Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

There were a number of things in there, albeit nothing new. It is the same old mantra and, I might say, the same old telling of half the story. Yes, the renewable energy targets referred to by Senator Milne are right, although she did not tell us what the actual percentage would be with the increase in Japan. That would have been an interesting figure. But, even with their renewable energy targets, did Senator Milne take us through the exemptions that are available to various industries in Europe, in Japan, in the United States? No, she did not. There is only one reason she did not do that: she knew it would debunk her argument, because country after country has included them. Indeed, the Waxman-Markey bill to which she referred has special protection for any energy-intensive trade-exposed industry. We know that to be the case, but why didn’t she mention it? Because time and time again the Australian Greens go out to the Australian population telling a deceptive story because they only tell half of it. What they say is true but it is misleading. If the whole story were to be painted on the canvas, the picture would be so very different. We know that to be the case and we have got another example today.

Senator Milne’s contribution, rhetorical as it was, started off with the question: why would you want to exempt anyone from paying their fair share? We do not want to exempt anyone from paying their fair share; of course we do not. But I suppose it depends on what your definition of ‘fair’ is, and according to the Greens ‘fair’ includes throwing hundreds and thousands of Australians out of employment. We know that with the renewable energy target—and Senator Milne herself said, and I wrote it down—electricity prices will rise. Of course they will, and that is why we as a coalition say: to transition your economy to be less carbon dependent, you do it in a stepped and staged manner so you protect your economy and jobs. We could get up here today and say, ‘Aren’t we great? We have a 50 per cent renewable energy target.’ It sounds good but for the fact that lots of people would lose their jobs and we would devastate our economy. What is more, we would also devastate the world environment. Why is that? Because, if our aluminium smelters become uncompetitive on the world market due to increased energy costs, they will close down. I think, as I speak, there is an announcement being made today about a facility in Queensland being closed down, partly because of their concerns about what the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will mean for their future operations, with the loss of jobs.

Do you think the world demand for that particular product is going to decrease? Of course it will not. The demand will still be there for that product, but it will no longer be made in Australia and we will be importing it, undoubtedly, from China, Indonesia or Vietnam. I ask the Australian Greens and I ask the Australian public: do you honestly believe that the closure of a manufacturing facility in Australia and its transplanting to one of the countries I have just mentioned will leave a lesser carbon footprint on the world environment? Of course it will not.

I have used the example of zinc manufacturing before in this debate: in China, three times the amount of CO2 is produced per tonne of zinc in comparison with zinc production in Australia. If you make zinc manufacturing non-competitive on the world market, you will see Australian zinc manufacturing close down. The world demand for zinc will still be there; it will just be made in China, where they put three times as much CO2 into the atmosphere per tonne of zinc produced than we do in Australia. But somehow we are to put our hand on our heart and say, ‘Aren’t we good environmentalists? We have stopped polluting by two tonnes of CO2 per tonne of zinc produced; aren’t we good?’ knowing full well that, as a result of that action, zinc being produced in another country is putting three times the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

The Greens recipe is not only to mug Australian jobs, to mug Australian wealth and industry; it is also to mug the world environment. There will be a worse outcome. It is about time that the Australian Greens realised the consequences of their policies. I would also say that you know the debate is taking an interesting turn when the Australian Greens start providing gratuitous business advice to various industries, telling them how all the industry and other analysis is wrong but the Greens have somehow got the answers to all the problems and that their energy costs will really be cheaper! I do not know how Senator Milne got to that convoluted conclusion. After having said that electricity prices would rise, she then tells us that somehow electricity will in fact be cheaper.

Well, I am not aware of any business or any businessperson in this country that is so wedded to carbon-producing electricity generation that they would not want cheaper electricity if it could be obtained from a renewable source—I know of nobody. So it is just pure fantasy to believe the Greens’ approach on this issue—that somehow business is doing itself in the eye by not accepting the cheaper energy that would result from renewable energy. I think we are all agreed, and Senator Milne herself said this, that renewable energy will cost more. That is a price we need to pay if we want to shift our dependence on carbon-producing energy sources. But we need to do that in a transitional way that will protect the Australian job market, protect Australian industry and, what is more, ensure that we do not have carbon leakage into other parts of the world. So we as an opposition indicate that we will be opposing Green amendments (17) and (18) on sheet 5816 revised.