The coalition has paved the way for the repeal of the carbon tax immediately after the new Senate takes office next year, in the likely event it is rejected next month, as business groups called on parliament to scrap the tax.
Parliamentary sitting dates released yesterday show two weeks of sittings have been scheduled starting July 7 — just days after the new Senate officially takes office on July 1 — allowing the government to take advantage of the election of independent and minor party senators who favour the carbon tax repeal.
The Greens have signalled they are prepared to vote against the carbon tax repeal bills in the final two sitting weeks of this year, giving them the numbers to defeat the bills in combination with Labor.
The sitting dates for a potential second attempt by the government emerged as a string of business groups urged the Senate to vote in favour of the repeal ahead of a Parliamentary Committee hearing today.
The government highlighted submissions from the Tourism Accommodation Association, the Australian Retailers Association, the Australian Forest Products Association, the National Farmers Federation, the Minerals Council of Australia and major business groups such as the Business Council of Australia to back their carbon tax repeal case.
The Australian Retailers Association called on “the opposition and minor parties not to play politics on this issue” and to support removal of the carbon tax.
“Furthermore, the ARA also supports the government using the ACCC to see cost savings being passed on to businesses and consumers.”
The National Farmers Federation said it was concerned about the carbon tax’s impact on farm businesses, “particularly the agricultural processing sector”.
The Minerals Council of Australia “urged the Parliament to respect the authority the electorate has given the government to repeal the carbon tax”.
But opposition climate change spokesman Mark Butler seized on the Australian Industry Group’s submission on the emissions reduction fund, which said there was a risk the fund would not deliver the abatement outcomes sought and there was no equivalent to an emissions cap or other legal guarantee the targets would be met.
