Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be able to speak today on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills. Senator Lundy said during her contribution that, in her view, the ETS and the issue of climate change are now completely and utterly viewed by the community as one, and I do acknowledge that that is, in all likelihood, the situation. I do want to make some comments about that, but I want to start off by talking about what I thought was the least helpful intervention we have had in this debate in the last three months, and that was the intervention of the Prime Minister at the Lowy Institute. What possessed this nation’s leader to give the speech he did, which branded people in various categories in relation to their views on the ETS and on climate change and to use the inflammatory language that he used in the middle of a very, very substantial community and parliamentary debate is absolutely beyond me. The expression ‘sceptic’ is not, in my view, an expression that should be used to label someone, but it is an expression that should be allowed to be used to indicate where someone lies in relation to a debate. I thought it was an appalling intervention and one that I very, very much hope that he regrets.

There are people with different views in relation to climate change. I am not one of those who says there is no indication of climate change. I live in Ballarat. Lake Wendouree in Ballarat will dry up this year for the fifth year in a row. That has never before occurred since records have been kept. I have many friends on the land who used to harvest in February but will now harvest in late December-early January. Is there an indication of climate change? Most certainly. Is that all, some or no responsibility of man? I have absolutely no idea.

I have to say that I did not realise that there were so many scientists in the world until we started on this debate. There must be hundreds of thousands of scientists—and I must have got via email some response from nearly every single one of them. I do not know whether or not the climate change we are seeing is man-made. I have no idea, and I suspect the science cannot give a definitive argument about that either. But, conversely, it is imperative for all of us to ameliorate the risks if that indeed is occurring. That is where I think this debate should start and finish.

So can we have some sensible discussion from the Prime Minister? Can we not label people who have a different view to him? Can we respect those views and respect that they can be given passionately? Heaven help us in this country if we get to the stage where we have that sort of moral censorship—which is, in my view, totally inappropriate. This really is a government about censorship, as we have seen in relation to our printing and other entitlements.

As one of my staff members pointed out to me—and he would know far better than me, I have got to say—one of the greatest bands in the 1930s was the Jimmie Lunceford Orchestra, and one of the greatest hits of the Jimmie Lunceford Orchestra was a tune called T’ain’t what you do (It’s The Way That You Do It). I do not know the Jimmie Lunceford Orchestra but I accept that that is indeed the words in one of their greatest hits. In some respect I think that fairly clearly captures the spirit of the coalition’s position on the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme.

Can I make it absolutely clear that the coalition will not be supporting this legislation in its current form. Can I also make it very clear that my view—and, indeed, the coalition’s view—is that we should not be debating this legislation prior to Copenhagen. Clearly, the government is insisting and demanding that we do so. During estimates I asked Minister Wong: ‘Give me one good reason that we should be debating this prior to Copenhagen?’ There is no good reason for it to be debated prior to Copenhagen. I acknowledge that that is what the government intends doing. I acknowledge that the government wants this voted on next week. If the government is able to address the matters that we have very, very significant concerns about, and there is a reasonable level of acceptance of the amendments that we have put through, I make it clear that I will be supporting it.

I do accept the need for an emissions trading scheme—not with any enormous enthusiasm, I might say, but I do acknowledge that. In some respects, it would be churlish for me to say otherwise because, as has quite rightly been indicated, we went to the last election with an emissions trading scheme as part of the platform. But, having said that, this current package of bills before us now will, in my view, do nothing for the environment and will have a very, very dramatic impact on jobs and Australian families. Indeed, it will devastate the international competitiveness of Australian industry. It will trigger the widespread loss of jobs and loss of companies that would shift their operations overseas. This is not a comment of fearmongering or mere speculation. During the inquiry conducted by the Senate, a number of people appeared or put in submissions and it was quite clearly indicated by a number of companies that did appear that the potential outcome of the package of bills in its current form is a dramatic loss of jobs—and I will talk about my own state in relation to that shortly.

I will deviate briefly. When you look at the risk facing Australia at the moment and when you look at the risk facing Victoria and, I presume, Tasmania and New South Wales over the next couple of months, you have to ask why Senator McEwen does not force the state Labor government of South Australia and plead with her colleagues from Victoria to get the state Labor governments to start doing the things they should have been doing over the last 10 years—that is, to have controlled fuel burns—so we do not put the lives of people at risk through pandering to the worst excesses of the green movement, who will not allow controlled fuel reduction burns to minimise the risks that we are going to be facing in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales? It is a disgrace.

I want to turn briefly to the contribution of the Bureau of Steel Manufacturers of Australia to the Senate inquiry, and I quote:

We believe that the CPRS, as currently proposed, will disadvantage the competitiveness of the Australian iron and steel industry for a potentially worse environmental outcome.

Given the time that I have, I will only refer briefly to comments from the Minerals Council of Australia, the Australian Petroleum Protection and Exploration Association, Rio Tinto and the Reserve Bank director who said, ‘The Australian economy will survive the economic downturn, but it may not survive the CPRS.’ There was a significant discussion about potential job losses.

The Australian reported on an impact study by the premiers and chief ministers—all of them except one are Labor, of course—showing that an unamended Rudd government ETS would cost 126,000 jobs by 2020. Last month, the Age reported on a confidential report commissioned by Premier John Brumby warning of the catastrophe that the Rudd government’s unamended ETS would inflict on Victoria’s power industry. The report indicated that the Rudd government ETS could force the Hazelwood power station to close by 2013 and the neighbouring Yallourn plant to shut five years later. These two plants account for 40 per cent of Victoria’s electricity and the end result would be power disruptions and blackouts across the state. The economic consequences of that would be disastrous.

I am also extremely concerned about the effect of an unamended Rudd government ETS on the local economy of Geelong. As honourable senators know, or at least some know, I am the patron senator for Corangamite and Corio. Economic research indicates that key regional centres like Geelong could shrink by more than 20 per cent under the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme. Analysis by the Council for the Australian Federation, which is a body of all state and territory governments, concluded that the unamended Labor ETS would cost 653 jobs in Geelong, the Surf Coast shire, Golden Plains shire, the borough of Queenscliffe and the Colac Otway shire. According to the same council report, the city of Greater Geelong alone would lose 570 jobs and over $119 million in economic output. Such an outcome would constitute an economic cataclysm for the entire region that I am referring to. That worries me greatly. It worries the Geelong City Council. Indeed, the council is so worried that they have a delegation in parliament, who I have seen and who are seeing a lot of other senators and members today. They will be lobbying for the protection of Geelong’s manufacturing sector. Mayor John Mitchell was quoted in the Geelong Advertiser as saying, ‘Geelong is probably the city most exposed to this carbon reduction scheme.’ Along with representatives from major Geelong based industries such as Alcoa, Shell and Blue Circle Cement, the city councillors are here to advocate the coalition’s proposals to compensate Australian industry more generously.

The Managing Director of Alcoa Australia, Alan Cransberg, recently laid out the view of his company on this issue. There should not be one person in this chamber or in the other place who is not acutely aware of the impact of this current scheme on a company such as Alcoa. It will be utterly disastrous, but more important than the company itself are the people the company employs, who will be losing their jobs. Mr Cransberg said:

For over a year Alcoa has supported the introduction of an emissions trading scheme in Australia that delivers reductions in greenhouse gases and does not compromise Australian jobs or the international competitiveness of our industry. Getting the detail right, within the CPRS, is critical to ensure Australia does not experience carbon and/or jobs leakage, particularly to countries where the emissions from production may be higher.

As part of our discussions with all stakeholders, including the Government and Opposition, we have consistently called for three key changes:

• at least 90% carbon permit allocations to each of our emissions-intensive trade-exposed (EITE) operations (refining, smelting and rolling businesses);
• no decay of EITE permit allocations until international competitors adopt a carbon price; and
• resolution of inequitable impacts on the Point Henry and Portland smelters from the CPRS Electricity Allocation Factor (the way emissions from power stations, that supply our electricity, are dealt with under the CPRS.

He goes on to say:

For many months we have also said we want the Government and the Opposition to agree these outcomes as part of the normal debate and negotiation processes that accompany the passage of significant pieces of legislation. Alcoa is very pleased to see that the Opposition has proposed amendments to the current CPRS framework that would address each of the three key issues above, by ensuring:

• Our refining, smelting and rolling operations start at 94.5% initial EITE permit allocations (our mining and transport operations would not be considered EITE);
• That the decay of EITE permits would not fall below 90% until most of our international competitors adopted a carbon price; and
• The Point Henry and Portland smelters would not be disadvantaged by an Electricity Allocation Factor that we cannot achieve in future Victorian power contracts.

These outcomes are absolutely essential to ensure emissions trading in Australia does not lead to the premature closure of any of our Australian facilities.

The business leaders of Geelong are deeply concerned about this matter. It would appear that the current member for Corangamite, the completely ineffectual Mr Darren Cheeseman, is not. On 16 November this year, Mr Cheeseman had an opinion piece published in the Geelong Advertiser spruiking the wholly imaginary virtues of the Rudd ETS. It was, he said, ‘a sensible, balanced and well calibrated policy response … for our region’. In the same Geelong Advertiser piece, Mr Cheeseman slammed the coalition proposal to exclude agriculture from the ETS. The Liberals, he claimed, had ‘sold out Alcoa and Shell workers in favour of farmers’. This attack came after Minister Wong had accepted our views in relation to agriculture, so he is completely and utterly out of touch. Remarkably, however, on the same day16 November—that he was attacking the ETS agriculture exclusion in the Geelong Advertiser, he expressed delight about it in the Colac Herald. So which one is it, Mr Cheeseman? Are agriculture exclusions a sell-out, as you claimed in the Geelong Advertiser, or ‘absolutely fantastic’, as claimed in the Colac Herald?

I want to finish on this note. I have given the chamber my views in relation to the climate change issue—what is, is not or may be man-made or otherwise. I repeat that we do not support the current bill. We are negotiating with the government in good faith. It was indicated in the party room several weeks ago that we would be negotiating in good faith to make this legislation better. At the moment it is nothing but a job-destroying proposal. We are negotiating in good faith, and we will continue to do so.

I now want to talk about what I consider to be the elephant in the room. The elephant in the room in my view is the question of nuclear power. I find it unbelievable that we are actually talking about programs for the next 20, 30, 40, 50 years without including some discussion of nuclear power. It beggars belief. In fact it is probably derelict of us not to include it. How you can talk about emissions and the danger of emissions without discussing nuclear power is absolutely beyond me, and it completely and utterly beggars belief. How big does this elephant need to get? How big are we going to let this elephant get before there are some sensible discussions about it?

One only has to look at what has been done internationally to see the stupidity of our position. If you look at Europe—particularly France—you will see the number of power stations that they have. France gets 75 per cent of its electricity from nuclear reactors, and there has not been an accident or incident. There are 19 nuclear reactors operating in Britain, without accident or incident. The UK government has recently approved the construction of 10 more. There is proven technology. I implore the government to go to Copenhagen and put this on the table. If we are looking for an international solution to this issue, if we are about minimising risk, then let us put nuclear power on the table. Let us have a world view in relation to nuclear power. Let the world, including us, look at the question of storage; but, if the elephant remains in the room, if the elephant is not addressed, then we will pay a significant penalty for our failure to address the issue.