Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the Frontier Economics report released yesterday. Frontier’s analysis shows that the government’s proposed emissions trading scheme will destroy 68,000 jobs in regional Australia compared with Frontier’s proposals. Prime Minister, why does regional Australia have to bear the brunt of job losses because of the government’s unwillingness to consider greener, cheaper and smarter alternatives to your flawed emissions trading scheme?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to 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.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order to do with relevance. The Prime Minister is referring to comments—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Goldstein will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding to the question.

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

The comments from the BCA are dated 10 August. I just draw that to the honourable gentleman’s attention. Can I also say that there is a wider problem which those opposite have—if it is their policy, depending on what day of the week it is—because they would be embarking upon a model which has not been embraced by the G8 economies. The G8 leaders in July specifically endorsed cap-and-trade schemes and committed to increasing cooperation to expand carbon markets and to align trading schemes.

I also say to those opposite that they would be embarking upon a course of action whereby you have this Liberal Party magic pudding scheme on the one hand and then Australia, the United States, New Zealand, the European Union all moving in the other direction when it comes to a cap and trade. So you have the G8 come out and specifically endorse a cap-and-trade approach. You have the major economies of Europe, the United States, Australia and New Zealand—our part of the world—moving in the direction of a cap and trade, and this is of vital importance because you need international connectedness between systems. Those opposite perhaps have not thought about that as well.

I go back to a fundamental point, which is called consistency of policy. Those opposite are now embarking upon this alternative model, it seems, if in fact it is their policy, but prior to the last election we had this statement from the Leader of the Opposition:

Speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party—

and I assume he was the Liberal Party environment minister at the time—

we have committed to a cap and trade emissions trading scheme.

That is what the Liberal Party committed to prior to the last election and then the gentleman who has just asked the question, the member for Goldstein, said on 9 November 2008:

We support a cap and trade scheme.

Member for Goldstein, if you said on 9 November 2008, ‘We support a cap-and-trade scheme,’ how could you therefore stand up in the House today and support a non-cap-and-trade scheme?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a cap-and-trade scheme.

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

I see. They are saying it is a sort of cap-and-trade scheme—maybe—except that no-one else actually embraces that. I also quote the member for North Sydney, who said in July 2009:

The Liberals in Parliament today are ready to sit down with the Prime Minister and negotiate a cap and trade scheme that delivers the best outcomes for Australian jobs …

So you have the Liberal Party prior to the election and subsequent to the election saying that they are going to have a cap-and-trade scheme. You have the rest of the world as far as the developed economies are concerned adopting cap-and-trade schemes, but now in an attempt to paper over the massive divisions which exist on their part we have instead those opposite pretending that they have an alternative model of sorts which, if you subject it to any analysis, is nothing more than a massive magic pudding.

Can I say to the member for Goldstein, who now it seems has some responsibility in this area, given that we have not seen a lot of him at the dispatch box on debates on climate change so far, that there are two days to go before the Senate votes on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It would be wonderful for the nation if two days before that vote we actually saw the final detail of Liberal-National Party policy on an emissions trading scheme. Instead, we have a continued excuse for inaction. The country deserves better.