John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you Madame Temporary Chairman. Interjecting across the chamber is rude and it is time Senator Cameron realised that.

I make that point that Professor Latif, a German scientist who is very well respected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Senator Bob Brown, said in September that the globe has not been warming since 2003 and in fact it has been cooling, and he expects that it will cool for another 10 or 20 years. Those here promoting the climate change scare campaign obviously do not recognise what Professor Latif has said, yet he is a well respected scientist in Germany who the IPCC have paid a lot of attention to. But, when he said this, those who are saying we had doomed to death in the near future fail to acknowledge the scientist’s remarks, and I find that amazing.

I take Minister Wong to a point about carbon dioxide levels—parts per million in the atmosphere. I am going to give the Minister some simple figures. We talk about 380 parts per million of CO2—and I recognise that, on the basis of ice samples, that has risen from 280 parts per million since the year 1750. Australia produces 1.4 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases. If the minister’s emissions trading scheme is put in place, we are going to reduce Australia’s level by five per cent come the year 2020. That is the target, at a cost in the billions and billions of dollars.

I paint the picture of the rest of the world’s emissions remaining exactly the same from now until year 2020. We know that China will increase, we know that India will increase and we know that America might take some action and reduce its emissions a bit. We know what might happen; we do not know what will definitely happen. But let us assume that the rest of the world’s emissions remain exactly the same and that Australia, now producing 1.4 per cent of the world greenhouse gases, reduces those by five per cent. That would mean that Australia’s emissions were 1.33 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases. So from 380 parts per million you would simply deduct 0.07 of one per cent, because we would come down from 1.4 per cent to 1.33 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases. That would reduce the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from 380 parts per million to 379.75 parts per million. That is the fact of it, assuming that the rest of the world stayed the same. In nine years, the cost would be $120 billion or $200 billion depending on the price of carbon and the value of the Australian dollar. We would bring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere right down from 380 parts per million to 379.75 parts per million, assuming that the rest of the world stayed exactly the same. To me, that is farcical.

My concern about this whole plan is the risk of shutting down industries in Australia and sending those industries overseas. I have a question about the emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries—I will talk about the cement industry in particular—and perhaps Minister Faulkner might be able to answer it for me. Under the proposal, we would see a 94.5 per cent discount given to the cement industry, but by 2014-15 that would be reduced to 91 per cent. When we produce 10 million tonnes of cement in Australia, we produce 8 million tonnes of greenhouse gases. So looking at 2015 on the basis of 10 per cent of 8 million, we can see that 800,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases would be taxed at $25 a tonne, so that would be $20 million in taxes on the cement industry. So each year after 2014-15, the Australian cement industry would face a tax of $20 million.

We have only got 14 factories left. We had 15—Cement Australia closed its Rockhampton factory recently and the 1,870 jobs are under threat. Because of that $20 million cost to the cement industry each year after 2014-15, assuming $25 a tonne for carbon, those 14 factories in Australia in places like Kandos in the seat of Parkes, where my colleague Mark Coulton has done so much work, would be in real trouble.

China produce one billion tonnes of cement per year, and when they produce one tonne of cement they produce 1.1 tonnes of greenhouse gases where we produce 0.8 of a tonne. We would see that industry move to China, where those 10 million tonnes of cement would produce 11 million tonnes of greenhouse gases as opposed to our 8 million tonnes in Australia currently. We would lose our industry, lose our jobs and put an extra 3 million tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Surely the minister must agree that the discounts provided to these emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries are simply not be enough and that they will fold up and move overseas where there is the threat that more greenhouse gases would be produced. What action will the government take to see that those industries do survive, because the cement industry cannot cop a $20 million tax per year?