David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Small Business (Senator Sherry) and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Abetz) and Senators McGauran and Humphries today relating to the coal industry and a proposed carbon tax.

This debate about the government's proposed carbon tax is not about the need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. All major parties in this place agree, at least on the basis of risk management and minimisation, that action should be taken to reduce global emissions. The principle that is often termed the 'precautionary principle' is applied.

No, this debate is about whether the method proposed by the government, its carbon tax, which it went to the election promising it would not introduce, will actually achieve this reduction and at what cost to Australians. The fact is that even on the little that we currently know about what the Labor-Green government proposes for this carbon tax, it is not likely to reduce global emissions; in fact it may even increase global emissions. And it will come at great cost to Australians and Australians' jobs.

It is often said that Australia has the highest per capita emissions, and maybe that is the case. I think there is conflicting evidence out there as to who actually does have the highest emissions, but certainly we are amongst the highest emitters in the world on a per capita basis. That is primarily because we do not use nuclear power and because we have access to a huge, cheap and efficient coal resource, which we make good use of.

But what of this? How does this work into the global task of reducing emissions? If we start on the basis that we and others in the world should be able to maintain and even grow our standard of living, then we need to assume that we will on a global basis still need to produce and manufacture an equivalent amount of goods and services to that we manufacture now. So surely in doing that, in manufacturing that equivalent amount of goods and services, we should be doing it in the most efficient manner at a global level and in a way that will reduce global emissions, not increase them. As such, if we can produce a tonne of aluminium or concrete or steel in Australia with the lowest or near-lowest emissions in the world, then surely this is a good place to produce that even if it increases the emissions per Australian as it will decrease the emissions per person on the planet.

This is why we are arguing for a global solution to a global problem and not one where Australia solely takes the lead in a way that costs Australians and delivers nothing for the environment. Notions of leading may sound nice. They may even make some people sleep better at night and feel a little bit warm and fuzzy. But what must be the key in addressing the issue of global warming is that we impose a global solution. Imposing additional costs that make it uneconomic to produce goods and services in Australia, leading to carbon leakage, just makes no sense whatsoever. It does not fix the problem yet it will cost jobs in Australia and increase the cost of living. Even Senator Wong agrees with this. In a speech at an AiG luncheon on 6 February 2008, the then Australian climate change minister stated:

The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore. There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain.

Over the past few years, we have seen a lot of independent modelling on the impacts of an ETS, and now a carbon tax, on specific industries. Almost all of these have highlighted that there would be thousands, if not tens of thousands, of jobs lost in those industries. Just in the last couple of days we have seen independent modelling released by the Australian Coal Association, to which Senator Sherry referred, looking at the impacts on their industry. It was conducted, I would note, independently by the ACIL Tasman modelling group. They found that carbon pricing could greatly reduce the expected boost to the economy from the resources boom as potential mines do not go ahead. That in itself is interesting because we have heard a lot about how this government will return the budget to surplus in 2013-14 based on conservatively high terms of trade. If the ACIL Tasman modelling is correct, the carbon tax will have a serious impact on any future boost to the economy from the resources boom from coal mines alone, which will upset the assumptions on terms of trade and will upset the likelihood of a surplus in a few years time. If that is correct just for the coal industry, imagine the impact it will have on industries economy wide.

The report estimates that between 22,700 and 31,020 man years of jobs will be forgone as a result of new projects not proceeding and that between $23 billion and $45 billion in export earnings will be forgone in the decade to 2021-22. They say:

Conservative estimates of employment losses from applying emissions pricing to potential new coal mining developments would be elimination of 25-37 per cent of potential new jobs.

Those are jobs that could have been created in this industry over that period of time. (Time expired)