David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to Alcoa’s announcement yesterday that they are halting their planned $3 billion expansion of the Wagerup refinery south of Perth because of, amongst other things, uncertainty associated with the introduction of an Australian emissions trading scheme as proposed by the minister. The AWU, the Australian Workers Union, says that 1,500 construction and 150 permanent jobs will be lost because of this decision by Alcoa. Will the minister confirm that at a government briefing yesterday a number of major Australian employers stated that they would have no choice but to move their businesses offshore under the minister’s current design of the government’s emissions trading scheme?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the question on the issue of business certainty, because I would like to remind the honourable senator of what has been communicated publicly to the government about the need for certainty on these issues—a certainty that was never provided by the previous government when it came to climate change. We do know that those opposite, including the senator who asked me the question, are of the view that Australia should not take any action on climate change. That appears to be their view.

First, can I refer to the media release that Alcoa put out, which indicated that the proposed expansion of the refinery had been suspended until market conditions improved. I would also make this point: business groups have made very clear to the government that, when it comes to climate change policy, they need certainty. And, as a government that are taking an economically responsible approach to the design of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, we have heeded their calls for certainty.

I remind those opposite that the Business Council of Australia stated that if the government pulled the plug and delayed the system now the level of uncertainty would be even more difficult to deal with. So it is very clear that the Business Council of Australia has not signed up to the calls by those opposite to delay the scheme. It is yet another excuse for inaction by those opposite when it comes to climate change. Similar views have been publicly expressed by the Minerals Council of Australia, which stated publicly that a delay would just add to the uncertainty.

Our proposition is this: if those opposite are serious about ensuring that business does have the certainty it needs when it comes to climate change policy in these times, they should start to be clear, first, whether or not they are going to listen to their leader, Mr Turnbull, who, when in government, did indicate he would proceed down the path of an emissions trading scheme. Are they going to back their leader on this? Second, they should stop arguing for more delay and more uncertainty when it is clear that Australia’s business leaders have been very strong and very clear in their public statements as well as in their advice to government about the need for policy certainty on this front. But we know one thing is certain, and that is that those opposite are completely divided and completely unable to come to an agreed position when it comes to climate change. Our challenge to Mr Turnbull is this: people judge you not by what you say but by what you do. Mr Turnbull will need to do more than leak the fact that he unsuccessfully took the Kyoto protocol ratification to cabinet if he is to demonstrate that he can make good on his previous position that climate change is something that the government should act on, that it is a challenge that confronts the Australian community and that the responsible economic approach is to put in place a sound emissions trading scheme such as the one the government proposes in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer the minister to a press release today from Nyrstar, a zinc smelter, which states that its viability and that of its 3,250 workers in Hobart and Port Pirie are threatened by the minister’s proposed emissions trading scheme. Given the explicit nature of Nyrstar’s statement, how can the minister continue to deny that this ill-considered and hasty emissions trading scheme will cost thousands of Australian jobs?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is quite clear what approach the opposition wishes to take on this issue. In relation to the named business and to other businesses, the government has consulted and will continue to consult in relation to the propositions that were put out in the green paper. We will do so because we understand that it is the economically responsible approach to take. We will be very clear about the views of business as we proceed to design this scheme. But we will also be clear about the costs of inaction, because one thing we do know—and the Treasury modelling and Professor Garnaut’s review also confirmed this—is that the costs of inaction are far greater than the costs of responsible action now.

What is clear is the approach that the opposition will continue to take on this issue. They will not come forward with a coherent position and they will not come forward with any position that demonstrates a willingness to tackle the issue of climate change. (Time expired)