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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Climate Change and Water (Senator Wong) and the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Senator Carr) to questions without notice asked by Senators Abetz, Trood and Boswell today relating to employment and the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

We have now learnt from question time today the enormous bureaucracy that will be set up to administer the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. If there are to be any jobs at all made out of the emissions trading scheme, quite clearly they are going to be in the Public Service. Senator Trood’s question very skilfully highlighted the enormous bureaucracy that will be built up around the emissions trading scheme. As we have come to expect here, the Minister for Climate Change and Water was simply incapable of answering any of the questions today, as she has been incapable of answering any questions in relation to the climate change legislation. It is quite clear that the correct amount of work has not been done—there has been no modelling on the jobs that will be lost. The minister knows best, so she thinks, but those of us who get out and about in public understand that there are real job losses in this legislation.

We have heard the Labor Party in the Senate this afternoon rabbiting on about Work Choices, the Fair Work legislation and building up jobs. The emissions trading scheme proposed by the Rudd government will cost more jobs than any other single event that has ever occurred in Australia’s history. I mentioned before that at Senate committee hearings we have been told that up to 216,000 jobs in the mining industry could be put at risk by this emissions trading scheme. I ask Labor speakers who might follow me to tell me where the benefit to Australia is when Sun Metals, a zinc processing company in Townsville, have to close down because of the taxes put on their industry in Australia that do not apply to any other industry anywhere else in the world. They will close down. They will dismiss all of those workers that are currently employed there. They will move offshore to a country which does not have an emissions trading scheme. They will then emit even greater greenhouse gases. Tell me where the winds are.

We have sacked, done without or thrown on the employment scrapheap hundreds of workers in one city alone, and has it made any difference to the changing climate of the world? Not one iota. Go through the facts wherever you look in the state of Queensland. I am particularly concerned about the state of Queensland, and I am particularly concerned that the Premier, Anna Bligh, has not stood up for Queensland workers by taking on Mr Rudd, Mr Swan and Senator Wong in relation to the job losses in Queensland from the emissions trading scheme. At any number of Senate inquiries we have had evidence from the cement industry, the coal industry and the aluminium industry—companies involved in providing real jobs for Australian workers—that this scheme will cause their demise. Why? Let me give you the example of the cement industry. You can import cement into Australia. The Australian cement industry will have to compete with that. The cement comes in from Indonesia. There is no CPRS or emissions trading scheme there, so the Australian industry is lumbered with a $20-a-tonne tax. How can the Australian industry possibly compete with the Indonesian cement industry in Australia when one is subjected to a $20-a-tonne tax and the other gets away scot-free?

The biggest competitor of the Australian black coal industry is Indonesia. As the Australian coal industry has tax after tax from the CPRS imposed upon it, our coal will become uncompetitive. Where will the buyers go? To our competitors in Indonesia, which does not and never will have an emissions trading scheme. I cannot understand why the unions and the Labor Party members here do not stand up for those workers in the Queensland coal and mining industries. They are about to lose their jobs because of this Labor government, and it is about time the unions and Labor Party members had some courage and stood up to the Prime Minister and Senator Wong over a flawed scheme that will cost jobs.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition’s answer of course is to do absolutely nothing about the impact climate change is having on this country and internationally. They have gone from being a party of climate sceptics who would not even look at the Kyoto protocol, let alone sign it, to a party that is now just objecting, obstructing and denying that this country needs to move forward in being part of an international solution to the climate change problem.

We put out a green paper on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. After months of consultation, that became the white paper. Then there were concessions and changes made to the white paper. Now we have draft legislation, and we have a minister who has accepted and encouraged the fact that this chamber will look at that draft legislation. There are never any solutions or any alternatives from the people opposite me—only difficulties, objections, obstructions, negative comments and scaremongering. There is never a proposal, because they do not actually have a proposal. They do not have an agreement about where they are moving on this; they do not have an alternative policy that they can put to the Australian people.

Our Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will start in 2010. We are committed to that deadline. We went to the election on this promise, and the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, has worked incredibly hard for the last year or so, tirelessly consulting with businesses, stakeholders and those that have concerns about this. Our scheme will put a cost on carbon pollution—that is for sure—but it will also encourage major polluting businesses to lower their emissions. We need to sign up to this, to be committed to this, as part of a global and international solution. Our scheme will start reducing Australia’s carbon pollution from next year; that is what we need to do as a country. We will use the funds raised to assist households to adjust to the scheme, making sure that Australian families do not carry the cost of climate change. We will build on our investment in renewable energy to create low-pollution jobs into the future in solar energy, wind energy and new technology like clean coal and geothermal energy. Taking action on climate change will actually see the renewable energy sector grow to 30 times its size by 2050, so in fact under our scheme we will be creating thousands of jobs.

The Treasury modelling released in October last year showed that these measures will see the renewable energy sector grow, as I said, but we also know that if we do not act Australia’s economy will be left behind, because the low-pollution jobs that we need for the future will not be created. The modelling released last year showed that, for economies and countries that defer action, sit on their hands, do nothing and produce no alternative models—or no models at all, which is what the opposition want—the long-term costs will be around 15 per cent higher than the costs for those that take action now. The people opposite me want to sit on their hands and do nothing. They do not want to create new industries in the renewable energy target but actually want to postpone the costs so that in later years we will be faced with a cost that is 15 per cent higher and escalating.

Their solution to this is to make sure that they put up whatever brick wall, whatever nonsolution, whatever non-alternative-policy they can. From those opposite we have seen no consistent position, alternative policy or idea brought to the table and no positive discussion. Theirs is a party that simply wants to deny that there are future industries, technologies and jobs out there, a party that would like to defer the cost of this so that it becomes 15 per cent higher in years to come. Rather than do something now, take a positive step and be part of a global solution—be part of the answer rather than the problem—they just criticise and complain.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The trouble with the Labor Party is that they do not know whether they represent the good blue-collar workers that have stood by them for years and years or if the Greens are leading them around by the nose. When they make that decision the blue-collar workers will be glad, but at the moment the blue-collar workers—the people in the coalmines, the people at Pacific Brands, the good people that pay their union fees—are being sold out by the Labor Party. The Labor Party have deserted them, run away from them, and are now backing the Greens, the people in the leafy suburbs and the doctors’ wives.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is who you represent. You have wiped your hands of the blue-collar workers, the people that have stuck with you for years and years. They are going to realise it very soon. Eighteen hundred jobs went from Pacific Brands. I ask the Senate: how many more jobs are going to go when there is an emissions charge on every sewing machine? Every electric motor in every factory will attract a charge. Do you think that is going to make Australian industry more competitive? Do you think that is going to give the blue-collar workers a job? I can tell you it will not—and the unions know it. The Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change, Mr Combet, is going to be like a one-armed paper hanger in a high breeze, because the union movement is going to go to him and tell him what you guys are doing to them and the blue-collar worker.

I hope the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, has the decency to pick up the phone and ring Golden Circle, the biggest employer in Brisbane, employing around 1,800 workers in his electorate. Last year they had to reduce the intake of pineapples from Queensland growers because they were under attack from imported product—imported pineapples, imported home brands. How much less competitive is this ETS going to make them when they have to pay an emissions charge on all their outgoings, all their plant, all their equipment? It is going to be a huge charge that none of their overseas competitors will have to pay.

This is giving a free kick to overseas manufacturers. It is hard enough to make a quid manufacturing in Australia, with the high costs. Why put another eight pounds of lead in their saddle? What are you guys doing? Don’t you understand? How can you sit there and let this happen to Australia? How can you sit there and let this happen to your blue-collar workers? You’ve deserted them; you’ve ratted on them; you’ve—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Boswell, would you please address the chair and not the people opposite.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Mr Deputy President, but I can see the disaster coming and I get excited about it. I can see the loss of jobs that these guys are going to put on the decent blue-collar workers who have always supported them. They have ratted on them. They have walked away from them. It would not be so bad if everyone else was going to do it. But President Obama has said, ‘We’ll do it when everyone else does it.’ Mrs Clinton has said, ‘We’ll do it too, but everyone’s got to follow.’ Their envoy Senator Kerry said, ‘We can’t do this unless everyone else is doing it.’ Why are you leading Australian industry like lambs to the slaughter? That is what is happening to this industry: it is being treated like lambs to the slaughter. No-one else is going to do it—they have said they are not going to do it. China have said they are not going to do it. India have said they are not going to do it. America have said they are not going to do it. Who has said they are going to do it? And, when they have said they are going to do it, they are going to do it in 2027. We are going to start next year, in 2010. Why are you doing this? Don’t you care for Australia? Are you going to just let them sink?

Every one of you over there—apart from Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong—please help us; please let the Senate defeat this bill. Please get us off the hook by letting the Senate defeat this bill. You can go to your green voters, who you love—you have deserted your blue-collar workers—and say, ‘Oh, we tried; those rats in the Senate blocked us.’ And then you can go to the blue-collar workers and say, ‘Yeah, we knew it was going to happen; we were always on your side.’ The hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this ETS is unbelievable; it has never been seen before. And that is not Ron Boswell saying that; it is all the economists in Australia. (Time expired)

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the same answers as the previous speaker. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme—and the emissions trading system—is only one of several great public policy challenges that sit in front of the Senate at this time. We have the global stimulus package, we have the CPRS legislation and most recently we have had the Fair Work Bill. These are all enormous and important pieces of legislation for this Senate to consider. They all have one thing in common: those opposite do not have a clear policy, a clear approach or indeed a clear response to any of them. With the CPRS that is very clear. The Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, has said in his public utterances, both last year and again recently, that he is in favour of an emissions trading system. Those opposite have been completely unable to keep faith with Malcolm Turnbull’s utterances and they have been unable to give those utterances any shape or direction. This is a public policy challenge of enormous complexity and the other side have written it off as simply too hard.

This debate is typical of what has now become known as the Malcolm Turnbull three-step, which he has deployed for every major challenge that has confronted him since he became leader. Step 1 of the Malcolm Turnbull three-step is to support a Labor initiative, to drape himself in the flag of bipartisanship and to try and win a day’s media for himself as a constructive statesman. Step 2 of the Malcolm Turnbull three-step is to cast doubt upon the Labor initiative. We have seen those opposite for many, many months snipe and undermine and run a guerrilla war against the Labor Party’s emissions trading initiatives. Finally, step 3 of the Malcolm Turnbull three-step is outright opposition, the cynical exploitation of the issue for those few votes they can harness from it.

But this is a debate that is very important for this country. Notwithstanding the Turnbull three-step there are some clear indicators about where this debate is going. Our side’s position, the position of the Labor Party, the position of this government, the position of the minister, has been very clear from the moment we were sworn into government. One of our very first decisions was to move to ratify the Kyoto protocol. After 11 years of inaction, after 11 years of climate change scepticism, this government moved immediately and decisively to take hold of the issue and started building solutions. The CPRS has now been announced in large form, and there are some very important features of it that those opposite are unable or unwilling to come to terms with. At its heart the CPRS is aimed at managing a transition—a transition from our contemporary economy to a post-carbon economy. In managing that transition there are certain features, such as the permit regime, and other features such as how the coal industry is being dealt with—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann interjecting—

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

Senator Fisher interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Those on my left!

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those features, such as permits, are all about protecting the jobs of today while transitioning the Australian economy over the long term towards a 2050 ambition of us becoming a post-carbon economy. This is a challenge Australia must face—but, it is understood by us on this side, it is also a challenge that the world must face. So we are crafting public policy here to account for two important issues: the long time frames we are talking about here—that is, that the mission must be accomplished by around 2050—and developing a scheme that encompasses and understands the fact that we are working in an international, multilateral environment.

That is why the scheme recognises the fact that we have made important progress with our international trading partners. We now have the 27 countries of the European Union in an emissions trading system. We have 27 states of the United States. Canada and New Zealand are considering moving into an emissions trading system. And Obama’s United States are considering that, too. As with all the other major public policy issues that are confronting us at this time, whether it be the global financial challenge— (Time expired)

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It may well be that an emissions trading scheme is a matter of some importance, but in question time today I asked the minister responsible a very specific question. I asked the minister what the cost of this scheme would be in relation to the various elements which she argued were necessary to maintain the integrity of the scheme. I asked what it would cost to create the climate change regulatory authority and what it would cost to administer and establish many of the elements of the scheme. And she was unable to tell me. She was unable to provide an answer to this elementary question about the ETS. She was unable to provide this answer after nearly two years of work on the topic.

The government went into the last election promising some action on climate change. They could not possibly have given any thought to the possibility that there would be a need for some kind of bureaucracy to be established. During the period of time since they won office, they have spent numerous hours, spent a large amount of money and used a great deal of staff in trying to establish and set up this scheme. They have employed Professor Garnaut to provide a lengthy report, at vast expense to the taxpayer, on the scheme. So they have had plenty of time—Professor Garnaut has had plenty of time—to quantify the costs involved in this. The Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, came into the chamber today and when I asked a very specific question was unable to answer.

This raises a critical question, not just about the ETS but about the entirely cavalier attitude that the government seems to take to the management of the public purse. This has parallels elsewhere around the Commonwealth. In particular, I cannot help but think that it has parallels in my own state of Queensland, where the Beattie-Bligh government has been in office for nearly 20 years—over a long period of time—and has failed to adequately and properly administer the public purse. During good times, during times of plenty, the Labor government in Queensland has received mountains of money. It is has received money into the Treasury from large amounts of conveyancing; it has received large amounts of money from payroll taxes; it has received massive royalties from the mining industry—in fact, so much so that the government not long ago increased the proportion of royalties—and it has received masses of money from the GST.

I have done a quick calculation. Over the last seven years, it has received something in the vicinity of $53 billion in revenue raised by the Commonwealth through the GST. In the year 2007-08, it received $8.3 billion in revenue. We—not just Queenslanders but Australians—are entitled to ask where that money has gone. Why is it not reflected in the building of infrastructure around the state of Queensland? Why is it not reflected in the progress of reducing hospital waiting lists? Why is it not reflected in the improvement of education standards in relation to numeracy and literacy in Queensland? In particular, since we asked Senator Wong this question, because she is the Minister for Climate Change and Water, why is it not reflected in the administration of the state’s water security?

Prior to the last election, in a panic because it had failed to do anything about this issue over a long period of time, the Queensland government decided to propose a new dam. This was only necessary because the former public servant K Rudd had cancelled the Wolfdene Dam in December 1989. That dam would almost certainly be overflowing to this very day. South-East Queensland’s water needs would have been more than well provided for. The cancellation of that dam resulted in a panicked development of public policy which has cost the state of Queensland billions of dollars. We have had a desalination plant proposed, which is now well behind budget. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.