Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Congratulations to the so-called workers party for its ill-conceived, ill-considered, rushed and politically motivated Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I move that we take note—

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I was just going to ask Senator Macdonald to indicate which answer he was going to take note of. But he is now proceeding to do that.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am in the middle of prefacing my motion to take note of answers. I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Climate Change and Water (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

I was congratulating the so-called workers party for its ill-conceived, ill-considered, rushed and politically motivated Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme—a scheme that is more about photo opportunities than it is about addressing climate change. It is an emissions trading scheme that is more about winning the fawning flattery of the international conference set and the commentariat than it is about workers’ jobs in Australia. The scheme that Senator Wong has charge of is already costing jobs in Australia. There was news overnight of another 1,400 Tasmanian jobs at risk by this ill-conceived, ill-considered emissions trading scheme.

While I am particularly concerned about Tasmanian jobs, I am also very, very concerned about jobs in my own home town of Townsville where Sun Metals—the Korean zinc refining industry that was set up about 10 years ago, with a lot of help from the then Howard government—is looking to move its operations offshore. It employs 450 people in the North Queensland region and is one of the model international companies in the area. The advent of Sun Metals has given a very substantial bolstering to the local economy in North Queensland and has earned hundreds of millions of export dollars for Australia with Australia’s zinc concentrate. But 450 jobs could be at risk. As the Sun Metals chief executive, Mr Lee, said, ‘It depends upon the price of carbon.’ He is very concerned about the impact of power costs on his refinery and has indicated that it would be cheaper for him to move offshore.

This is what the Labor Party’s emissions trading scheme is all about: unemployment will go up and emissions will go up. The reason for this is very simple: the government’s plan will send Australian jobs overseas. This has also been indicated by the CEO of Nystar. Jobs with Sun Metals in Townsville will also be sent overseas. They are just two of many companies that have approached the opposition, indicating their very great concern about this ill-conceived, ill-considered scheme.

It will not only be the zinc industry that moves overseas. Other manufacturing and processing companies—particularly the aluminium, steel, cement and paper products industries—will also simply move overseas. There will be absolutely no change to changing the climate of the world, because when these industries move overseas they will move to places that have fewer restrictions than we have in Australia. Emissions will go up and all that will be achieved will be that workers—which the current government is supposed to represent—will lose their jobs. The government has no real concern about them. It is prepared to use the workers when it wants to get itself elected. But, when it comes to the most important thing for workers—and that is having a job—this government turns its back. The emissions trading scheme will cost jobs in Australia for absolutely no benefit for the changing climate of the world.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to pay a compliment to Senator Macdonald for the alliteration in the contribution he just made to this debate. I thought he was going to burst into song at one point. I felt quite exited when he started talking about the workers. I had hoped, Senator Macdonald, that we would be able to have some song from you.

Senator Macdonald has followed a similar process to senators opposite who took note of answers to questions yesterday. The opposition are getting up and putting forward alarmist positions. They are talking up fear. They are scaremongering about why Australia must not play its necessary role in what is an international response to climate change and what it must do as part of an international process.

We heard the minister respond over a number of question times about the process that she and other people in the government have put in place to engage people in this country, particularly industry. Senator Macdonald raised points about industry in Australia. The industries, the Business Council and the communities of this country need to be involved in this process. This response to climate change will not just impact on some of us. It must involve the whole of the Australian community. We have not run away from this issue.

In fact it is quite similar to questions we asked when we were on the other side, encouraging the then government to take up their responsibility to put in place a process to address climate change and the necessary reduction in our country’s carbon emissions profile. We kept asking: ‘Why are you not accepting that there is a responsibility for Australia—not just for us but for our international obligations to our environment?’ and they did not respond. Now that we are here on the government benches, they are talking about ‘rushed’, ‘ill-conceived’ and ‘ill-considered’ processes because there has been no real commitment from the people in the opposition to seeing that this is not something that is academic, something that can be pushed aside; it is something that must happen and must happen now, through the process the minister outlined again today. She talked about the various consultative processes that she, her department and her office have been involved in, with a range of people who have indicated that they have concerns about what will happen to them, their industry, their jobs and their futures.

Indeed, it is absolutely necessary that those people in industry and others in various places around Australia put forward their concerns. It is not something that can be hidden when we are working through such a significant period of change. One of the key elements of any form of change management is the trust that concerns can be aired without automatically getting a punitive response or a denial. And that is what the other side do not seem to be able to understand—that you can actually engage in a process of discussion and consultation without necessarily all agreeing. We know that through the COAG process we are hearing from each state government in this country about what their concerns are on what the future will hold for them and what decisions will have to be made.

It is very easy to sit there and pick a couple of headlines out of individual states—and I know we will hear that in future contributions this afternoon. But the important thing is that we continue to work on what we must achieve, and that is an effective program in this country which addresses what we need and what our communities need. But also, most importantly—and I think this has been often lost in this whole debate—we have a responsibility to the whole of the world environment and saying that we have to hold back, we have to wait, rejects that responsibility, as does saying that we just cannot proceed and be part of the leadership in this area, because without leadership nothing will be achieved.

We expect people from the other side to try and make political mileage, though it is rather ironic that we hear from them, now, about looking after the workers in this whole debate. It is very easy to get a quick headline, as Senator Macdonald showed in his contribution. It is very easy to get a quick headline. What is not easy but is absolutely essential is that we engage effectively in a process which works at achieving what we must do—which is to reduce the carbon emissions in our whole nation, while ensuring that we compensate effectively where there needs to be compensation, and that can only be identified when the people who have the concerns have the strength and the power to put their views forward.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Wong in question time today. The minister indicated that the government is in constructive engagement in respect of the emissions trading scheme. The minister indicated that the government is listening. The minister indicated that the government is intent on balancing a range of factors in dealing with the emissions trading scheme. She talked about balancing the environment; she talked about balancing the needs of households; she talked about balancing the needs of business. When will the government work out that, if you have three factors to balance to reach a conclusion, if one of those factors vanishes or is significantly reduced, then it has a clear effect on the others? Putting that in a nutshell: when will the government realise that if you have less business, if you have fewer jobs, then you have fewer households and you have less care for the environment?

But it is worse than that because if, indeed, the government is listening—as the minister attempts to assert it is—then why does the general manager of Port Pirie based Nyrstar say, as he did say on Radio 891 ABC Adelaide today:

We don’t understand what the government’s rush is with respect to this. If they get it wrong there will be serious consequences.

Nyrstar employs, in Port Pirie alone, almost 800 South Australian workers. It employs 3,000 workers across the country. Mr McMillan has indicated that, if the government proceeds on its timeline with this emissions trading scheme, then not only are the Port Pirie operations rendered unsustainable but so are the operations in my good colleague Senator Parry’s home state of South Australia. Yet, the minister says the government is listening.

The government are not listening. The government, when it comes to a so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, is governing by assertion. We have a government that is asserting; therefore it is. We had an ozone hole. We had global warming. We had climate change. Then we supposedly had a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Well, actually, we have an emissions trading scheme masquerading as a carbon pollution reduction scheme, because how and on what basis will trading in emissions reduce carbon? The government have not done the analysis or produced the evidence to show that that is the case. Instead, they are quite happy to have it devolve to the community and a very well-intentioned debate about the detail of trading in pollution and of an emissions trading scheme: about who should be in, who should be out, which industries should be in now, which industries should be in later, how much carbon will cost, how much a permit will cost, how long it will last for, who should be compensated for what—very important details, which need to be discussed and debated if we are to forge ahead with this exporting-jobs and exporting-pollution scheme. They are very important details, but we are not able to ask—business is not able to ask—the real question, which is: ‘What are we doing this for again? And can you, government, please prove that it will fix the problem.’ Oh, no. The government are not only trying to shut business up—far from listening to business, they are trying to shut business up with this—they are happy to see business shut down, and jobs and carbon pollution exported. That is why Mr McMillan said what he also said on ABC Radio this morning. Let me explain what he said, because the government are obviously not listening to the likes of Mr McMillan. Let me tell the government what he said on Radio 891 today, to explain why exporting jobs and exporting carbon is going to increase carbon pollution worldwide. He said:

What this means is business here may not be viable. Therefore, they’ll shut down. The world is not going to reduce its insatiable demand for zinc and lead. The demand will be supplied by somewhere else in the world which does not have the same environmental constraints; for example, China and India, where operations are less mature, less efficient. And what will happen is carbon leakage. You’ll shut efficient production …

(Time expired)

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to congratulate those opposite today in terms of this debate.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good. Thank you. You can sit down now.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly would like to congratulate them because when I was asked to speak in this debate today I was absolutely certain that I would be speaking on the G20 phone call issue. I was certain about it because, anyone who has listened to the Liberal Party over the past week in this chamber and especially in the other chamber, would know that that is all that has been discussed.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are not listening to business about the ETS. Explain why.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is certainly what is being discussed today on the other side of the chamber. So, Senator, I do want to congratulate you on that. But it is nice to be able to talk about policy again.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where is it? Where is your evidence based policy? You do not care.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, we are over our G20 phone call this year and we are talking about policy. We are talking about an important policy—the policy of climate change. Something, Senator, that you do not actually believe in, so you should quit now while you are ahead.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do not try the guilt trip, Senator Arbib.

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Senator Fisher, you have had your say. Senator Arbib has the call.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. She certainly has had her say. I want to come back to something that Senator Macdonald said when he talked about workers and our commitment to workers. I would say to Senator Macdonald that this has been at the forefront of our minds when framing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, if you look at all the compensation. Maybe it is something that you should have thought about when you voted, something like 20 times, for Work Choices. I will not go into that now but you know the pain and damage you caused to working Australians.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In fact I do not.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find it ridiculous for you to come in here this afternoon and try to raise that as an issue. I take your commitment to the workers as being an absolute falsehood. But nice try! On climate change and the ETS, our position is clear. Unlike your side of the chamber, we support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. This is going to be one of the biggest economic reforms this country has seen. Some of the comments by the previous speakers in terms of business are absolutely ridiculous because, while we are working through these issues and while consultation is underway, when I talked to business and employers, the thing they were after on ETS was certainty; they want certainty. This is something that the government is well aware of. I bring to the attention of the Senate the Australian Industry Group’s press release on 16 July 2008 in response to the green paper, in which Heather Ridout stated:

The green paper on the proposed (scheme) ticks the right boxes and shows the government has heard many of the central concerns raised by business.

I note that the Senator who actually raised that has now left. She does not want to hear the truth. The green paper addresses the chief areas of concern raised by the AI Group in its discussions with government. That is pretty clear. We have been in consultation with business, we have been in consultation with industry and we are listening to them. At the same time, this issue is too important to play games with and too important just to leave to chance. What senators on the opposite side failed to talk about were the Treasury figures, which show that this Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is possible and will work. They also forgot to talk about the actual opportunities that come in place with the CPRS—the new green industries that can be really focused upon by the government and industry to create new jobs, new industries, activity and economic growth. These are the things we can gain and garner out of the new Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

The debate for me today is very illustrative of the Liberal Party and their leadership, very illustrative of Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, and the way he goes on in his dealings, especially with the media. So you have two faces of the Liberal Party: what they say publicly and what they actually achieve and do. We should always judge them not on what they say but on what they do, because there is a wide, wide gulf between what they believe in and what they put out. They are very, very clever; I have to say that. I will give you the compliment: you have been very clever in the way you have been doing this.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two compliments in one speech. I am very concerned.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I am being very complimentary today. At the same time that you are in the Senate today attacking the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, you are also forgetting to mention that your leader, the member for Wentworth, actually supports an emissions trading scheme and that your side of politics is pushing for a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and a very comprehensive one. Let us look at Malcolm Turnbull’s press release from 17 July when he said that Australia’s emissions trading scheme ‘will be the most comprehensive emissions trading scheme in the world’. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been champing at the bit to retort to some of these Labor Party mischief-making comments. Despite the compliments we are given by Senator Arbib, they are very false. He was really stacking for time. He was struggling a little today, you could just tell by the way he did not get into the topic very early. I want to talk about some real issues about the Nyrstar media release, one of the best releases I have seen from an industry in some time. You get concerned when you see large industry in Australia issuing media releases condemning the government of the day and their decisions. The dire situation with Nyrstar will be that 3,250 people potentially could lose their jobs. Senator Arbib and Senator Moore talked about the workers, saying that they were only focusing on workers.

If we were focusing only on workers, I do not think that would be a bad thing. But we are not; we are also focusing on the environment. If Nyrstar closes and moves to another country—in particular, China—that country could pick up Australia’s slack. Australia is heavily regulated. China’s zinc smelters emit, on average, 6.8 tonnes of carbon dioxide. In Australia, it is 2.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide. That is a huge difference. The simple equation is this: we get rid of all our workers; we close down an industry; and then what do we do? We contribute worse carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. It does not make sense. It does not add up from a logical point of view or from an economical or environmental perspective. Why doesn’t the government see this? Why won’t the government listen?

The next thing we were told today is that the government is listening and consulting. If that is the case, why has Labor Premier Bartlett consulted with the Prime Minister and not got a response? I can quote the Tasmanian Hansard. This is what Mr Bartlett said in response to excellent questioning by the leader of the state Liberal opposition, Mr Will Hodgman:

The Leader of the Opposition clearly was not listening. I met one on one with Kevin Rudd. I raised it around the COAG table when it was not even on the agenda. I have subsequently written twice to the Prime Minister on these issues, and I will be raising them again at the next COAG meeting directly with the Prime Minister.

Mr Bartlett cannot get an answer out of a so-called Prime Minister, a Labor colleague. He is not able to get a response on these important issues. This is in relation to the Nyrstar debate in Tasmania. It is a serious issue for us. Fourteen hundred people could potentially lose their jobs because of an ill-conceived, rushed emissions trading program which is not going to save the planet in any way, shape or form. It is not going to assist. It will add further to pollution by sending carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. If we are serious about this, we will be finding solutions within Australia to keep jobs here and looking at further research into emissions rather than just saying: ‘It is all too hard. Make it go away. We will just penalise industry and they will close.’ That is great for a Labor party to have industries closing on the pretext of assisting the environment when, in fact, all they are going to do is damage the environment.

I just want to mention some other comments that Nyrstar mentioned in their media release of yesterday. Again, I commend Nyrstar for the fact that they have brought this to everyone’s attention in such a public way. They should not have had to, I might add. They should have been able to rely on the federal government to do this for them. But I will certainly commend them on doing this. They are urging the federal government to make substantive changes to the design of the emissions trading scheme, particularly to the method for determining eligibility for transitional assistance for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries. That is a reasonable consideration. I hope the government are going to take this on board. If they do not, they are certainly going to lose not just industries like Nyrstar but also others.

The other thing I want to point out is the inconsistency in this government’s approach in having a catch-all. Every industry is different. Every state is different. Power generation is different in every state. Nyrstar, apart from operating in a lower reduction emission country, relies predominantly on hydroelectricity in Tasmania. What a farce it is if we are going to penalise a company that is using the greenest energy possible. The government clearly has to get on top of this, listen to industry, listen to their state premiers and listen to people around this country who know far more about it than the government does. If the government does not listen, the government is going to have a crisis bigger than the one we currently have.

Question agreed to.