Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to also take note of the answer given during question time today about job losses at Cement Australia. To some degree I have had experience dealing with workers, as a proponent for working families. Unfortunately, in the past I have had to deal with redundancies. As an official I had to go into workplaces and resolve matters of redundancy and ensure that those workers’ conditions were protected. Those opposite only two years ago introduced Work Choices, which led to the demise of workers’ conditions, particularly the redundancy provisions in their awards and agreements.

We had someone come into the chamber today using their political advantage to claim that the closure of a plant in Rockhampton has something to do with this government’s CPRS legislation that deals with the most significant issue in history—climate change. It is extremely disappointing that somebody raised that in this chamber to capitalise on the cheap political stunts. It is interesting that Senator Ian Macdonald raised this subject.

I was part of the Senate Select Committee on Fuel and Energy that visited Gladstone on 7 April this year. Mr Ritchie, National Sustainability Manager of Cement Australia, gave evidence before the inquiry and fundamentally outlined the reasons why Cement Australia is having difficulty. I would not go so far as to say that Senator Ian Macdonald is misleading the chamber, but certainly we need to recognise some points that are relevant to this debate. The chair of that inquiry asked:

How have difficult global conditions resulting from the global economic downturn impacted on your business in Australia …

To which Mr Ritchie responded:

We have certainly seen a significant decrease in demand across our business as a whole.

That is what the problem is here. It has nothing to do with the proposed CPRS that the opposition voted down. It has to do with the global financial crisis. Cement Australia recognised that in evidence it gave to the Senate Select Committee on Fuel and Energy. That is what this closure is about. It has nothing to do with the CPRS legislation. As a participating member, I asked at that inquiry:

Have you raised these matters with the government during your numerous discussions with them over the CPRS?

Mr Ritchie’s response was:

Not so much in relation to the CPRS …

You would have thought that, if Cement Australia had a problem with the CPRS legislation, they would have raised it as a fundamental issue at that inquiry well in advance of any issues around plant closure. It is quite clear from what was raised in that inquiry and in this chamber today why workers are, unfortunately, losing their jobs—because of the global financial crisis. It has nothing to do with the CPRS, nothing whatsoever.

What is the opposition’s solution? Let us have a look at the record for some of their initiatives. The member for Tangney, Dennis Jensen, not long ago claimed that he wanted to put some sort of shadecloth in orbit. He indicated that the shadecloths could be tailor-made and adjusted according to the energy balance. This is the type of ideological position that the opposition takes in tackling the huge climate problems that this country and the world face. He was described in the Courier-Mail, a Queensland paper, as being ‘completely wacky’. These are the types of initiatives that the opposition want to introduce to deal with climate change. (Time expired)