Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The fact is that, under the CPRS, as I am sure Senator Macdonald knows, clinker production—which is the emissions-intensive part of the cement production chain—would be eligible not for 90 per cent free permits, as Senator Macdonald explained, but in fact, as Senator Wong explained in her answer to the question during question time, 94.5 per cent free permits with the scheme not commencing until 2011. I think it is important to remind those in the opposition of Mr Turnbull’s comments yesterday. He described the industry package as:

Appropriate protection for key energy-intensive trade-exposed industries …

Far from Senator Macdonald’s articulation of the issue—which I think was very close to misleading—if clinker production is determined to be eligible for the highest rate of EITE assistance, the government’s proposed assistance package is estimated to reduce the carbon cost associated with the production of a tonne of cement from under $8 per tonne of cement to around $1 per tonne of cement in the first year of the CPRS, in the context of a cement price of around $120 per tonne in 2007. In the second year of the CPRS a carbon cost of $20 per tonne of cement will be reduced to less than $3 per tonne of cement.

As Senator Wong said in her answer to the question, it is not believable to try and link Cement Australia’s decision with the CPRS when cement producers who sell cement for $120 per tonne will only have to pay $1 to $3 per tonne for carbon as a result of the CPRS. It is a very irresponsible and fearmongering approach to come in here and berate the government in the way that Senator Macdonald has sought to do in taking note of this answer today. More than anything else, the CPRS would provide certainty to industry. To come in here and mount an argument that it is the uncertainty that is causing these problems is the height of hypocrisy, given we saw the opposition vote against the CPRS legislation just last week.

The opposition cannot have it both ways on this issue. They cannot bleat about uncertainty when they are the creators of that uncertainty and when they, in voting against the CPRS in this place last week, denied the Australian people and Australian businesses the opportunity for certainty.

I would like to make another critical point on this matter. As Senator Macdonald and the whole of the opposition, I presume, know, the government’s modelling shows that Australian cement production will continue to grow strongly under the CPRS, with the industry roughly doubling its size by the year 2050. This is important modelling, as the opposition knows. The opposition chooses selectively, using modelling when it suits their flimsy arguments and rejecting it when it does not.

The opposition’s shallow political stunt today of trying to gain political points from and play politics with very unfortunate circumstances brings their whole outfit into great disrepute. A global economic recession is a time when we all have to be a little mature about things. We need to support the jobs of Australian workers and support the future of Australian businesses in critical infrastructure industries like the cement sector. I find it very disappointing that today we have seen Senator Macdonald—and remember that he represents part of the Queensland electorate—come in here and fly off the handle, picking and choosing the facts as he sees fit while putting forward a highly hypocritical argument in relation to the position the opposition took on the CPRS. (Time expired)