Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to make it very clear that all the speakers I have listened to so far certainly agree that global warming is a major issue. It is not just global warming. If I could diverge for a second, the anthropogenic effects of CO2 are very dramatic, particularly in Antarctica in terms of acidification. Already the aragonite or calcite-type shells of the microscopic creatures are being dissolved, and the barrier is now rising rapidly to above one kilometre deep, which will affect the food chains of the krill, hence those of the whales, the seals and the penguins et cetera. The Barrier Reef was mentioned. There is no doubt that the concentration of ultraviolet light combined with warmer waters is destroying the plankton that work with the coral, causing coral bleaching. The Arctic is undoubtedly melting and Greenland is also having major problems. No-one disagrees with that, and the member for Makin must understand that. He is a friend of mine, and I want him to be assured that we empathise with the position.

However, we have to remember that Australia now emits less than 1.4 per cent of CO2 equivalent emissions, and we need to work as part of a global action if we are going to have any definite effect and change things. The emissions trading system that you have, unfortunately, is flawed. I am not saying it would easy, but it is flawed. As already mentioned by the member for Flinders and I think by the member for Goldstein, it is counterproductive to what people do as individuals. Here, we need to empower not only governments on an international level but also individuals on an individual level. If an individual does things, it literally flows on to help the polluters in their credits. Our export and import industries will be affected. We estimate that from year one an extra $2.5 billion of tax will be put on them, and yet many of these industries are currently very efficient. For example, the aluminium industry in Australia and the zinc industry, which has been mentioned before, emit only 50 to 60 per cent of the CO2 equivalent here in Australia as compared to China.

The proposed scheme involves generating permit revenue of about $12 billion from year one. New Zealand was mentioned by the member for Makin, and, Tony, I want to tell you that 100 per cent of the permits issued in New Zealand will be free until 2018-19. It is very much different from Australia. The problem of the $12 billion generated is now part of another government problem. The global financial meltdown must be considered, as the ability of these companies to source the finance to buy or borrow the $11.5 billion worth of permits, as the member for Goldstein mentioned, is problematic. It is made worse by the credit crunch but it is made far worse by massive government borrowing. When the government borrows and raises bonds of some $200 billion, no-one else can borrow the money. My money will come out of the bank and go into your bonds. The same bank will invest in your bonds. The pool of resources for private enterprise to borrow from is evaporating and already they cannot borrow. You have turned a fiscal stimulus into a fiscal disaster.

Basically, this is the worst crunch that we have had in 80 years. The scheme that was proposed has got very little relativity to reducing the CO2 emitted, and a 20 per cent reduction in Australia’s emissions by 2020, which we have proposed, will reduce the global emissions by 0.2 per cent. In other words, we will reduce the global emissions from 57.2 gigatonnes equivalent of CO2 to 57.06 gigatonnes equivalent of CO2. For bankrupting an economy, that is not a big gain. We must have a scheme, of course, and this needs to be calibrated with progress towards a global agreement. At the same time we must encourage greater individual participation, which this pollution scheme does not. The Kyoto agreement does not finish until 2012. The government wants to start the scheme by 2010. The business costs are absolutely horrific. We do not meet in Copenhagen until December 2009, so we should not lock ourselves into any firm agreements until after that date. The minerals sector, for example, will be seriously affected by— (Time expired)

See this speech in context