately puts my tax status into the "ooops, you may be owing us money" column) or whether I in fact owe the government more money. So yeah, I do have a dog in the fight for the carbon tax, since I'd rather be able to say I don't have to pay tax at all than try and figure out which way things are going this time.

By the way, which other countries have carbon taxes in place?

[princess_kessie]

Google tells me that there are a reasonable number of countries who have already introduced some form of carbon tax, including but not limited to:

South Africa
India
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Finland
The Netherlands
Republic of Ireland
UK (Fuel Duty Escalator and Climate Change Levy)
Switzerland
South Korea
Taiwan (2011 implementation)
NZ (Emissions Trading Scheme)
Costa Rica
Some Canadian provinces (but no Federal Carbon Tax - yet) including Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta
A few US states, including California, Colorado and Maryland (county-level, but still)

with a few more still either awaiting implementation or in legal battles or on hold for other reasons.

Even with the tripling of the tax-free threshold, we will still be $652 worse off (from the government's own estimator - the $655 estimate less the $3 offset). Not a huge amount (it's still $13 per week, and far more than the $9.90 Ms Gillard promised!), but as I said, there will be other, indirect increases all over the place as well.

[ariaflame]

Hey megpie, had you read the Grog's Gamut breakdown of the carbon price? Would that more had.

http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com/search/label/Climate%20Change

I particularly like the tables that show whether people are likely to be better or worse off under it depending on their incomes (and children if any)