Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I hope when the government senators leave this place at the end of the day when we adjourn for a short break that they will reflect upon the way in which the government has mismanaged the agenda in this place over the last two weeks. Before the end of the day, we are likely to pass the renewable energy target bill. We are likely to do that because the opposition has been—as it has always been on these issues—prepared to engage in negotiations and constructive dialogue with the government about this particular matter. What a contrast that has been to how the CPRS has been dealt with, where, notwithstanding all the efforts that were made on behalf of the opposition to engage the government sincerely and truly with regard to its deeply flawed scheme, it has rejected our overtures. We now have a situation where we will leave this place this afternoon and we will have not passed the CPRS but in all likelihood we will have passed the RET scheme.

The people who have to accept responsibility for that failure are those in the government. They have to accept the fact that we were prepared to assist with this particular legislation. We rejected the CPRS legislation because it was a deeply flawed piece of legislation. It was a piece of legislation which would have wreaked havoc on the Australian economy. It was a piece of legislation that would have destroyed Australian jobs. It would have undermined our trade competitiveness and Australian families and Australian business would have incurred crushing burdens. We on this side of the chamber believe that we did the right thing in protecting the Australian economy. And it would have provided almost no particular assistance to the environment and would have done even less for the problem of climate change.

The cost burden is significant. Compared to other emission schemes that are in place or in prospect around the world, the costs which would have been imposed upon the Australian economy were significant. In the US, calculations have been made that the scheme might impose a per capita figure of something in the vicinity of $57. In Europe, it is only 80c. In Australia, the burden which would have been placed upon Australians if the CPRS as drafted by the government had passed would have been in the vicinity of $440 per Australian. That is a burden that no Australian should be forced to bear, particularly in the context that we are a country that emits something in the vicinity of 1.5 per cent of global emissions.

No part of the country would have borne the impact of this imposition more than my state of Queensland. It is a state which is highly decentralised. It has a decentralised population and it has a very diverse and decentralised economy. The consequence of that diversity and decentralisation is that, of all the states and territories of the Commonwealth, my state of Queensland would have felt the greatest impact. Particular industries would have suffered more so than others. I am thinking of the mining industry, where the costs are frightening. An assessment by Concept Economics suggests that if this particular CPRS had been introduced it would have cost in the vicinity of 11,400 jobs directly in Queensland by 2020. By 2030, the figure would have been in the vicinity of 34,000 jobs. That is 34,000 Queenslanders out of work as a result of a scheme which is deeply flawed and which would make no significant contribution to solving the global emissions problem. The annual loss to Queensland taxpayers would have been in the vicinity of $1.6 billion. All it would have done would have added to the significant deficit of the Queensland government. (Time expired)