Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that BlueScope Steel is one of the most environmentally responsible steelmakers in the world and that, if a carbon tax pushes more steel manufacturing overseas to China—where they will emit more carbon dioxide for every tonne of steel—it will mean that total global emissions will increase, not decrease. I ask the Prime Minister: why is the government threatening thousands of manufacturing jobs in Australia with a carbon tax that will have the effect of increasing emissions as industry and jobs migrate overseas?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. I would want firstly to go specifically to BlueScope and then talk more broadly about protecting Australian jobs. Let me say specifically on BlueScope: inevitably, as we work out way through this carbon pricing debate, we will see claims and counterclaims in the media. I say to the member and to the Australian public generally that when they see those claims it would pay to run the fine-tooth comb over them so people have the accurate facts. I believe in people having the facts.

So on BlueScope Steel let’s go through those facts for the member. There was a report that BlueScope was planning to abandon building a $1billion cogeneration plant at its Port Kembla steelworks. That was reported in the newspaper. The fact is they cancelled that project prior to the carbon price announcement that was reported on 26 February. It is very important that people get the facts. And then, of course, on BlueScope Steel, because the member specifically asked me about BlueScope Steel, we did at an earlier time during debates about carbon pricing have BlueScope Steel saying that it was shelving a cogeneration plant because at that stage the carbon price had been deferred by a year. So, actually, they wanted the carbon price in order to understand the financial—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am putting that from the point of view of investment certainty. They wanted the certainty to feed into their investment decisions. In that regard I refer people to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald on 6 May 2009, which says:

BLUESCOPE Steel’s plan to build a $1 billion-plus co-generation plant to lower greenhouse gas emissions from its blast furnaces at Port Kembla has emerged as the first major casualty of the Federal Government’s decision to delay the start of the proposed emissions trading scheme by at least a year.

So what I would say to the member is that it does pay to run a fine-tooth comb over the series of claims which will inevitably be made publicly during the course of this debate. What I would then say to the member, broadly, on manufacturing jobs—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding relevance. The Prime Minister was not asked a question about any claim that BlueScope Steel has made. She was asked a question about migrating jobs overseas and increasing emissions globally because of the introduction of her carbon tax. It would be nice if she could answer the question she would like to have been asked, but she was asked a question and she should answer that one.

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

The member for Sturt will resume his seat. I invite him to read, in the copy of the question that he has, the preamble. The Prime Minister has the call.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much. The last few words I said before I was interrupted were on the question of manufacturing jobs, about which the member asked me. Let me address that for the member. I understand and the government understands that we will need to take steps to assist industry to adjust. That is why when we announced the carbon price we said all of the revenue raised by putting a price on the 1,000 biggest polluters will be used to assist households—that is the assistance that the member is committed to ripping away—will be used to assist industry to adjust and will be used for programs to tackle climate change. I want to protect Australian jobs. I want us to have the clean energy jobs of the future. In order to ensure as we design the scheme that we hear the voice of business, we are working through a business roundtable as well as through direct consultations so that we can get the design right. We want to protect Australian jobs. That is what the industry assistance is about as part of this package to price carbon. If the member seriously wants to contribute to this debate then of course he would have to get his party to abandon climate change denial, price carbon and work with us on the details.