Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

Again I would note in my response to this question what I said in response to the last question, which was that the government finds itself two days before a vote in the Senate responding to a non-policy. Those opposite were asked yesterday, ‘Was the document produced by Frontier Economics representative of coalition policy?’ The answer was, ‘No, it is not coalition policy.’ We seem to be again having this debate in a policy vacuum.

The honourable member raises a question about the impact on employment. Treasury modelling shows that Australia can continue to achieve strong trend economic growth while making deep cuts in emissions through the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and that almost all industry sectors across the Australian economy will continue to grow. I would also draw the honourable member’s attention to the fact that, consistent with this, national employment is projected to increase by 1.7 million jobs from 2008 to 2020 and by 4.7 million jobs by 2050 while carbon pollution allocation levels are projected to fall by at least 60 per cent from 2000 levels in 2050. Furthermore, average income is projected to increase by at least $4,300 per person over the 12 years from 2008 to 2020 with strong real trend GDP and GNP growth.

The Treasury modelling also points out that by 2050 the renewable energy sector will be 30 times larger than it is today. Furthermore, a 2009 study by the Climate Institute shows that there are some $31 billion worth of clean energy projects already underway or planned in response to the government’s climate change policies. This will generate around 26,000 new jobs, mostly in regional areas: 2,500 permanent jobs, 15,000 construction jobs and 8,600 indirect jobs in supporting sectors.

I would also draw to the honourable member’s attention—given his recent interest in climate change, because I cannot recall many questions from the honourable member up until now on this matter—to what Treasury modelling also said in October 2008: that economies that defer action on climate change face long-term costs around 15 per cent higher than those that take action now. The honourable member will be familiar with the impact of climate change on critical regions like North and Far North Queensland vis-a-vis the amount of employment which is generated out of the Great Barrier Reef. There are 50,000 people whose employment derives from the Great Barrier Reef with $5 billion in tourism revenue, not to mention the 90,000 people who are employed in agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin. Therefore, in terms of the employment impacts, I would draw the honourable member’s attention to what we have said through the Treasury’s modelling of the employment impact of the CPRS. Furthermore, can I draw the honourable member’s attention to what would happen if we simply continued the policy of those opposite for the previous 12 years, which was to do nothing. That is the consequence of inaction and the cost to the economy and to jobs and income.

The honourable member also in his question again makes reference to this document produced by Frontier Economics. I would draw the honourable member’s attention and the House’s attention to the fact that the BCA, the Business Council of Australia, through its spokesman has said:

The BCA is concerned that a baseline and credit model will bring additional uncertainty over time as such an approach may require changes to the baselines to achieve emissions targets and quantum and timing of such changes is unknown.

I would also draw the honourable member’s attention, given he has raised the question of Frontier Economics and their report—which is their report but not opposition policy—to the Energy Supply Association of Australia, which also says:

A baseline and credits scheme would also be enormously administratively complex.

That is the response of the Business Council of Australia and the Energy Supply Association of Australia. Can I also say when you look at other analyses which have been put forward in relation to this proposed alternative that there is not an enormous chorus line of support for it.

See this speech in context