Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I was interrupted by question time I was commenting on the cost to industry of the CPRS. I make the note that dollars and cents are one thing. To this government they are simply entries on a balance sheet, with no thought of the impact of their spendthrift and damaging policies. But, in the end, this should not just be about numbers; it has to be about jobs. A few brave companies have been prepared to go public with the impact on their workers of this CPRS. The Minerals Council has found that over 66,000 jobs will be lost or forgone as a result of the CPRS. Rio Tinto has stated that ‘the CPRS as proposed will cost jobs—now and in the future’. Xstrata predicts that between 5,000 and 10,000 jobs nationally will be lost. Alcoa has concerns about 1,800 jobs at risk in Geelong and Portland. Exxon predicts the loss of 350 jobs at their Altona refinery. Hundreds of jobs will or could be lost at BlueScope and OneSteel. The aluminium smelting industry would cancel their expansion plans, with a loss of 3,000 permanent jobs and up to 15,000 construction jobs.

Even the clean energy projects at ZeroGen and Envirogen could see 1,000 jobs go begging as a result of this CPRS. The list of jobs lost or foregone could go on and on. Hundreds of thousands of jobs could disappear under this scheme that—just as a reminder—will not make a jot of difference to the climate. Research commissioned by the New South Wales government found that regional centres across Australia would shrink by 20 per cent under the government’s scheme. In some one-factory towns, the loss of industry would effectively shut the community down. This scheme is just another stake through the heart of regional Australia.

As I mentioned earlier, the government will be offering financial support for low- and middle-income families to help cope with the increased costs caused by this scheme. Why, then, are the government burdening all Australians with higher costs when the CPRS will make no meaningful difference to the world’s climate? Put simply, the price of emission intensive goods will increase, the cost of electricity will increase by up to 50 per cent, the cost of gas and other household fuels will increase for every household and food prices will increase. I ask once again: why are Labor trying to place this burden on Australian families? Why are Labor threatening their jobs, their prosperity and their lifestyle when the action that Labor are proposing will have no impact on global climate change? The only reason is that Labor have turned their backs on Australia’s interests in an ill-fated attempt to ingratiate themselves among the leaders on the world stage.

Frankly, the national price alone is too high for me to support this bill. While, by virtue of our position in the national parliament, we must consider our county’s interests, I am a senator for South Australia and I will and must consider the interests of my state. You see, when talking about job losses and increased cost, it is easy to think that it will not happen in an area near you. This scheme will affect everyone. But some, of course, will be much worse off than others. South Australia, for example, relies on agriculture, manufacturing, mining and other energy intensive industries that will all be disadvantaged by the introduction of Labor’s CPRS. It is estimated that the South Australian government will experience a net additional cost of $99 million. This will place a significant burden on other areas of state government expenditure, such as health care, just to cover the costs of this scheme.

The town of Whyalla, where I was last week, currently facing such a promising future, would once again be plunged into uncertainty as a result of this scheme. Nyrstar, a metals processing and recycling company operating in Port Pirie, estimate that a CPRS could make their smelter unviable. This would cost up to 1,700 jobs, around 30 per cent of Port Pirie’s working population. Imagine that: one third of a large town’s population out of work as a result of a scheme that will not and cannot achieve its stated aim. It fills me with dread, and it should fill every South Australian senator with dread, too.

South Australia’s future is reliant on the very industries that the rabid greenies consider unfriendly to the environment. We have to accept, though, that industry is needed to continue the growth of our state. We need to see the development. We need to see the development of our mining industry. We need to see the development of new power stations, including the proposed $350 million, 450-megawatt, gas fired power station planned near Mallala—a project the viability of which is threatened by Labor’s irrational CPRS. In the south-east of my state, the Kimberley Clark pulp and paper mill at Millicent will suffer under the CPRS, threatening the future of its 630 employees. Every single job lost will have a flow-on impact, not only for Millicent but for the neighbouring townships and the south-east region of my wonderful state.

South Australia is reliant on more than mining and industry for its prosperity. We also have a big agricultural presence that contributes a large amount to our state economy. The proposed CPRS could take up to 22 per cent of a farmer’s income to—I remind the Senate once again—achieve no meaningful benefit for the environment. Beef eaters will pay more and beef producers will make less under this scheme. In fact, input costs will rise and profits will fall for all farmers. The inevitable result will be more farmers leaving the land, placing further pressure on regional communities. I do not have time to further extrapolate on the danger this bill represents to the national interest and the interest of South Australia.

Local industries will be forced to close, only to reopen elsewhere, effectively exporting Australian jobs and profits to other countries. Every Australian—every Australian family—will bear the cost of this scheme in the form of higher food and energy prices, through loss of jobs, through the decline in real wages and through the closure of communities.

This CPRS is like a wish list of anti-Western, ultra-green ideology. It places hypothetical environmental benefits above the interests of every Australian. The economy, employment and families are ignored in favour of Al Gore’s alarmist and discredited apocalyptic future of the world. And for what? It will have no meaningful effect on reducing global greenhouse gas levels. No matter how extreme our own approach to reducing carbon emissions, Australia can achieve nothing alone. In the absence of a global agreement including India and China, Australia will simply be a loser by being an observant climate change disciple. We cannot and should not pursue causes, no matter how well-meaning they might be, if they will have no positive impact on the global environment and yet threaten the very future prosperity of our country. Accordingly, I will be acting in the national interest and the interest of South Australia by voting against this bill and by flagging my objection to any future incarnation that does not serve the interests of my state and my country. I ask that every South Australian senator, and in fact every senator in this place, makes that same commitment. To do anything less is abrogating their responsibility under our constitution.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to talk about something that is close to my heart: the environment. Today we are facing one of the biggest problems of our lifetime: climate change. Climate change is affecting everyone and it is time we step up to the mark and fix what we as humans have broken before it is too late. I was privileged, like other senators, to be part of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee’s inquiry into the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy and a participating member to the Senate Select Committee on Fuel and Energy at its Gladstone hearing.

The experiences were an opportunity to hear from copious witnesses from renewable energy technology areas, environmental conservation groups, a variety of all types of businesses, scientists and action groups. I take this opportunity to thank the secretariat and my fellow senators, particularly Senators Cameron, Feeney and Pratt, for their commitments in dealing with possibly the most crucial piece of legislation this century and with over 8,000 submissions.

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

What about me!

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I mentioned ‘all senators’! Overwhelmingly, evidence among climate scientists both in Australia and internationally is that climate change caused by human activity is posing a major and rapidly escalating threat to the earth’s physical environment, to the economies of every country and, ultimately, to the sustainability of human life on this planet. Australia is one of the hottest and driest countries in the world and will be hit by the brunt of climate change if we do not act. The state of Queensland, which I represent, is one of the states that will be greatly affected by climate change. We have been exposed to drought, floods, cyclones and fires. With a population of more than four million people we cannot afford to sit back and watch sea level rises potentially cause floods. We cannot risk carbon dioxide levels doubling. We cannot risk temperatures rising further and nor can we just sit and watch the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef or the demise of our agricultural industries. All of these would have huge implications on our state, not just our health but our businesses and our livelihoods for many generations to come. If we sit here and do nothing there will be nothing left for our children or our children’s children. I am not prepared to tell my great-grandchildren that we sat here and did nothing to stop it.

I believe in tackling tomorrow’s issues today and that is also what the Australian Labor Party believes in. The Rudd Labor government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will do just that. The strategy is based on reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, adopting a climate change strategy that we cannot avoid and helping to shape a global solution. The government’s commitments are targets of an unconditional commitment to reduce carbon pollution by five per cent from 2000 emissions levels by 2020 and a new ambitious 25 per cent target by 2020 if the world agrees to an ambitious global deal to stabilise levels of CO2 equivalent at 450 parts per million or lower.

The way Australia will achieve this goal is through a cap-and-trade scheme, which will see companies and individuals pay for their carbon emissions. For every tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted into the atmosphere, one emissions permit must be surrendered. The way the cap-and-trade scheme will work is by auctioning off the permits. Those who need the permits the most will pay more for them. There will be a limited number of permits issued, pushing the prices up higher. With the price of the permits being too high for some emitters, they will be motivated to find more environmentally friendly ways to conduct their business as it would be cheaper to just reduce emissions. Users will also be able to trade these permits. The cap-and-trade scheme is an effective way to reach our targets by 2020. The cap will help us reach the target of reducing carbon pollution and it will give carbon a price. Trading will enable emissions to be reduced at the lowest possible cost. The quantity of emissions will be monitored, reported and audited and those who do not comply will be penalised.

The scheme will affect about 1,000 Australian companies that produce more than 25,000 tonnes of carbon pollution each year. This is just one per cent of the number of registered businesses in Australia. The sale of these pollution permits will help us all to adjust to this scheme and to become a more environmentally friendly country. While the government understands that this will be a very big task, we are doing everything in our power to ease the transition to becoming a greener Australia.

The Rudd Labor government will cut fuel taxes on a cent-for-cent basis to offset the price impact on fuel by the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. This will be assessed periodically and a review will be held after three years. The government has decided to delay the start of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme by one year in order to help Australian companies manage the impacts of the global recession. We in the Labor Party do not accept the view that Australia should wait until there is an international agreement on climate change before taking action. We also reject the view that Australia will be alone in taking such action. A global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions is the most desirable way to proceed. Nevertheless, other countries are acting in advance of such an agreement, and so should we.

Australian businesses are currently dealing with the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression. In this environment, the government has decided to act to further support jobs and assist businesses during these difficult economic times through the following measures: a new global recession buffer, which will be provided as part of the assistance package for emissions-intensive trade exposed industries; a one-year fixed price phase will apply, with the transition to full market trading from 1 July 2012, and during this fixed price phase each carbon pollution permit will cost $10; and funding for eligible businesses and community organisations to undertake energy efficiency measures in 2009-10 as part of a $200 million tranche of the Climate Change Action Fund.

To encourage carbon pollution reductions before the scheme starts, reafforestation will be eligible to voluntarily generate permits for carbon stored from 1 July 2010, creating economic opportunities in regional Australia. The expanded Renewable Energy Target will also be in place as planned from 2010 to drive investment in Australia’s vast renewable energy resources.

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme represents one of the most significant reforms ever of the Australian economy. Unfortunately, there is no cost-free way to transition to the low pollution economy of the future. That is why the government has set out a comprehensive package of financial assistance for Australian households. Through the household compensation package pensioners, seniors and carers will receive additional support, above indexation, to fully meet the expected overall cost of living flowing from the scheme. Other low-income households will receive additional support, above indexation, to fully meet the expected overall increase in the cost of living flowing from the scheme. Around 90 per cent of low-income households—or 2.9 million households—will receive assistance equal to 120 per cent or more of their cost-of-living increase. Middle-income households will receive additional support, above indexation, to help meet the expected overall increase in the cost of living flowing from the scheme, and for middle-income families receiving family tax benefit part A the government will provide assistance to meet at least half of these costs. Around 97 per cent of middle-income households will receive some direct cash assistance and around 62 per cent of all middle-income households—or 2.4 million households—will receive sufficient assistance to meet at least half of these costs. And motorists will be protected from higher fuel costs from the scheme by cent-for-cent reductions in fuel tax for the first three years.

Already the government has acted decisively in introducing the Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Bill, Energy Efficient Homes program, which not only provides environmental investments for householders by reductions in energy use and savings on energy bills but also generates thousands of jobs in this global financial crisis. The legislation will support jobs and sets Australia up for a low-carbon future in installing free ceiling insulation in around 29 million Australian homes. In addition, under the Energy Efficient Homes investment, the solar hot water rebate has increased from $1,000 to $1,600. The Energy Efficient Homes package will modernise Australia’s homes and will enable almost all Australian homes to be operating at a minimum two-star energy rating by 2011. It is up to us to ensure something is done to slow down climate change so that there is something left for our future generations. That is why it is important that Australia steps up on the international arena with its own scheme.

By implementing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme we will put ourselves in the company of other developed nations who are fighting climate change and trying to reduce their carbon emissions. There are schemes already operating in 27 European countries. Twenty-eight states and provinces in the United States of America and Canada, as well as New Zealand, have introduced emissions trading schemes and Japan is considering its own scheme. By joining other countries taking action on climate change, we are putting ourselves in a better position at the international negotiating table. It will be better for us economically and will enhance opportunities of becoming a low-carbon-emitting country.

Taking action earlier rather than later will enable us to have a smooth transition to becoming a more environmentally friendly nation. According to Kyoto accounting provisions, Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions were 576 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Our biggest contributor is the energy sector, which emitted 400.9 tonnes. The second highest contributor is the agricultural sector and then transport.

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will have broad coverage to ensure prices are kept lower for consumers. These sectors include stationary energy, transport, fugitive emissions, industrial processes, waste and forestry sectors, as well as all six greenhouse gases counted under the Kyoto protocol. The scheme will be managed by giving direct obligations to facilities with large emissions and obligations on upstream fuel suppliers to offset the emissions produced from the combustion of fuel. Forest landholders will be given the opportunity to opt in and agriculture emissions will not be included at the commencement of the program. Instead the government believes it needs more consultation with industry to determine the best way to include the agricultural sector and to reduce emissions.

As well as helping Australians become more energy efficient, assistance will be provided to businesses via the Climate Change Action Fund. This will help businesses transition by providing a range of activities through partnership funding, including investment in innovative, new, low-emissions processes, industrial energy efficient projects with long payback periods and dissemination of the best and innovative practice among small- to medium-sized enterprises. Transition assistance will also be provided to emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries. Companies may find it difficult to compete in the international market if they are competing against countries that do not have an emissions trading scheme.

Evidence provided during the inquiries from high-emitting industries claimed that they may look at moving overseas, which would be no benefit to the environment. This is called carbon leakage. To prevent carbon leakage, the government will be assisting EITEs by providing a share of free permits. This will only be applicable to businesses that are at high risk of carbon leakage. The opposition were quite vocal on their concern with the cost of this scheme. If we sit here and do nothing, the cost will be even greater to our future generations. This is explained in Australia’s low pollution future: the economics of climate change mitigation.

According to the comprehensive report and overwhelming evidence provided during the inquiries, early global action is less expensive than later action; a market based approach allows robust economic growth into the future, even as emissions fall; and many of Australia’s industries will maintain or improve their competitiveness under an international agreement to combat climate change. This was supported by many businesses and credible financial institutions who provided evidence throughout the inquiries.

The Treasury’s modelling even states that Australia and the world will continue to prosper while reducing carbon emissions. It also demonstrates that Australia will have advantages by taking early action on climate change. If emission pricing expands gradually across the world, economies that defer action will face higher long-term costs as global investment is redirected to early movers.

I must also stress that consultation has been an imperative part of the CPRS process. We have ensured that everyone has been given the opportunity to have a say when it comes to this important scheme. When the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme green paper was released last year, the government received about 1,000 submissions. We also conducted a number of industry and non-government organisation roundtables. The Garnaut review, which consulted extensively, was also established. The Minister for Climate Change and Water and other ministers held meetings with stakeholders. The Department of Climate Change ran regional and city based forums after the green paper was released and again held capital city based forums after the white paper was released. The exposure draft of the legislation was released and referred to the Senate select committee inquiry, which took submissions and has delivered its report. From that list of consultation processes, it is evident that the government is committed to giving everyone a chance to have their say on this important piece of legislation.

Keeping people employed is important to the government. At a Senate Economics Committee meeting in Canberra on Wednesday, 25 March 2009, Dr Heinz Schandl, Senior Research Leader, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, said a greener economy would see an extra 2.5 million to 3.3 million jobs for Australians, with 230,000 to 340,000 high-impact environmental jobs in the energy, transport, agriculture and construction sectors. Dr Schandl said, ‘We conclude, therefore, that achieving the transition to a low-carbon economy will require a massive mobilisation of skills and training both for existing workers and new workers.’ By reducing our carbon emissions and becoming a greener economy, not only will we be providing a better future for our children but also we will be putting more jobs on the table.

As a senator from Queensland I believe it is important that we take action to protect the environment and make sure that we have something left for our children and their children to inherit. A carbon pollution reduction scheme is the best way forward in tackling climate change. By reducing our carbon emissions we can reduce the effects of climate change. If we do nothing, the sea levels will keep rising, temperatures will soar, we will see more and more tropical diseases such as dengue fever and malaria and we will lose ecological wonders like the Great Barrier Reef.

The Queensland government put forward a submission to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme green paper. I will read into the Hansard an extract, in part, of that submission. It said:

Scientific modelling indicates that Queensland is particularly vulnerable to the physical impacts of climate change, with two of the six IPCC ‘hot spots’ being Queensland’s wet tropics (including the Great Barrier Reef) and south-east Queensland. Major vulnerabilities include extinction of species, deterioration of coral reefs, loss of buildings from increased flooding and storm surges and reduced availability of surface water.

                        …                   …                   …

... Queensland is the most heavily affected of the States compared to a business as usual scenario.

Australia had a decade of denial, delay, reviews and neglect under the past government. The world will meet in December this year to nut out a global agreement. Passing the CPRS will ensure we play our part at Copenhagen and sign up to do our bit. Failing to legislate the CPRS will give other countries an excuse not to act.

In the 2007 election both major parties promised to introduce an emissions trading scheme to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution. Mr Turnbull, who was then the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in the Howard government, supported an emissions trading scheme. He told the National Press Club in May 2008 that ‘the emissions trading scheme is the central mechanism to decarbonise our economy’. He also indicated that the coalition would back the government’s target range of five to 25 per cent at global negotiations at Copenhagen in December this year.

Since then there has been a steady retreat from this position, apparently under pressure from climate change sceptics—or should I refer to them as the ‘crazy uncles’?—in his own party and in the National Party. It is important to reflect on the words of the member for Wentworth in the Hansard of 26 March 2007. As the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources he said:

The Australian government is working closely with industry and with the community on practical programs that will ensure that Australia continues to lead in its climate change strategy.

               …            …            …

The Australian government is committed, and has been committed for many years, to dealing with the challenge of climate change. We are dealing with it with practical, workable measures that have results.

There have been no results, no change and no position—nothing but empty statements coming from an opposition that would not do anything for climate change during their time in government. They do not seem to have the credentials in this chamber. In June this year they deferred until now the debate on this particularly important piece of legislation. They certainly did nothing on climate change while they were in government for 11½ years, and now in opposition they wish to drag it out even further. Just like their recent disgraceful and misleading attacks on the Prime Minister over fabricated emails, the opposition have shown who they are. How can the public trust them on climate change let alone with the capacity to govern? Once again there is no proposal from the opposition, only divided rhetoric resulting in an 11th hour magic pudding.

Every poll shows that the Australian people continue to support strong action against climate change. The government has a mandate to act on this matter and should do so without further delay. The Australian people will judge harshly those parties and individual legislators who place our country’s economic and environmental future at risk by obstructive action on such a vitally important issue. In fact recent research indicates that 78 per cent of voters want the Liberal Party to back the CPRS laws. (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this package of bills related to the government’s emissions trading scheme. At the outset I think it is important to look at the underlying motives and reasons for this package of bills, as many senators have done.

Do I know for sure that man-made actions are influencing global warming and climate change? No, I do not. I am no expert, nor do I believe that, either in this chamber or in the other place, this parliament has terribly many experts in this field. Many of us have tried to gather information. Many of us have tried to ensure that we are as informed as possible. But none of us, that I am aware, has the expert scientific knowledge to lay claim to being people who know exactly what is occurring to the planet. Indeed it is possible that nobody knows exactly what is occurring to the planet. But what I do know is that, outside of this parliament, throughout the world there are many people who put themselves forward as experts, there are many people who have the level of scientific training that perhaps, hopefully, means that they do understand what is happening to our planet and the potential impact of climate change.

It seems that the balance of the scientific opinion out there suggests that man-made actions are having an impact. I recognise and I respect the views of those who believe they are not. I hope those people are correct. Indeed it would be a far better future if those people who argue that climate change is not real were correct. However, I believe that the majority opinion in the scientific community, and it appears to still be a significant majority of those with expertise in this field, needs to be given the benefit of the doubt. It needs to be recognised as the consensus opinion. We do need to give, as our leader and others have said, the planet the benefit of the doubt when considering this issue.

Before I came to this place to give this speech today I looked back at my maiden speech. In that first address to the Senate I said:

You do not need to be Einstein to work out that continued growth using current resources will ultimately be unsustainable. You should not even need to be 100 per cent convinced of the science behind global warming to know that the environmental footprint of man across this planet must have its limitations.

Reflecting back on those remarks at that stage, to this day I still hold the view that the continuous exponential rise of emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere—or of any other chemical compound—cannot go on forever without having some impact. I do not know what that impact will always be but I am conscious that every action we perform on this earth has some small repercussion. Whether it is a repercussion with very insignificant consequences on what is happening around us or whether it is cumulative—as it has been over the last 100 years, where we have gone from being a populace on this earth of about one billion people to being a populace closer to six billion people, and still growing—we have an impact.

So I come to the view that climate change is an issue that should be considered and taken seriously because of two clear reasons: as I said, we have some level of natural limitations and we have the balance of scientific opinion. Throughout the last couple of decades this has been an ongoing subject of discourse in this place, throughout the community and throughout the world. We have actually taken great steps on climate change awareness and action. Some of those steps and some of the work undertaken are all too easily forgotten in the discussions and debates that we have in this place.

The previous Howard government did set itself out from the rest of the world when it established the Australian Greenhouse Office back in 1996. It took action from day one in government to recognise that Australia needed to position itself for its place in this debate in the world and needed to prepare itself for whatever transitions to its economy and its industry were going to be required. It backed up that establishment of the Australian Greenhouse Office with a mix of measures, including the Australian greenhouse challenge, a voluntary industry measure. In my time working at the Australian Hotels Association, I assisted many of Australia’s major hotel chains to implement measures that reduced their energy consumption as part of the voluntary package of the Australian greenhouse challenge. Under the previous government we put in place programs that sought to help the transition. Indeed, we have seen many industry sectors already pick off what might be described as the low-hanging fruit—the easy gains in how you improve your energy efficiency and reduce your carbon footprint.

We introduced the first mandatory renewable energy target. It was another major step by the Howard government to position Australia for the future; to provide some market incentive for growth in the renewable energy sector. It mandated a five per cent limit and established a system where the growth of renewable energy had some value to it through the trading of the renewable energy certificates. We put in place the initial reporting frameworks for a potential carbon trading scheme as well.

So we put in place the framework to step Australia onto the pathway of having a broader carbon trading framework. Through all of these actions we actually set Australia up to be one of the very few countries in the world who will, by the conclusion of the time frame of the Kyoto agreement, have actually met its targets. Australia will have met its agreed targets under Kyoto, or will come extremely close to having met them, at the end of its time frame. It is no credit to the current government or those sitting opposite that Australia will have met those targets because all the hard yards—as it is with so many areas of the management of Australia—were done by the previous government. That is when the trajectory for success on Kyoto was put in place.

Internationally, Australia helped set up the AP6 group—the group of six Asia-Pacific countries to help develop and transfer low-emissions technologies. Setting up an international group may not sound like much except for the fact there was one major piece of significance around this group: that is, that it was—and still is to date—the only international agreement on climate change that actually brought together China, India and the United States. It put those three countries around the one table to discuss climate change matters—those three countries that are so integral to having any chance of tackling this issue.

So Australia had some great runs on the board as we come to this debate today. Did we always get it right? No. There were definitely some negatives. There were negatives particularly surrounding the symbolic. The new government has been very good both in opposition and in government at actually capturing and making hay out of the symbolism; and in particular, the symbolism in this issue of the ratification and signing of Kyoto. It was a tragedy in the end that Australia had not signed Kyoto because it was used with such great political success by the now Prime Minister in the last election campaign. Full marks to him for his political skills in turning an issue against us—where we had actually been succeeding as a country in meeting our targets and obligations—purely over a piece of symbolism. It is very clear that a political mistake was made by the previous government in not signing Kyoto.

Those negatives of perception of course have been played out by the Prime Minister and Minister Wong and others throughout this debate and exploited in a particularly ruthless way. In doing so, they have sadly politicised the debate around climate change to such an extent that it is hard to see a clear pathway forward for Australia now. As they have played politics with climate change they have managed to manifest a position of black and white. This is not a debate of black and white. As I said in my introductory remarks, from the very genesis of the science around climate change, there are shades of grey and those shades of grey are now very clear in the policy position we take going forward.

It is not a matter of their ETS being the only option—far from it. Their ETS is probably a terrible option. It has many flaws to it, many of which have been outlined by numerous colleagues of mine. Their ETS unfortunately will do little to help the environment in the way they are pursuing the policy, but at the same time it manages to pose a significant risk to Australia. It will do little to help the environment because they have forgotten that global warming is known as global warming for a good reason—because it is a global problem. It is not an Australian problem; it is a global problem. It is one thing taking Australia with you, but you actually have to take the world with you too, and that is where the Rudd government is failing to deliver on its climate change policy.

They were elected on a promise of introducing this emissions trading scheme by 2010. That is actually next year. It is not that far away. That was the initial promise. That was part of the politics of the debate. Why was it part of the politics? Because the Howard government had a sensible time frame in place to introduce some type of emissions trading regime. The Howard government had committed to do so, but to do it in a sensible and timely manner. But no, to win the election, Mr Rudd had to say: ‘We will do it sooner. We will rush it in.’ That was their commitment. It was a bit of political one-upmanship. It was all about posturing for the campaign.

Eventually, after much haranguing and free advice from this side of the chamber, they saw the light and delayed the introduction date. Yet now, still in a game of politics, they choose to try to push and rush this legislative package through—rush it through now even though it is not required for legislative purposes until next year and for operational purposes, beyond that. But no, they want to rush it through despite the fact that the world will come together later this year in Copenhagen to discuss the global approach to climate change. That is where the government should be applying its focus: working towards a good outcome at Copenhagen, one that builds on the work of the Howard government in bringing China and India and the United States to the table together to actually achieve a global agreement that will make some difference. Australia’s one per cent of global emissions, no matter what we do here, is not going to make a jot of difference. No matter how much I think we need to do the responsible thing and take action in Australia, it will not matter. We could shut the whole place down tonight, pass through some emergency legislation and shut the whole country down, and it still will not make a jot of difference, because the rest of the world will keep powering on and the growth we see in China and India, in particular, demonstrates how important it is for us to have them on board for any action at all to be meaningful.

So we have this ridiculous timing approach, trying to jump ahead of Copenhagen and the potential of a global agreement just because the government want to play politics. They want to wedge the opposition. They want to create a double dissolution trigger. They want to do whatever it is on a political front and they do not care about the correct policy footing.

In the United States we have the discussion around the Waxman-Markey bill that is progressing through congress. It has passed through the House of Representatives but not yet through the Senate. The US Senate will, I have no doubt, take its time, as it usually does, and give careful consideration to the proposal. It may well decide to wait until after Copenhagen before final passage of the legislation. But, notably, it is a system that is markedly different from the one proposed here by the Rudd government. It provides much clearer protection for their trade-exposed industries and ensures that they are not selling out their industries before the rest of the world is clearly on board. In fact as well as providing significant protection up till 2025 for their industries, it even then still has a trigger requiring that some 70 per cent of global output for any manufacturing sector is covered by some type of emissions trading regime before that manufacturing sector or industry in the United States faces its emissions trading scheme. So there is a protective mechanism in there for the long term, not just for a fixed date but actually to ensure that there is majority coverage of the globe in a particular industry sector.

So we see a markedly different approach. In Australia trade-exposed emissions-intensive industries have largely been sold out. Yes, you hear lots of numbers thrown around about free permits and what proportion of permits they might get for free, but the truth is that those permits and the value of those permits diminish over time under this government’s ETS and by diminishing they will increase year upon year the pressure on those industry sectors. And if the rest of the world is not on board or the major competitors and the major trade competitors of China and India are not on board, then those industries will move offshore.

Senator Furner before me mentioned carbon leakage. He mentioned it, but his government has failed to comprehensively address the potential threat of carbon leakage, of our going through all this economic pain in Australia and of the job losses that Senator Bernardi spoke about earlier, only to see these industries move offshore to less efficient countries where we may well end up seeing higher emissions outputs in net global terms. And this, I come back to, is a global issue we are meant to be tackling.

We also see some specific, detailed problems in this legislative package. The capacity of industry to pass through costs is an issue that none other than the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, has raised with the Rudd government. It is about the capacity of mining companies and those who have international trade agreements, signed and in place, to pass through their industry costs at either a domestic or a trade level of doing business. Santos, a major South Australian company, has made strong representations to the government about the need for the package to be changed in this area. But each time it has done so, it has been greeted by a door being shut in its face. When Premier Bligh cannot get changes and major employers like Santos from the minister’s own home state cannot get changes, you have to wonder at the recalcitrance of this government. They are clearly unwilling to listen to the concerns of stakeholders in this sector.

This is a bad package, but there are no lack of alternatives. Yesterday Mr Turnbull released one alternative suite of packages. It is well modelled. It is does not churn as much funding as the government’s scheme does from selling permits through the economy. It provides for higher targets. It is a cleaner, greener, smarter model of emissions trading—one that could give us more bang for our buck. Better still, we could and we should take the time over the next few months—past Copenhagen—to consider the model provided by Mr Turnbull. We could come back here in January or February next year to have this debate. We should have this debate when we know what direction the rest of the world is going in and when we have given full consideration to the much better policies that the Liberal Party have outlined, as we have historically always done in this key policy area.

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe climate change is real. I come from the south-west of Western Australia. I grew up in Busselton, down on Geographe Bay. When I was a little boy, there were very wet winters in the south-west. During the wintertime, I would go to sleep at night listening to the patter of rain on the tin roof of my parents’ house. It rained every night for months and months and months. But the south-west of Western Australia is an area where the evidence of climate change is now very real, because the rainfall in the south-west has dropped by about 25 per cent over the last 30 years. I have a brother who lives in Germany. He is very fond of skiing, but he could not go skiing last winter because there was no snow on the Bavarian Alps. And now we are hearing stories about icebergs off Auckland.

I think there is a change in the world’s climate, but the issue is: what is its cause? Some scientists point to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as being the only cause. Others point to the geological record which shows that cyclical climate change has occurred over many, many thousands of years—over the millennia. Greenland is called Greenland because 400 years ago it was a green land. It is now covered in ice. I have read that 1,000 years ago there were vineyards in Sweden. People quite often refer to the fact that sea levels are rising, especially in the Pacific. But sea levels have risen and fallen over the centuries. The Pilbara, for example, was once a seabed. That great mining area has all the characteristics of an old seabed, including having seashells there. There was clearly once a land link between Indonesia and Australia. One only has to look at the dingo and then visit Indonesia to find that Indonesian dogs look remarkably like dingoes. They obviously walked across that land bridge centuries ago and became wild dogs in Australia.

There is no doubt at all that since the industrial revolution levels of carbon dioxide have risen in the world, but whether or not this is the sole cause or just a contributor to climate change is, I think, an unanswered question. The coalition have said that we should give the earth a chance; we should give it the benefit of the doubt. However, in this atmosphere of uncertainty, I believe the proposed Rudd-Wong emissions trading scheme is totally out of proportion to Australia’s position in the world as a country which contributes only 1.4 per cent of global emissions and which has a GNP representing just one per cent of the global economy. As I said, this scheme is totally out of proportion to whatever contribution we make to carbon dioxide emissions in the world and can only be described as grandiose. If implemented, this scheme will impose enormous costs on Australian industry, decrease Australia’s international competitiveness, result in the loss of investment in new projects and see existing plants relocated to other countries. All of this will contribute to a massive loss of jobs and increase the cost of living for many Australians.

It may be that there is a need for Australia to play a role in reducing global carbon emissions but this proposal is out of proportion, as I have said, to what might be regarded as a reasonable contribution to this objective by a small country such as Australia. I think, as the coalition in general does, that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009, the Rudd-Wong CPRS, should be reconsidered. Coalition senators believe a seriously flawed scheme will be worse for this country than no scheme at all, and it has to be said that is also the view of Professor Garnaut.

Mr Rudd promised before the election to introduce an ETS which would produce deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions but would not disadvantage Australia’s export- and import-competing industries. However, it is quite obvious that this immensely complex ETS will damage our export- and import-competing industries, it will cost thousands of jobs and it will stifle investment; yet it will not produce any meaningful reductions in carbon dioxide emissions around the world. In fact, emissions from high-emission domestic industries will not be diminished at all because instead of reducing their emissions these industries will be able to trade them off—for example, by buying a rainforest in Indonesia. How does that benefit Australia, you might ask, and how does that benefit the world? I really cannot see any benefit at all in a scheme like that if it does not actually reduce emissions in this country.

In the opinion of the coalition, the rush to introduce this scheme without knowing the outcome of the December 2009 global climate change summit in Copenhagen, without knowing what President Obama will do and without knowing the impact of the global financial meltdown on our real economy is a big step and should be reconsidered.

There were serious flaws in the process of developing the CPRS. For example, the Treasury was not permitted to model any alternative scenarios or methods. Instead of considering possible alternative models—of which there are many, as has been presented in evidence to the various Senate committees which have looked into the CPRS—and the appropriateness of these various models to Australian conditions, the government simply put in place a predetermined CPRS model. We had to take it or leave it; that was it. Nothing else was considered.

The design of the Rudd government scheme assumes, among other things, that our major competitors will move to put in place a major new tax on carbon emissions in their economies. However, again, evidence given to the four Senate inquiries into the CPRS was that it is considered extremely unlikely by very reputable observers that our major trading partners will in fact introduce an ETS at all. For example, Dr Alan Moran of the Institute of Public Affairs, in his submission to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into the CPRS bills, said that he thought it was highly unlikely that China, Japan or Korea would introduce ETSs, and the idea that India will have an emissions trading scheme is just not taken seriously by anybody of any repute.

The Rudd scheme involves generating permit revenue of nearly $13 billion a year, which is in effect a massive increase in taxation and will be a huge burden to the Australian economy. This will see a huge administration set up to churn these billions of dollars back through the economy, with the government picking who gets compensation and who does not.

One of the alternatives to the Rudd-Wong CPRS is a carbon tax, which commentators such as Robert Gottliebsen and Geoff Carmody, both renowned economists, feel would be more appropriate to Australia’s needs and could be administered through the existing taxation bureaucracy. It would not involve the creation of the huge bureaucracy to administer the proposed permit and trading system that will be necessary under the CPRS. A carbon tax, many people feel, is a much simpler, more effective and more cost-effective way of Australia contributing in a real way to reducing carbon emissions around the world: by starting at home.

Providing certainty to business is one of the government’s most repeated reasons for this legislation needing to be passed. However, businesses have said they do not want the certainty of not being able to compete—because Australian industry will not be able to compete if this scheme is introduced. They want a scheme which preserves their international competitive position in a competitive world, but that will be compromised if none of our trading partners, such as China, Japan, India and Korea, establish emissions trading schemes so that trading can in fact occur. The only thing that will happen is that Australian industry will be saddled with a new, very high tax.

The government’s argument that its emissions trading scheme needs to be rushed through parliament prior to the Copenhagen conference has been undermined by the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yvo de Boer, who has stated that the UN does not require countries to have legislation in place before the conference—which leads to the question: why is the Rudd government attempting to rush this legislation through the parliament before full consideration has been given to its impact?

One of the comments being made by Labor Party spokespersons is that the Howard government proposed an emissions trading scheme some years ago. That is true; it did. But the level of knowledge which the community now has about the implications of emissions trading compared to that at the time the Howard government proposed an ETS is substantially different, and I think one needs to consider the ETS in terms of contemporary knowledge, not what was known or thought to be known 10 years ago. Surely it is more important to have the right scheme in place rather than just any scheme for the sake of being able to claim to have a scheme.

The changes announced by the Rudd government on 4 May to vary the CPRS were no more than tinkering around the edges. There is still no credible demonstration that the government’s scheme is the most cost-efficient way or effective way to reduce carbon emissions; there is still no forecast of the near-term, real impact of an ETS on jobs and economic growth; and Australia’s trade-exposed industries will remain at a disadvantage compared to their competitors.

My colleague Mr Don Randall, the member for Canning, speaking in the House of Representatives on 3 June, referred to the impact the CPRS would have on the alumina—

Before the break, I was saying that my House of Representatives colleague Mr Randall, the member for Canning, referred to the impact the CPRS would have on the alumina industry, which employs nearly 2,000 people in and around Wagerup and Pinjarra in his electorate. He said that Alcoa had informed him that the cost of buying permits for refining is $25 million and the cost to Alcoa for all its operations, with the introduction of the CPRS, could be up to $95 million. That is a cost Alcoa will have to bear in full, making them less competitive in the international market. The cost cannot be passed on because the price is set by the London Metal Exchange.

In the Australian Financial Review of 5 May, Mr Don Voelte, CEO of Woodside, was reported as saying:

Even as amended, the CPRS risks halving the size of the export natural gas industry than it would otherwise be by 2030.

This is because fewer new developments would occur in the north of Western Australia. We have to remember that Australia has many competitors for investment in resources and resource projects. While the fact that Australia is a politically stable country with a reliable legal system gives us a competitive advantage, that advantage will not be so great if the cost of operating resource projects in Australia becomes too high. The developers will not hesitate to go elsewhere—the bottom line is what counts to industry.

In response to my question during the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme hearings on the impact the CPRS would have on investment in Australia, Mr Mitch Hooke, the CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia replied:

What Australia is doing, wittingly or unwittingly, is increasing the sovereign risk associated with those investment decisions. If we impose a tax or a price on carbon that, in effect, becomes a tax, because we do not have the technologies to adjust …

It means our competitors who are not facing the same kinds of costs will inevitably have an advantage over us. The implication of this comment by Mr Hooke is clearly that Australian based operations will become uncompetitive and many will move offshore or close down, meaning in either case the loss of jobs for Australian workers.

I recently attended a presentation in Parliament House put on by the Friends of Mining, by an oil company, at which we were told the impact of the additional costs arising from the CPRS would mean that it would no longer be profitable to continue oil refining in Australia and that instead it would be cheaper to simply import oil from Singapore. In WA, this could mean the closure of the Kwinana oil refinery, with consequent losses of jobs in Medina and Rockingham. Other emissions intensive industries in the Kwinana industrial strip, such as fertiliser plants, could also close down due to the additional costs imposed by the Rudd-Wong CPRS making them relatively less profitable than importing products from Indonesia or other Asian countries. Cement production is another industry where this would be the case. It is anticipated that the introduction of the CPRS could result in the cessation of cement production in Australia, requiring the importation of our cement from China.

According to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, CPRS induced increases in energy and transport costs will impact directly on the profitability of small- to medium-sized enterprises, resulting in lower employment across Australia in this sector. The government, of course, argues that any job losses will be compensated by the creation of green jobs elsewhere. However, at the hearings held by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee into the CPRS, Dr Ken Henry, the head of Treasury, said that, while indeed green jobs will be created, those holding them will have to accept a lower standard of living because wages will have to be lower to preserve employment levels.

These factors, in my estimation, add up to the conclusion that the Rudd-Wong CPRS proposal is seriously flawed and needs to be reconsidered in the interests of preserving employment in our society and not imposing unreasonable increases in costs on consumers through higher electricity charges which will flow through to increased costs for consumer goods. Any emissions trading scheme will undoubtedly have a profound and long-term impact on Australia, its citizens and our industries. This is a matter requiring cautious assessment before decisions are made and certainly the present haste can only be regarded as inappropriate and irresponsible.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to make some remarks about the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills that we have before us. When I came into this place as a Nationals senator my focus was, and still remains, entirely on regional Australia and on making the best decisions I possibly can for regional Australia. To not support this ETS is the only decision I can possibly make. As my very good colleague Senator Joyce said the other day, this is an employment termination scheme; it is an extra tax system. That is what it is, and it is going to rip the guts and heart out of regional communities.

Let us have a look at what the government wants to do. The government very simply wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but what we are seeing is a Prime Minister who, as my colleague Senator Cash said earlier, is strutting his stuff on the world stage trying to promote himself as the global leader in making sure we take the right steps forward. It is an absolute load of rubbish. Any solution to reduce emissions has to be global. We cannot simply do it from Australia. Only 1.4 per cent of global emissions come from this country. Quite simply, if the rest of the world is not on board, we are not going to make a drop-in-the-ocean difference—not one drop. Yet what have we seen? Very little movement from the rest of the world and our gung-ho Prime Minister determined to show that he can lead the rest of the world on what we should be doing. What is the point of that if our emissions—at only 1.4 per cent of the global emissions—are the only ones on the playing field?

And this will be at what cost? The costs are going to be absolutely huge. There will be costs to jobs. Two-thirds of the unemployment that will result from the ETS will occur in regional Australia. I am not going to stand here and say: ‘That’s okay, Prime Minister; that’s fine. We’ll watch two-thirds of those jobs disappear out of the regions.’ It is not right and it is not on. And for what? An Access Economics report said that Labor’s ETS would cost more than 126,000 jobs nationally. I think there would be around 66,000 jobs in the mineral industry alone. What are we looking at? Let us look at it from both sides. There would be 126,000 jobs gone, but for what benefit? If the rest of the world is not on board, what would be the benefit? I am not going to stand here and watch an ETS rip the guts out of jobs in our regional communities and say that that is okay, because it is not okay and it is not right. The costs to regional communities will be enormous.

The agricultural industry will be particularly hard hit by the Rudd government’s ETS. What have we seen? There will not even be a decision made until 2013 about agriculture and it may then be in 2015. What kind of certainty does that give to our farmers? What kind of path forward do they have when they have no idea what the future holds for them? My colleague Senator Adams in Western Australia knows very well the consternation that this is causing and the absolute disregard we are seeing the Labor government have for our agricultural communities. As if it were not bad enough for agricultural communities at the moment, they have to also deal with whether or not this is going to come in.

The interesting thing is that, even if agriculture is excluded, regional Australia and our agricultural industries are still going to be incredibly hard hit. Our farmers are at the bottom of the food chain. They are at the end of the line and the buck stops with them. Everything flows down to them. We know that as a result of the ETS there will be enormous imposts and huge increases on things like transport, fuel and electricity and inputs for farmers such as fertiliser and packaging. Guess what? The buck stops with the farmer. All those costs are going to be dropped in the laps of the farmers in those communities. So, even if agriculture is not included, our regional communities and our agricultural industries will still have to deal with the enormous negative impacts. To simply say, ‘Agriculture might not be included,’ is not good enough. It is not good enough because the difficulties they are going to face are still there and they have no capacity to offset the costs.

One thing we do hear talked about quite a lot is carbon sequestration and how important it is in terms of getting carbon back into the soil. Interestingly, under Kyoto it is not even counted. They will not even let you get the credits for it. All this good work that the farmers do is not counted. Farmers know that if they do not look after the land then the land will not look after them. We have seen such tremendous changes in practices and innovation across our farming communities for years now—improvements to how we look after the land and the environment—and what is happening to our farming communities? They are getting kicked in the guts by Labor’s ETS. Labor could not care less about our farming communities. They simply do not care.

As if farmers were not doing it tough enough already with years and years of drought, we have seen increases in inputs over the last 10 years, particularly for things like fertiliser, ripping the guts out of the farmers, their enterprises and what they are trying to do. What is the Labor government now going to do? Whack on another tax—and I take you back to my opening remarks—for what? For 1.4 per cent of the world’s emissions. All of this is going to be sheeted home to our farmers. They are going to have to cope with it, and for what?

I want to go to some of the reporting that has come out on regional communities. It is interesting to note that some of these reports—both government funded and by government departments—have significantly focused on the impact that this is going to have on our regional communities. ABARE’s 1 June report states:

Even if the agriculture sector is not a covered sector under the CPRS, agricultural producers will face increased input costs associated with the use of electricity, fuels and freight and may face lower farm-gate prices for their goods—

and we know that is going to happen—

from downstream processors. These will have implications for the economic value of farm production.

ABARE says that the economic value of farm production in broadacre industries could fall between 0.3 per cent and 1.9 per cent in 2011 and by 2015 that fall could be between 9.1 per cent and 14.5 per cent.

Then on 4 May the government funded Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation released a study on farm impacts of an Australian ETS, prepared for them by the Centre of International Economics. These are some of the key findings. The CPRS will affect agriculture both directly through cost associated with a need to either buy permits or reduce emissions and indirectly through cost increases elsewhere in the economy. Farm costs will rise even if agriculture is not included in the CPRS. The CPRS will have a significant impact on the livestock sector. Farm cash income for the average beef farm would fall by over 60 per cent under a full participation scenario with a carbon price of $25 per tonne of CO2, or 125 per cent at a carbon price of $50 a tonne. These are the sorts of figures that our farmers are looking at at the moment. This is followed by an average beef-sheep farm with cash income down by 90 per cent if the permit price is $50 a tonne. Profits for all farms would fall.

This is the sort of future that our farmers are facing under this ETS—it is simply not right. I thank Senator Adams for her interest in what I am saying because I know, as I said before, she understands—as so many of my colleagues do on this side of the chamber—the impact that is going to fall onto our regional communities. They are not going to be able to cope. It is as simple as that. Yet this government goes forward and puts in place an ETS that is going to rip the heart out of our regional communities. We have heard a lot from the other side, and, of course, we are very well aware of the global economic downturn, that agriculture is the very sector that is holding this country up at the moment. It is the very sector that is working its guts out. It is one of the shining lights that we can actually see across this country making sure that we have a viable future. So we have this sector that is doing the work—that is the engine room of this country—and this government is trying to rip the guts out of it through the imposition of an ETS. It is simply wrong.

We have seen the Australian Farm Institute also come out with a number of findings. One finding which is particular interesting is that by 2030 beef gross value of production is projected to fall by $6.6 billion if agriculture is included in the ETS. This is followed by: wool, $1.1 billion; sheep meat, $1 billion; dairy, $793 million; wheat, $497 million; pork, $318 million; and poultry, $318 million. Under the ETS, this is what is going to happen to the sector that we want to drive the future recovery of this nation.

The New South Wales government, under some research commissioned into the regional impacts of the scheme, found that regional centres such as Gippsland, Geelong, central western Queensland, Hunter Valley, central Western Australia, Kimberley, Whyalla and Port Pirie would shrink by over 20 per cent under the ETS. Could you imagine if we said to everybody across Australia, ‘By the way, the economy is about to shrink by 20 per cent right across the nation.’ There would be an outcry. But, oh no, it is fine if we can look at that happening in the regions because the regions are ‘over there somewhere’, they do not particularly matter! Well, they do. They matter enormously and it is extremely disappointing that the other side of this chamber do not understand how important it is.

That New South Wales report is talking about how the regions may experience economic impacts much more severe than the average. In the Hunter, we are talking about five times the average. In the Illawarra, it is going to be twice the average. There is a significant amount of work in the report showing how much the regions are going to be belted.

Farmers are at the bottom of the food chain, with no ability to pass on those costs, and for what? I will not stand here, in this chamber, and vote for this ETS when we know quite clearly and simply what it is going to do to our regional communities. I said at the beginning when I came into this place I would make sure that I made the right decisions for regional communities—that I would do the right thing by them. I will not stand here and vote for legislation that is going to rip the heart cleanly out of regional Australia.

The following point is extremely important: there is not a direct correlation between support for the ETS and supporting a cleaner, healthier future for the environment. Many people out in the community, who have been caught up in the Labor spin on all of this, are under the impression that if they support an ETS they are supporting a better environment. This is simply rubbish. I say to the people of Australia that you can absolutely—as we do on this side of the chamber—support a cleaner, healthier, viable future for the environment, not only right across this country but also right across the globe, without supporting this ETS. They are not tied.

I also say to the people of Australia—if indeed anybody is listening—

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am listening.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Senator Payne. I do also note how concerned you are about this issue. I say to every single man, woman and child across this country who believes in an ETS: do you know what an ETS is? Just sit down and think to yourselves: do you know how it is going to work? Do you know what it means? Do you know how it is going to impact your life? Do you know if it is going to impact your job? Do you know if it is going to impact you when you walk into that supermarket once the ETS comes in and prices go up? Do you know how this scheme works? If the only reason you are supportive of an ETS is because you think you are doing your bit for the environment, then I would ask you to reconsider. There are so many other ways to ensure we have a viable future and a very clean, healthy environment right across the world without supporting this ETS. There are other ways you can do it and I would ask you to very seriously consider this: if you support an ETS do you really know what it is?

We need to make sure that we continue to do everything we can in terms of renewable energy. One of the interesting things that the world is grappling with is peak oil. We should be out talking about our reliance on fossil fuels and making sure that we can reduce that reliance. Scientists predict that in about 2010 we are going to hit peak oil. Where are we going with our renewables? We must make absolutely sure we do everything for the environment in terms of renewable energy. We must make sure that we do not miss the opportunity to provide incentives to businesses to reduce their emissions regardless of an ETS. We must make absolutely sure that we have policies in place so there is a carrot for those industries to reduce their emissions.

It is a very interesting road that we have been travelling along in this debate on the ETS. One point is that there has not been much debate about global warming around this whole issue. Over the time that it has been at the forefront, debate about global warming has not really been allowed. I agree with what my colleague Senator Eggleston said before when he said he believed in climate change. So do I, absolutely. The climate has been changing for millions and millions of years. It is about the cause and, far more importantly for farmers, it is about adapting to change and making sure that they have got risk management practices in place to adapt to that change.

One thing that has concerned me is that we have not had a debate about whether or not global warming is occurring. It is a bit like the Spanish Inquisition. If you dare to even ask the supporters of global warming a question about some of the science, you may as well be under the Spanish Inquisition because you are a heretic. That is not right and that is not on. I was brought up to question things, to think about things and to ask questions about the issues that were put before me. But have we ever seen that in this debate? No, because we have been given one side of the argument. If you do not take that side of the argument then you are an absolute sceptic; you are a nonbeliever. Well, I would say that questioning is healthy, sensible and smart. There are a range of scientists out there who have a different view. Ian Plimer, Bob Carter and Bill Kininmonth are among a number of scientists out there who have a different view. I would say: have we actually listened to an alternative view at all? Do we ever actually think about whether or not the premise for global warming is actually correct? I would suggest it has been a very one-sided debate.

In conclusion, I will never step away from the people of regional Australia. I will never stop making what I believe are the right decisions for regional Australia regardless of the impacts those might have, because regional Australia is the engine room of this country, it is driving this country and it is driving this nation. We should start giving the farmers of this nation the respect that they deserve, because they are out there, day in and day out, producing for us, making sure we can feed our nation and making sure we can feed the rest of the globe. Food security is an issue for another day. We need to make sure they have our support every single day, day in and day out. They will have mine on this issue and I will not be supporting the ETS.

Debate interrupted.