Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

What additional evidence does this government require before it will take responsibility and acknowledge that its proposed ETS is not only seriously flawed but also, if the government proceeds with its implementation without having proper regard for the current global financial crisis and without an up-to-date fully costed economic impact statement, it will have severe consequences for all Australians? Here we are, a short time after the Rudd government has acknowledged that we are in the middle of a global financial crisis, and those opposite are determined to recklessly pursue the implementation of an emissions trading scheme by 1 July 2010—at a time when many Australian companies are facing the worst financial crisis of the last decade.

We only have to look at the recent announcement in my home state of Western Australia by Alcoa—the world’s largest producer of aluminium. It has to now cut back its plans for expansion. Why is it halting its planned expansion of the Wagerup refinery south of Perth? It is because of, amongst other things, uncertainty associated with the introduction of an Australian ETS. I repeat: uncertainty associated with the introduction of an Australian ETS. Just as the coalition has predicted, an ill-conceived ETS that fails to recognise and address all of the issues will cost real jobs. That cannot be good for Western Australians, let alone Australians.

In WA, the AWU—and, let’s face it, they are supporters of the Labor Party, not of the Liberal Party—are sufficiently alarmed to have issued a statement about the loss of jobs. They have issued a statement that 1,500 construction workers and 150 permanent jobs will be lost because of the decision by Alcoa. But it is not Alcoa’s fault that it has to halt its planned expansion. It is because of the uncertainly created by the Rudd government. The bad news for Western Australia and Australians is that Alcoa is not the only company that has had to halt planned projects. As reported yesterday on forbes.com news, weak demand has hurt Alcoa’s peers as well, and Tuesday’s move by Alcoa follows Monday’s decision by Australian iron ore producers Rio Tinto and Fortescue Metals Group to cut their annual production by 10 per cent due to weakening demand from China.

It is almost comical to hear the Rudd government claim that it is rushing to deliver a scheme because it has to give industry certainty. The only certainty the Rudd government will be giving to industry is the certainty that growth will slow, jobs will be lost, and industry may have to move operations offshore to survive. Let us not forget Mr Rudd’s election promise of evidence based policy. Now it is crunch time for Mr Rudd. Where is the detail? Where is the comprehensive modelling? Where is the analysis of the impact on the cost of living of the proposed ETS? Why does the Treasury modelling for the proposed so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme fail to model any scenario in instances where the major emitters do not join a world carbon pollution reduction pact? Just 20 months away from the confirmed start date, businesses are confused and they are being kept in the dark as to what the ETS will cost them. The government’s green paper came and went—no economic modelling.

Climate change demands a global solution. It is a global problem. How do we realistically move forward as members of the international community if we do not even know what steps the new president-elect in the US plans to take on a proposed ETS? History proves that Labor cannot be trusted on the economy. All that has happened since the Prime Minister and Treasurer Swan took office is that they have laid claim to the Howard government’s $20 billion-plus surplus. Remember the letter all state Labor premiers wrote to the then Prime Minister on 27 May indicating that they wanted to be involved in the formulation of an ETS? Tell us, Mr Rudd: do the state Labor premiers currently support you? I think not. They will have concerns about the loss of jobs. I say to those on the other side of the chamber: do not put at risk thousands of Australian jobs. Do not put at risk billions of dollars of capital investment in the resources sector and the energy sector. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.