Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Tony Maher, when the ETS was first announced, was a cheerleader out there. He thought the ETS was the greatest thing since sliced bread. He went out and advocated an ETS. It was going to create jobs; it was going to do all sorts of things. I believe that Mr Maher’s blue-collar workers have told him, ‘Hey, brother, you represent us. You represent the workers of Australia. You represent the people who work in the mines.’ Well, today, in a 180-degree turn, he said:

Green jobs don’t exist.

That was CFMEU leader Tony Maher. He went on:

One of Australia’s most powerful union leaders has lashed out at the push for green jobs, labelling it a “dopey term”, and has dismissed environmental campaigns against some of the nation’s major export industries as “judgmental nonsense”.

Hurrah for that. Hurrah for the people who represent the blue-collar workers coming in and actually saying that these greens jobs are a nonsense. Green jobs are not going to fill the positions in the mining industry. These guys get $120,000 a year and they work hard for it. They go and work two weeks on, 12 hours a day, and then they take two weeks off. They do it the hard way. What sort of green job are you advocating that will replace that sort of money? There are no green jobs that will pay that sort of money. This matter of public importance that we are debating in the Senate that says that greenhouse emissions will be reduced is a nonsense too. Very helpful evidence was given by the Productivity Commission to the Standing Committee on Economics inquiry. We were reminded by the Productivity Commission of its submission to the Garnaut review:

… with an effective ETS in place, the MRET would:

• not achieve any additional abatement but impose additional costs
• most likely lead to higher electricity prices
• provide a signal that lobbying for government support for certain technologies ...

Then the Garnaut review itself says:

There is an interesting and seemingly perverse consequence of expanding MRET at the same time as the emissions trading scheme … Having both schemes operating side by side could see an increase in coal-fired power generation (by more than 2000MW) as gas-fired plants are crowded out …

Treasury says that the impact on GNP of the expanded renewable energy target, taking into account an increased GDP cost, will cost $5.5 billion. So on all scores, Senator, you fail. It does not create jobs and it does not revitalise communities. It does reduce greenhouse emissions but at a huge cost—at the cost of three times what emissions trading will do.

I started off by saying that when you introduce these schemes they are subsidised. By a gross feed-in tariff you are making a 20c product worth 60c. You are not charging the person that actually generates the electricity. What he uses is free but it goes back into the grid. So that probably becomes another 30c or 60c. Who pays for this? You just cannot create or destroy things. It is rule of nature, Senator Milne, and I would have thought you would have known that. What happens is that it gets passed back to the diary farmers, the cheese-makers and every little employment creator in regional Australia. These are the jobs that you should be protecting. These are the real jobs that do not depend on subsidies. They do not depend on false economies. They have been there and they are the backbone of regional Australia. An abattoir is a great employer of people. For every three beasts an abattoir kills there are maybe two people employed. A small abattoir that kills 400 beasts will probably have 350 people working there. You are increasing the charges on that through an ETS and renewable energy. Now you are passing on even further charges through this subsidy for gross feed-in tariffs. I hope the Labor Party has woken up to itself. It sounds like it has. I see Senator Faulkner over there, who is listening to me carefully, and he will understand what I am saying—