Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would firstly like to thank Minister Faulkner for his update to the Senate on the missing aeroplane in PNG. It is a tragic discovery, and it will be a devastating one for the families of those nine missing Australians. I just wish to extend our thoughts and prayers to those families whilst the crash site is being further explored and accessed.

Today I find myself in an unusual situation talking about a package of legislation—the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and cognate bills—which, if we believe those opposite, needs to be rushed through this chamber to save the planet yet at the same time will not make any difference to the negotiations in Copenhagen, where the whole world will be meeting to do just that. If you are confused by this, I am going to tell you, so am I. This confusion is one generated by the Labor Party. It was Prime Minister Rudd who admitted quietly behind closed doors that the upcoming climate change negotiations in Copenhagen will not have any groundbreaking result, whether there is an Australian ETS legislation in place or not. Yet the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, insists that we must have legislation up and running before the negotiations start in December. She insists that the global pact is destined to fall short if Australia does not show the world how committed it is to battling the outcomes of climate change, a very arrogant assertion. She insists that we, the opposition, have to wave this legislation through the Senate without discussing any possible amendments to this flawed scheme—amendments that could improve the outcome and protect many Australian jobs.

Interestingly, there is dissent in her own party, where not all the members support what is being proposed. Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, is not the only Labor member who is worried about the implications of the proposed scheme and has publicly raised her concerns about the effect of the CPRS on Queensland’s coal sector. Treasurer Wayne Swan has also put on the record:

Any emissions trading scheme ... Australia has in place come December might be changed following the outcome of global climate change talks.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, has been telling us all that sea levels would rise up to six metres by the end of this century, a claim no scientific establishment—not even the warming evangelists, may I suggest, from the IPCC—would support.

We then witnessed the government do a swift about-face when they dropped the solar credits scheme. Why? For no other reason than it was too successful, because there was a sharp increase in households applying for the rebate, which had already consumed the $271 million set aside in the budget to fund this very scheme. These households demonstrated they were clearly interested in investing in renewable energy and were prepared to make a difference where they could—in their homes. One has to question how interested the government is in renewable energies. Families, mums and dads, did their own cost-benefit analyses of solar systems on their roofs, and many decided it was something they wished to explore to reduce their carbon footprint. So much, may I say, for supporting and encouraging voluntary household action.

It brings to mind the contradictory quotes we have heard in relation to the global financial crisis. Last December the Prime Minister said it would be reckless and irresponsible for our economy and for our environment to delay the introduction of the CPRS. In that same month, Minister Wong said to journalists that this was not the view of the Australian government, that the delay would simply increase the cost. It is they who have moved the system back two years, not us. Why isn’t it possible to invest time in exploring alternative models, as the coalition has repeatedly suggested? Now the scheme is postponed by 12 months, with a start date of July 2011, a date that we here in the Liberal Party have supported all along. This is too critical to muck up. Our economy is contracting and, as we know from experience and history, it is at such times when carbon emissions contract due to lesser industrial activity, regardless of whether or not we have an ETS. An emissions trading scheme must take into account what is happening in other countries, or the scheme will be doomed from day one.

What Minister Wong should appreciate is that it will be far more damaging in the long run if she goes to Copenhagen carrying under her arm an ETS which is flawed. Australia will not be held up as the flagship, the country that all other countries should follow, if the costs of the scheme prove to be prohibitive. Rather we will become the example of what other countries should not do if we do not provide maximum protec-tion for our industries, our trade, our businesses and ultimately the people of Australia. And let us not for-get: even the head of the United Nations climate change agency publicly said that it will not matter if Australia does not have its emissions trading scheme finalised by December. It would only count that Aus-tralia has made a commitment to reduce emissions tar-gets ahead of the Copenhagen summit. The Liberal Party supports the Copenhagen process and supports the emission targets as projected by the Rudd Labor government. What we do not support, however, is the design of the scheme and the unnecessary rush to im-plement it.

Action on climate change is wanted by the Australian voter. We in the Liberal Party have heard that message loud and clear. We are not opposed to emissions trading in general, as the government continually suggests. We simply do not believe it is the only tool in the box to act on climate change. Carbon trading is not the only answer. We are a party that believes in individualism, not collectivism, and we know, accept and appreciate that individuals have different opinions. When it comes to climate change, we indeed have many viewpoints in this party, views which do not match the religious, zealot, black-and-white- approach of those on the other side of the chamber. A strength of the Liberal Party, which I am very proud of, is that we encourage individual expression. The dynamic of the Liberal Party is democracy working at its best here in Australia!

To the credit of the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Craig Emerson, he has publicly stated that science is undecided on key aspects of the global warming debate. Climate change is an incredibly difficult and complicated topic. For most of us who do not hold a degree in science, it is challenging to assess the merits in this passionate debate on whether climate change is man-made or follows a natural pattern. Most of us do not have the time to get to the bottom of climate science. It is a complicated and time-consuming topic, one most people want to deal with but do not have the capacity or the resources to deal with in their daily lives. There are too many nightmare scenarios painted and too many deceptive solutions such as ‘save the Barrier Reef for $1 a day’. Whilst most of it is utmost rubbish, for most of us it is hard to tell what might be realistic and what might not be.

We need to take a step back from this overheated debate and talk honestly about what we realistically can achieve together. This is a position that more and more Australians agree with and it is shown by the shift in voters’ perceptions. I am talking about those who share everyday concerns for their families, who want to have a job to support their family, who want to give their children every opportunity in life, who want to provide for their education and health and who want to keep a roof over their heads. These people want to be responsible but they are also confused about what is the best course of action for future generations, for their children and their grandchildren.

You can see the shift in perception in the Newspoll results. According to this data, 45 per cent of voters want the Rudd government to delay finalising its CPRS until after the Copenhagen conference, compared with 41 per cent who believe that we should not wait to see what other nations are doing. To understand the true meaning of these figures, you have to compare them with last September’s poll. Back then, 61 per cent wanted Australia to act as soon as possible, compared with 33 per cent who wanted to delay. In other words, the more people are sitting back, the more information they receive, the more time they have to assess what is going on and what the implications of the CPRS are for them and their families, the more they want further discussion about this. The public is unsure about gen-eral support for an ETS. They want more time.

Interestingly, the Senate Select Committee on Cli-mate Policy came to a very similar conclusion. In their majority report the committee urged the Rudd Labor government to go back to the drawing board. Treasury should model the short-term costs of the scheme, the effect on jobs and in particular on regional Australia with and the comparative costs of a raft of vastly dif-ferent alternative ways of imposing a carbon price. I fully support this recommendation. Why, for example, does Australia need an ETS? Why should we not have a carbon tax or introduce a hybrid model such as a baseline and credit scheme? These questions have not been responded to by Minister Wong. Perhaps the an-swer is pretty simple: because an ETS is easier to sell to the consumer. It is easier to sell because it is too dif-ficult to understand the implications of this scheme. What will be the outcome? Higher prices for food, electricity and petrol.

Current estimates say that the CPRS will impose costs on electricity and other energy-intensive companies. This could easily lead to a 30 to 40 per cent increase in power bills and indirectly increase prices for most services and items purchased. Yet, from a political point of view, it is less troublesome to introduce an ETS than any other instrument—say, a carbon tax. As politicians, we all know that a new tax is very unpopular. It will not be just the big polluters who have to pay the price for the ETS; it will be the consumers, and they are beginning to understand that.

The unrealistic assumptions about the world’s action on climate change and the Rudd Labor government’s approach to this have demonstrated that they simply have not done their homework when designing the CPRS. There has been no suggestion of how many jobs this scheme will destroy, how it will affect different industries or regions, or even whether it is the most cost-effective option for Australia to reduce CO2 emissions. What will the cost be in the next 20 years in lost competitiveness and lost jobs? It hardly comes as a surprise that most businesses have absolutely no idea what will be in the pipeline for them once the CPRS legislation is introduced. The latest KPMG poll showed that more than three in 10 businesses say they have no knowledge of the key elements of the government’s scheme. They have expressed concerns about the direct cost of this scheme on their businesses, how they will be able to absorb those costs and the way in which the scheme will impact on their ability to retain their workforce.

The only interesting insight we have received from the Treasury modelling to date is one the Rudd Labor government surely would like to ignore. It suggests that we could have a differently designed ETS with higher emissions targets which would actually be cheaper for our economy, compared to the model the Rudd Labor government proposes. We have also seen this result mentioned in a report by the Centre for International Economics which was published in April this year. The report says:

The proposition that the CPRS generates abatement at lowest possible cost has not yet been demonstrated ...

For these reasons, the coalition, together with Senator Xenophon, commissioned independent research—independent research, I might add, that we had been asking for for some time. So we did it. The report from Frontier Economics states that we could easily have a cleaner, greener and smarter scheme. We have this modelling now, which the Rudd government has refused to ask its own Treasury to undertake. Very briefly, the difference, ultimately, is that five years after the introduction of this particular scheme, the average annual household power bills would only be $44 higher, compared with the $280 price hike the CPRS would cause. This is something that households want to discuss and debate. They do not want a wet blanket put over further discussion. They want time to consider possible alternatives to the government’s scheme. This report clearly shows that a different design could actually create—not lose but create—42,000 jobs in regional Australia, instead of destroying 26,000 as proposed under the Rudd government’s scheme. I recommend that everybody in this chamber carefully read this new Frontier Economics report. It provides a very strong contrast to what we have been considering.

We must make sure that Australia’s ETS legislation is designed well. It must offer no less protection for jobs, small business and industry than the Waxman-Markey bill, which is currently in front of the US Senate. We also must make sure that an Australian ETS does not simply result in futile carbon and production leakage. Our emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries should at least be on a level playing field with those in the United States. Let us not disadvantage our own industries here in Australia. Let us actually provide them with a level playing field so that they can continue their business as they have done it in the past. Australia needs to be better informed about the shape of the United States scheme, needs to know the outcome of Copenhagen and must allow some modifications to the design of the government’s scheme. The coalition do not seek to stall or block Rudd Labor government legislation lightly, but we owe it to those who elect us to this place to make sure that, with what is put in place, we get it right.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to the debate on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills. I note at the outset that the effects of this legislation comprise yet another broken promise on the part of the Rudd government. Kevin Rudd said before the election:

As part of its comprehensive approach to climate change, Labor has already indicated that it will develop mechanisms to ensure that Australian operations of emissions-intensive trade-exposed firms are not disadvantaged before an effective global regime is in place. This will be pursued as a key component of emissions trading, alongside the expanded MRET.

You ought to tell that to Australia’s farming community, because there is absolutely no question that this scheme is completely and utterly diabolical for the rural sector in Australia. There is no question that elements of the agricultural sector are emissions intensive and absolutely no doubt that they are trade exposed. Australia exports 60 per cent of what it grows—clearly trade exposed—and yet the Rudd government, through this scheme, leaves the agricultural sector exposed to the impacts of higher costs. And it makes no apology. When we questioned departmental officials during the inquiry held by the Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy, the response was: ‘That’s the effect the scheme is supposed to have.’

Tell Australia’s dairy farmers, who this year had a 32 per cent reduction in milk price in January and a similar price reduction just this month, whose milk price has dropped by almost 50 per cent in total, to well below the cost of production, that they can afford another $8,000 to $10,000 cost imposed on them per year from the emissions trading scheme. Tell them that they can afford that.

I am pleased that the National Farmers Federation have at last said that they do not want agriculture to be included, because that is what should happen. The government should take up the suggestion by the opposition that agriculture be left out of the emissions trading scheme. The government specifically indicate in the white paper that, if agriculture does not come in after the time for consideration has passed, if the 2013 decision excludes agriculture, mitigation measures would still be applied in agriculture, which would result in a cost of emissions similar to those under the scheme. So the government’s current policy is that, if they do not bring the agricultural sector in, they are going to impose a similar cost anyway on a sector that exports 60 per cent of its product.

They promised before the election, a solemn promise from the Prime Minister—no wonder people do not believe that they can believe anything Kevin Rudd says anymore—that the emissions-intensive and trade-exposed sectors would be protected. The agricultural sector exports 60 per cent of its product, yet the government are not prepared to do anything for the agricultural sector. The $8,000 to $10,000 I spoke of is to apply from the beginning of the scheme, because it is a pass-back cost from the impost on processing.

We have a highly competitive international commodity in dried milk powder. It is as intensive to manufacture dried milk powder as it is to make cement, but the cement industry is being protected because of the threshold level and the way it is set. This demonstrates a clear design flaw in the scheme. Kevin Rudd will not keep the promise he made to the Australian people, particularly the Australian agricultural sector, when the scheme was being designed.

It is a similar situation with the beef industry. There is $60 million a year passed back to beef farmers from the processing sector of the beef industry. Again, this is a major export industry. We have enormous markets in South Korea and Japan. We had up to 50 per cent of the Japanese meat market at one stage—that is, 50 per cent of the beef consumed in Japan came from Australia. Yet the Rudd government are prepared to disadvantage this sector, not keep their election promise, with a flawed scheme design. Not only that—they will impose a whole range of other costs on the industry. They have just taken away the 40 per cent rebate on AQIS charges. That is a $42 million cost to the agricultural sector and a $32 million cost to the beef industry. When you add in the renewable energy target, a potential further $15 million cost to the beef industry, that is over $100 million a year that the government are going to impose on the beef industry. Over $100 million a year will be imposed on one of our major rural export sectors. Kevin Rudd promised that ‘operations of emissions-intensive trade-exposed firms will not be disadvantaged’. Some promise!

We have seen so many holes in the modelling conducted through this process. We were told that there would be no impact on employment. The modelling showed that there would be no reduction in employment as a result of the emissions trading scheme. That is what we were told by Treasury officials at the inquiry. We were told that would be the long-term effect. The only problem with that is that that is an assumption of the model. It is not an outcome of the model; it is an input to the model. The assumption is that there will be no impact on employment over time. The assumption is that new industries will take up where others have been disadvantaged.

There will be some new jobs created as a part of this process. No-one is denying that. But the government have absolutely no idea where they will be. They will not recognise any of the modelling that shows what the negative regional impacts might be. They dismiss it. They try to downplay it. They attempt to discredit it although it has been done by creditable organisations, some of it for the New South Wales government. They do not want it released. They do not want the Australian people to know the truth. They try to hide the facts.

I have spoken of the beef sector and I have spoken of the dairy sector. It was great to see representatives from the Australian Food and Grocery Council last night talking about the impact on the food-processing sector. Again, this is another element of the agricultural sector that will be negatively impacted. Kevin Rudd promised that they would not be. Kate Carnell said last night on The 7.30 Report that the Australian food and grocery manufacturing industry employs 250,000 Australians. It means that products manufactured in Australia on the supermarket shelves will go up by about five per cent, but imported products from companies that do not have a carbon charge will not go up at all, so it will cost jobs. It will cost Australians who want to buy ‘Australian made’ even more.

Madam Acting Deputy President Brown, you as a Tasmanian will remember, as I as a Tasmanian remember, when the tractors came to Canberra in 2005. It was a huge event. It focused attention on Australian grown, produced and manufactured agricultural products. It placed a huge focus on them. There is enormous concern in my home state about the importation of food, particularly from China. I can tell you that this policy will promote that—it will promote more vegetables being imported from China. There are enormous concerns expressed by the agricultural sector, particularly the vegetable-growing sector. Eighty per cent of the processed vegetables in Australia are grown and processed on the north-west coast of Tasmania, so there is where some jobs are going to be lost.

I have spoken to the management of one of those firms and their impost for permits is horrific. And we all know who pays when costs go up in the processing sector: the farmer pays. If they are going to compete with the imported product in the marketplace there will be no capacity to pass the cost through to the consumer. It will come off the farmer’s bottom line. I have already said that the cost will be $8,000 to $10,000 per dairy farmer.

It is about $7 or $8 per head for a beast to be slaughtered. Now there are job losses and imported foods threatening our food supply and food security. If we lose the processing plants that exist on the north-west coast of Tasmania it is going to be awfully hard to re-establish them. Eighty per cent of Australia’s processed vegetables come out of the north-west coast of Tasmania. The very proud farmers who are looking to protect their industry are being threatened by this broken promise from the Prime Minister. That is only a domestic market but it is exposed to trade from the international community.

We have been told throughout this process that it is urgent to pass this legislation, that we have to get it passed and that business needs certainty. What they do not need is a gun to their head. The government are putting a gun to the head of agriculture. They are saying: ‘We will consider whether we bring you in. If we do not bring you in, you are going to pay the costs anyway.’ What choice do those in agriculture have? No wonder at last they are saying, ‘We do not want to be in.’ We ought to be looking at what is happening around the world and giving consideration to what is happening in other countries—for example, countries such as the United States where they allow them credits but do not count the emissions.

I was in Europe recently on a study tour. The officials from the department in the United Kingdom were absolutely gobsmacked when I told them what this government were considering doing in agriculture. Their eyes were like saucers: ‘You are doing what—considering whether you bring them in or not? We understand that, but imposing a cost whether you do or don’t is absolutely absurd.’ The government are working cooperatively in the UK with the National Farmers Union, who I also met. They are talking about a six per cent reduction in emissions from agriculture. That is an agreed target between the two but based on voluntary measures such as leaving land fallow, things of that nature. There are no such discussions in Australia. The blinkered approach from Penny Wong is: ‘This is my script. I’m going to follow it. It’s too bad what anybody says. This is the line that I’ll follow.’ No wonder Greg Combet has been brought in to clean up the mess.

But there is no urgency to pass this legislation. There is time to consider the factors that need to be considered as part of this. There is no question about that. The government have already made the delay. I feel sorry for the government senators on the Senate inquiry. Witness after witness asked them whether or not there was an urgency to pass this legislation. Some senators even suggested that the global financial crisis was not a reason to delay this legislation. Can you imagine their faces when, on the Monday after the committee completed its hearings, the government used the very reason the senators had been saying was not an excuse as the reason to delay the commencement of the scheme for 12 months? That very delay gives us the opportunity to say what the opposition have been saying all along: wait until we know what the international community is doing. Wait until we understand how the Waxman-Markey bill works out. Wait until we know what the final design of the European scheme is. They have a scheme there but it is effectively a pilot at the moment.

The government told us, and we had witnesses telling us, that there had been no carbon leakage in Europe. Of course there has been no carbon leakage, because emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries are not impacted yet. The government sent witnesses to the inquiry to say that there has been no carbon leakage, and that is the reason all the information we were being given as part of our process should not be taken notice of. For all of the witnesses that came in—the mining industry, the agriculture sector, the energy generators and the aluminium industry—the government said: ‘Do not take any notice of their evidence. You do not need to. There has been no impact in Europe.’ Of course there has not, because there has been no impact on the emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries yet. That process does not start until 2012 and they are still negotiating their mechanisms. They have not finalised it yet. This government want to rush out, disadvantage our industries, screw over our agriculture sector and disadvantage investment in the energy generation industry. The energy sector actually told us that.

ERM Power are gas generators. They are winners under the emissions trading scheme that the government proposes. Trevor St Baker from ERM Power told us that the imposition of the government on the asset values in the power industry was actually having an impact on his capacity to raise investment funds in his business. So the message that this government are sending around the world is, ‘Be careful about investing in the energy sector in Australia, not just the coal sector and not just the emissions-intensive ones but even those that are winners.’ ‘The remaining international lenders are even more sensitive to change country risk and particular sector risks,’ is what Trevor St Baker told us in his evidence to the inquiry. The government claim they have this just about right. Clearly they have not because even the winners cannot get investment funds under the scheme they are proposing. It is absolutely absurd.

The government tell us again that this is urgent and we need to get it passed before Copenhagen and that we need to send a clear message. Interestingly, as previous speakers from the coalition have already said, Mr Yvo De Boer from the United Nations climate change body said, ‘What people care about in the international negotiations is the commitment that a government makes on a certain target.’ That is what they care about. On my study tour I spoke to the EU, the French government, the UK government and the OECD, and that is the message that I got—what people care about are the targets. I said to them that we support the government’s targets. We support five, 15 and 25 per cent depending on what Copenhagen does. They understood that it was sensible for Australia to wait and see what, particularly, the US does and what the EU does. They are the ones that are going to influence what happens internationally more than anybody else. They are the big players in this process. They understood that that was a sensible policy. They also understood that things will change at Copenhagen. Some of the accounting rules might change.

I spoke yesterday in this place about carbon stored in solid timber products. That could be one thing that changes. It would be a significant positive for the forestry industry. A number of other things will change at Copenhagen. Simon Crean has even admitted that, if we pass this legislation now, we will probably have to amend it after Copenhagen. So why not get it right? Why not do it properly the first time? What is the rush? The government have already delayed the commencement of this scheme. They do not need to delay it any further. They can wait until after Copenhagen, as we have been saying all along and as we recommended in our committee report. When we looked at the scheme, we travelled across the country and talked to witnesses on all sides of the equation. I got a similar response when I spoke to different jurisdictions in Europe. They were worried about the targets. They appreciated the fact that we had bipartisan support for the targets, but what they were really worried about was that we stuck to those. They were not worried about whether or not we had legislation.

One other thing that concerns me is the churn through the scheme that will occur. Caltex told us that $17 billion will pass through Treasury coffers between the commencement of the scheme and 2025 and that there will be no reduction in emissions from fuel. There will be $17 billion passing through Treasury; the government will take off their little bit for managing it. But it will not do anything. If it is so urgent, don’t we want a scheme that will actually do something, that will reduce carbon emissions? That is what the government say—they are going to save the world. That is what this process will do for us. Yet in fuel there will be enormous churn. Prices for petrol will actually go down for the first three years. The government are overcompensating. Then they will start to rise again. But they will not achieve anything. There will be $17 billion going through the system for no effect. There is no question that this scheme is all about politics. The Prime Minister set a political target. He has had to back down from that target for logistical reasons. He has used the global financial crisis as an excuse. He should be prepared to do this properly. He should give this parliament and the country the proper time to consider the things that need to be considered as part of this process. (Time expired)

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, I would like to thank Senator McGauran and other members of the opposition for agreeing to allow me to move up the speakers list on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills to accommodate my other commitments today. Thank you for that. The Labor Party, under the leadership of the now Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, went to the people of Australia before the 2007 federal election promising action on climate change. The vast majority of Australians, unlike some in the coalition, accepted that climate change existed, agreed that climate change was the single biggest threat to the future prosperity and wellbeing of Australia, accepted that human activity causes carbon pollution and that that is causing our climate to change and elected a government that was prepared to act and to act quickly and responsibly. Australians knew that action to stop the carbon emissions that exacerbated climate change would come at a cost—an economic and a social cost—but they were prepared to accept that. In fact, as we know from the take-up of domestic environmental renewable energy and energy savings initiatives, most Australians are enthusiastic about changing their polluting behaviour and are prepared to do what they can to help in the war against climate change.

Here today we are confronted with an opposition that are once again attempting to deny the facts, to deny the science, to deny the will of the Australian people and to deny future Australians a cleaner, greener future. When they do not have their heads in the sand, they search here and there for a policy, for a piece of research. They look to other countries, they look to—and sometimes away from—their dithering leader and they look to anything that they can grasp and use to justify their unwillingness to make a decision to bite the bullet, to actually accept reality, to accede to the will of the Australian people and to commit to supporting the government in its battle against the biggest long-term threat to global and Australian security and wellbeing. From the way they behave, we know that the opposition are still not serious about tackling the causes of climate change. They treat it as some kind of new thing they have to mull over for a bit longer and try and get their heads around, despite the fact that concerns about the detrimental effects of concentration of human generated gases in the atmosphere have been around for more than a century, despite the fact that it is now 20 years since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced its first report and despite the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which arose out of the Rio earth summit 17 years ago. Even the Howard government acknowledged the need for an emissions trading scheme.

There is not time for mulling it over. World temperatures are rising. That means higher sea levels, less agricultural production and more diseases. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found—through the assessment of the latest scientific, technical and socioeconomic literature—that our water resources, coastal communities, natural ecosystems, energy security, health, agriculture and tourism are all highly vulnerable if temperatures rise by just three degrees Celsius or more. I am here representing my state of South Australia, and it is worth reiterating the likely effects of continued climate change and global warming on my state. South Australia is gradually becoming warmer. Southern coastal areas, where most South Australians live, are becoming drier but rainfall is steadily increasing in the state’s north. While global surface temperatures have increased 0.7 degrees Celsius over the last century, Australia’s change is more noticeable at 0.89 degrees Celsius nationally. Staggeringly, though, South Australia’s surface temperature has risen 0.96 degrees Celsius over that period of time. Those temperature rises have become more rapid since 1950 and on current projections are set to continue.

Over the last 50 years, industry losses in South Australia have increased due to global warming. Unfortunately, if the current trends in my state are not addressed, a large part of South Australia’s $3.6 billion agricultural production sector will be at risk. It is also estimated that, in comparing production under climate change relative to what would have otherwise been, and assuming no mitigation or adaptation, farm output of wheat could decline by 12.3 per cent by the year 2050, sheep by 11.7 per cent and dairy by 11.3 per cent. Unmitigated human-caused climate change will also inevitably affect many of South Australia’s popular, valuable and iconic winery regions, including the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale. If the weather variations continue on the trajectory that they are on at the moment, reduced rainfall and water availability would place the state’s $430 million grape production in jeopardy.

It is also very plausible that more than 60,000 buildings along the South Australian coastline will be at risk from sea level rise, coastal erosion and flooding should the current projections of the results of unmitigated climate change come to fruition. Studies have found that, if climate change and global warming continued at their current pace, by 2100 a global sea level rise of one metre or more would occur. This sea level rise combined with more intense storms would threaten coastal housing and infrastructure.

In March last year Adelaide smashed the heatwave record for the most consecutive days above 35 degrees Celsius. We sweltered through 15 days of over 35 degrees and 13 consecutive days of or above 37.8 degrees Celsius. The state set new heatwave records for any Australian capital city. As global warming continues, the number of heatwaves will rise, and subsequently the number of people vulnerable to heat related illnesses and death will climb. Studies have shown that, on current projections, the number of very hot days in Adelaide could increase from 21 per year to 26 per year by 2030. Additionally, studies have estimated that, if temperatures continue to increase, the annual number of heat related deaths in the city of those aged 65 and over could grow from the current figure of 200 to between 342 and 370 in the year 2020—that is just a decade away—and to between 482 and 664 persons per year by 2050.

That is not a future I want for South Australia, but clearly there are those in the opposition who are unable to comprehend the truth. They are prepared to procrastinate and delay in the hope that the truth will go away and they will never have to deal with the reality that right here in Australia we need to act quickly, effectively and responsibly.

In early July 2009, a disturbing report by the executive director of the Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute was released dealing with the speed and severity of climate change. That report, entitled Climate change 2009: faster change and more serious risks, draws on the science of climate change since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 fourth assessment report. The report concluded that the climate change system appears to be changing much faster than was earlier anticipated. The findings of that report highlight the need for action on the nation’s greatest environmental challenge. It also highlights the severe and damaging risks that climate change will pose for our country should we continue to deferred action.

A second report, by the ANU, based on the impact of climate change and our World Heritage properties, had similarly disturbing findings. It found that 17 of Australia’s iconic World Heritage properties, including the Sydney Opera House, the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu National Park, are particularly vulnerable to the impending effects of climate change. Should we fail to act now, the report found it is plausible that many of our World Heritage sites could succumb to the impact of reduced rainfall, higher sea and land surface temperatures, more severe storms, ocean acidification and rising sea levels.

Not only is the government’s proposed CPRS one of the most significant environmental reforms in the history of our nation; it will also bring about the biggest reform to Australia’s economy since the opening up of the economy under the Hawke and Keating governments in the 1980s and 1990s. The strong and ambitious actions that the Australian government are taking with these CPRS bills before us today will achieve a modest but substantial reduction of carbon emissions in a responsible way. Our targets of five to 15 per cent are responsible and, while I acknowledge and have some sympathy for those people who seek higher targets sooner, by setting these targets we are keeping in the range of emission reductions that are also being set in European countries.

We have set Australia’s CPRS as the most comprehensive in the world, covering 75 per cent of the Australian economy, to ensure that Australia actually meets its targets and to ensure that implementation of our cap-and-trade scheme is as equitable and encompassing as possible. It is by ensuring the broadest application that the lowest cost per organisation and individual is achieved. That basic fact is apparently incomprehensible to the opposition, who, although they have no coherent policy as such, seek to exclude or shield sectors of the economy from the need to reduce their carbon emissions because it is politically expedient for the opposition to be seen to be doing so, but in reality it is a short-term, reactive and gutless response.

The government are fully aware of the changes to the economy that will occur if this legislation passes. We do not need to delay the goal to begin reducing carbon pollution by seeking out ever more research and ever more sceptics, soothsayers and hangers-on. We do not need to wait to see what other countries might or might not do to begin our change as a nation that is determined to reduce its carbon emissions. The ‘wait and see’ attitude of the opposition is simply a cop-out.

The government is aiming for strong economic growth and is protecting employment by creating jobs. In fact, the CPRS gives us an opportunity to create new jobs in new industries as we move towards new, low-pollution technology. There will be new green-collar jobs in new industries. A 2008 CSIRO report, Growing the green collar economy: skills and labour challenges in reducing our greenhouse emissions and national environmental footprint, shows that, despite the introduction of the CPRS, employment will grow by some 2.6 per cent to 3.3 million jobs by 2025.

Claims by the opposition that the introduction of the cap-and-trade CPRS scheme that is envisaged with this legislation will bring about some kind of Armageddon are hysterical, desperate and disingenuous. No government would commit to a policy outcome that deliberately destroyed jobs and wreaked havoc on the economy. What on earth would be the point of doing that?

I am proud to say that the government, of which I am a member, has already demonstrated its economic credentials in the effective way that it has addressed the global financial crisis. I know those opposite hate it when we quote the numerous economists who report daily on the fact that the Australian economy is not as damaged as those of other nations and in fact we are managing the GFC better than most other developed nations. I note economic analysts at CitiGroup yesterday, on 11 August, released a report that found that Australian business conditions provide more evidence of recovery. It stated:

All key indicators within the survey, including confidence, forward orders, trading conditions, profitability, employment, export sales and capacity utilization, improved further in July 2009.

The report went on to say:

Business conditions are in positive territory for the first time since June last year and business confidence is around average levels …

Finally, the report found:

The rebound in business conditions has been particularly strong in mining.

That is but one example that ours is a government in control, a government with a plan and a government prepared to take the hard decisions to support business in tough times. When we support business, we support families. We will support business and families when the CPRS is introduced.

Of course, one of the best ways to support business and to ensure business confidence is to give business the certainty it needs from government. Business wants to know if there will be an ETS and, if so, what it will look like, how it will apply to them and when it will apply from. The opposition claim to be the friends of business, but what do the opposition do? They continue to prolong the uncertainty, to continue the debate, to do exactly what business does not want by umming and ahing and failing to commit to any coherent plan to address the global imperative to reduce carbon emissions.

There are a range of practical measures included in the government’s CPRS legislation to counteract the impact of the scheme on businesses. Unfortunately, you do not hear opposition speakers mention any of those measures in their speeches on these bills. The package of measures that will apply under the scheme includes assistance in the form of administrative allocation of permits to new and existing firms engaged in emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities. A global recession buffer will be applied to the allocation of baselines of emissions per unit output and that will further assist EITE businesses. Free permits worth around $3.9 billion over five years will be available for the most emission-intensive coal-fired power generators.

The government will establish the $75.8 million Australian Carbon Trust to help implement energy efficiency measures in commercial buildings and businesses. In addition, up to $200 million has been allocated to the Climate Change Action Fund to support business and community organisations that do not receive EITE assistance but do have significant energy costs. That will assist those organisations to reduce carbon pollution through energy efficiency measures. There is, as well, the household assistance package of $6 billion per year that will help households meet or offset the increase in energy costs and the CPI increases that will result from the scheme.

Passing this CPRS package of bills is critical for the future of our nation. This government wants to make a comprehensive start to reducing Australia’s carbon pollution levels, and this cannot be done without taking the first step here by passing these bills. The people we represent in this parliament want us to make the necessary tough decisions to reduce our carbon emissions so that we can begin to halt the effects of climate change. The people of Australia know that will mean big changes and they understand what the impacts will be. It is galling to hear the opposition continue to allude to the fact that the Australian people do not know what is going on in this legislation. That is a patronising attitude. The Australian public are well aware of the implications of the significant decisions that governments have to make, as they demonstrated in the last federal election.

As I said, the people we represent here are prepared to make the hard decisions themselves and to cop the pain that may involve because they understand what is at stake. They have the vision and the courage to look to the long-term benefits of acting decisively now. Unfortunately, it looks like they will be let down by the opposition, who display neither vision nor courage.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was quite happy to yield my position on the speakers list to Labor’s Senator McEwen in the hope that one on the long list of Labor senators to speak on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related climate change bills would show some balance. I yielded because frequently Senator McEwen does show that sort of balance, but what a great disappointment that speech was. I was profoundly disappointed. She simply read from the old party script of extremism. She threw out the line that, if we have a three-degree increase in global temperature, this will follow. Will it? Is that what is predicted? Is that what she believes? Is that a scientific fact? No, it has just been set up as a straw man.

I say she read from the old script of extremism, the old language, which was no doubt handed to her by the ‘high priestess’, as she was dubbed last night by Senator Bernardi—the high priestess of climate change, Senator Wong. But I would point out to Senator McEwen that there is a new script going around by the New South Wales senators from her side of the house and from their New South Wales state colleagues also, who have woken up to just how damaging this bill will be to the economy for zero effect. So I started to doubt that I should have yielded my position to Senator McEwen because everything was blamed on climate change. Those who listened would have heard that everything was blamed on climate change. It was the old rhetoric. She has missed the shift in this debate. She has missed the shift in public opinion on this. She is still at the extreme end, the Senator Penny Wong end of it all, where forest fires are blamed on climate change. That has nothing, of course, to do with state forest management—it is all to do with climate change! And, of course, every flood and every drought are directly linked to climate change—it has got nothing to do with the fact that we are on the driest continent in the world and that droughts have been part of Australia’s history! It is all to do with climate change. If you are running late for the train, it is climate change. If Geelong does not win the Grand Final, it will be climate change.

This is the extremism and the language that we all dealt with just 12 months ago. I think everyone in this chamber would agree there has been a serious shift in this debate, but the government, or at least their leadership, have missed it. People are not buying that sort of extreme language anymore. They seek a more moderate position, a more sensible approach to the question of climate change and carbon pollution reduction. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 does not provide it. In fact, I would say this bill is the most economically damaging bill to go through the parliament, in modern times anyway, particularly at this time, during the global economic crisis. I could not quite understand the previous speaker’s point that this is a good time to do it, that everyone is going to ‘cop the pain’—to use her terminology, they are happy to cop the pain for the so-called gain. I should not just point out Senator McEwen; she was the previous speaker but it was the same with all the speakers on the other side. I do not think they know their own scheme, to tell you the truth. Not one of them have pointed out where the gain is. Sure, they think there is a lot of political gain in this—according to the press gallery, the ‘beltway’, as they call it—but they have not articulated the true gain to Australia whilst there is no international agreement.

Given the global economic crisis that we are in, just consider the $13 billion in permits, in the first year, that companies have to go out and purchase. They will have to borrow that money at a time when they are under extreme pressure. It is not as glowing as the previous speaker, reading from some survey, would have it. The fundamentals and the facts are there; we are not in recovery. Whatever shaft of light the government is pointing us to, there is a long way to go. Putting this extra burden of some $13 billion a year on the economy, for companies to have to find that money to borrow on top of what they are already struggling with in the credit squeeze, will do great damage to our economy.

I suspect, in fact in my heart of hearts I believe, that this legislation is purely political. Senator Mason gave a brilliant analysis of just how political this bill is, particularly for the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd. When he jets off to Copenhagen, he wants it in his pocket so he can prance around showing off, as he does. He thinks he is important—yes, that is a cheap shot, Senator Conroy, but I noticed you enjoyed it.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Laughing at you, not with you!

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you would almost agree with me, in your quieter moments. This legislation shows us the other side of the Labor Party, and this probably appeals more to Senator Conroy. The truth is that this is the mother of all taxes. The Labor Party is a high-taxing government at any time, always looking for an excuse to do so. After they were elected in November 2007 their first budget was in May 2008, so within six months they started to raise taxes. In their second budget, of course, they added to that, with no less than the alcopops tax. So they are always looking for a reason and an excuse to lift taxes. Well, they have got themselves a bill that will raise the mother of all taxes. This is a tax hike greater than the GST, which raises about $12 billion. Years of long, complex and shifting debate have accumulated in this bill before the Senate. It is a bill that will wreck the economy and deliver Labor the biggest tax take and tax increase they have ever dreamed of.

To many Labor senators, this is the main point. I am sure from listening to their addresses to the chamber that many have not read the bill. They would not even know that it is to commence on 1 July 2011. They would not yet know that, in the first year, the price of carbon is fixed at $10 and then is open to the market after that and will probably range between $25 and $40. They would not know that the minimum commitment is to reduce emissions to five per cent below 2000 levels by 2020, absent a global agreement; and, with a global agreement, to some 25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. They would not have a clue about those essences of the bill. Many of them see a tax take and they have ignored the knock-on effect of this tax take, as all tax takes have a knock-on effect.

As I said, I believe there has been a shift in the debate, and the previous speaker particularly highlighted that the Labor Party are blind to this shift. The public no longer accept the rhetoric of scare tactics that climate change is the sole cause of the drying up of the Murray, with no mention of El Nino or overuse of the Murray; or that it is the cause of the shrinking of the icecaps in the Antarctic, which not even Peter Garrett can deny anymore—he tried, but he had his head pulled in. The Antarctic is not shrinking; it is increasing. What an irony that you can no longer use that as the great icon, with the polar bears slipping off the icecaps.

This is the language and the extremism of just some 12 months ago. If you slightly challenge the science then you are burnt at the stake. But thankfully we have had some more honourable scientists come forward and balance the argument. I have been on several Senate committees inquiring into elements of climate change. You should see some of those scientists who are ramping up and drumming up the rhetoric of climate change just for extra research dollars; it is as simple as that. But thankfully some more honourable scientists have had the courage to come forward and put a more balanced argument. The absurdity of the debate reached unbelievable heights when one of Labor’s chief advisers on the issue, Professor Garnaut, suggested that farmers ought to switch out of sheep and beef production and move into kangaroo production because their emissions are less. I notice the Labor Party has not dispelled that recommendation from his very bulky report.

While Senator Wong walks into this chamber at question time and still rants the old language of extremism, the truth is that the Australian public are looking for more moderate presentations. In other words, they are looking for the truth of the matter. If this scheme was ever established, what would be its effect on the economy? What would be the effect on their jobs, their households and their bills? Will they have a job? What is the effect on worldwide emissions? This side of the chamber has had the courage to put it to the government that this is not all about politics. The effect is that people will lose their jobs by the tens of thousands. It will crush the economy and it will have no effect—it will be worthless; zero effect—on global emissions.

Labor speakers have come in here and not told the truth when they have said that we need to pass this now before the Copenhagen agreement. We found out, as other speakers have said, that the US Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change said, ‘You don’t need to go to Copenhagen with legislation in your back pocket.’ Speakers have told us that Treasury modelling has shown that this will have minimal effect on the economy—a 0.1 per cent reduction in GDP over some 40 years, which is nothing. And who is going to still be around here in 40 years? But the truth is that that modelling was flawed because the government set the parameters of that modelling. That modelling had to assume that there was an international agreement—that China, India, the United States and Europe were all party to an international agreement. If that were the case, you may well get that result. But the truth is that they are not and, certainly at this stage, it looks like a distant hope.

Labor speakers have come in here and told us that we have to rush this through to give business certainty. I do not know what business the government have been speaking to—the Business Council of Australia, perhaps—but they ought to speak to the aluminium, coal or mining industry. I thought it was really well put by Anglo Coal Australia’s CEO, Seamus French, when it was put to him, ‘Do you seek the certainty of the ETS?’ and therefore whether we ought to pass this bill. He said, ‘We don’t want the certainty of a bullet.’ That is what this bill will result in if it is passed: it will be a bullet to business. It will be a bullet to jobs. It will be a bullet to households and families. It will be a bullet to the Australian economy. And, as I keep stressing, for what? For nothing. It is for political ends and political gains. If they want to play that political game—if this is what you are trying to do, Senator Conroy—and set it up for political purposes down the track, go ahead and make my day. I see the shift in the public on this and I am happy to keep it simple with them and debate it.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no question; no-one wrote this speech but you.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I take that as a great compliment, Senator Conroy. He says I write my own speeches. Well, unlike him! You are right; I do write my own speeches.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No-one else would claim them.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unlike you. You sit there in question time and cannot get up without your laptop, reading from it religiously, laboriously and boringly. You know nothing else but to read from your own laptop. Yes, you are quite right; I write my own speeches and I am proud of it.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No-one else would claim them. They are orphans.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Senator Conroy. I should add that I am glad you are listening. Did this quote from Martin Ferguson escape you? I wonder what he still doing in the cabinet—this quote found its way into the Australian newspaper and has not been retracted—because he is the greatest sceptic of them all. He said something that proves how useless and pathetic this scheme is. No, do not go until you hear what Martin Ferguson had to say. The prime example is that Australia’s emissions are 1.4 per cent of the world emissions, while China is something like up to 20 per cent of the world emissions. It was reported recently in the Australian by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson—and Senator Conroy, the most political of the frontbench, scurries out of the chamber when the truth is about to be laid down. I see another one has come in—Senator Carr. Politics is all he knows. If you asked him anything at all about this scheme or any detail of it, he would not have a clue. All he would say is, ‘It sure reads well in the Herald Sun’—before you get to Andrew Bolt’s page, of course—or, ‘It sure reads well in the polls.’ That is how he analyses just about every piece of legislation, quite frankly, but more so with this.

Labor’s own minister in cabinet, Martin Ferguson, quoted this fact, which is damning of the government’s scheme. He said:

And every four months, from now until 2020, China will build new coal-fired power stations possessing the same capacity as Australia’s entire coal-fired power sector.

It is estimated that China will build between 25 to 35 new coal-fired power stations by 2020. The government’s own Minister for Resources and Energy has had the courage to stand up and put a statistic down on the table which shows how worthless this scheme is, because just one new coal-fired power station in China—and China has 35 planned to be built every four months—outdoes the whole coal industry in Australia. I repeat: Martin Ferguson said this. What is he still doing in cabinet?

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

A very good man.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A very good man. A very honest man. I bet that he sits alone at dinner time. I bet the Prime Minister gave him a phone call after that—or maybe he did not, because I do not think Martin Ferguson would take phone calls from the Prime Minister. They have had certain clashes in the past.

It is with that backdrop that the Liberal Party have come to the debate. We understand that carbon pollution cannot be tackled from the extreme end—the Senator Penny Wong end and the Mr Rudd end, if you like. The coalition believe that there should be a carbon pollution reduction scheme, but one that does not wreck the Australian economy and also one that is not agreed to before Copenhagen or until the rest of the world has signed up to one. To the extent that climate change is affected by man-made pollution, the best way to fight it is with a strong economy so that the major polluters like the coal industry have the finances to invest in clean coal technologies and expensive, long-range research can be undertaken in alternative fuels, like solar energy.

Time is against me—there are other speaks on this legislation—but, if I had more time, I would discuss how the effects that this legislation will range across the economy. It is not a glib statement that I make. The facts and figures are there for the dairy industry, the beef industry, the coal industry and the aluminium industry. This legislation will affect every big business, small business and medium-sized business, according to a report by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They have noted the impact of the scheme in detail. They are not just protecting their own little corner; they are noting just how damaging this scheme will be.

But where are the unions to protect the jobs? Where are the unions to tell the government about their own scheme? Where are the great protectors of jobs? They got their legislation—‘fair workplaces’ or whatever it is called. We will soon hear about it—there is no doubt about that—as it makes its way through the economy and the thugs return to the workplaces. But where are the unions to protect the jobs of the coalminers? If you listen to the previous speakers, they would have coalminers as waiters in some restaurant or rainforest resort—that is where they are going to send the coalminers. The unions ought to be ashamed of themselves. I saw the leader of the ACTU wandering the corridors today. What was she talking about? She was certainly not talking about this scheme. (Time expired)

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

In a week that the locals here in Canberra tell me is the coldest week they have had in the last decade, it is somewhat ironic that we are debating global warming and climate change and the Labor government’s flawed and politically motivated so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I do not think that anyone denies that the climate is changing. Indeed, the climate has been changing for as long we have kept records or done research. We all remember that once the globe was covered in ice. Obviously, it has changed since those days. During the break, I saw a plaque up at the Chillagoe Caves, in Cape York, which was describing the geological uniqueness of that locality. This plaque reminded us that, 250 million years ago, Brisbane was the location of the South Pole ice cap. Clearly, the climate has been changing for many millions of years. But is it a man-made change? I am not sure how many human beings caused the ice cap to melt 400 or 500 million years ago. Perhaps some of the Labor Party people could explain that to me.

In this debate on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills, I do not want to make any judgment on the cause of climate change. I always think that, if the world’s top 10,000 scientists and experts cannot agree on what is causing it, what chance have I got to make an informed judgment. I have to say that, over the last five years in Australia alone, those who are studying climate change and who are promoting the view of the United Nations have received more than $200 million in research grants looking into climate change. As a result, one would think that we might have had more evidence than we have at this time. I was disturbed to learn that grants to people who do not follow the Labor Party line on climate change have suddenly dried up. Those scientists who have a different view are no longer being funded by the Labor government’s research money. That is a little bit disturbing in itself.

If there is any possibility of man-made greenhouse gas emissions being a cause of climate change then certainly we in Australia, as world citizens, have a part to play in reducing those emissions. There is a difference between playing our part in conjunction with the rest of the world and destroying Australia’s economy and the livelihoods of Australian workers by penalising our country in a way that no other country is being penalised. And we are doing this simply to pander to the political egos of our Prime Minister and our current climate change minister. Yes, of course we must play our part, but we must do it at the same time as the big emitters. When the United States, China, India and Russia reduce their carbon emissions then we should do it as well. When our competitors like Indonesia, South Africa, Columbia and Argentina start their emissions trading schemes then certainly we should do that too. But to act in advance of that is simply tilting at windmills like Don Quixote. It is a heroic statement that the Labor government would have us make, but it is one that is almost meaningless.

I think that Penny Wong is our Don Quixote of climate change. Her actions in advance of the rest of the world are at best based on misinterpretation and a misplaced heroic, romantic, idealistic justification or, worse, are a con job on the Australian public to feed her political ego and that of her boss. Those egos know no bounds. I think that even Labor Party members and senators understand that Senator Wong has got it wrong. It was quite clear recently that, when there were substantial amendments made to this bill—what is it: version 10?—a couple of months ago, Mr Greg Combet was brought in, supposedly as the junior minister, to fix it up. Even the Labor Party have recognised that Senator Wong has got this completely wrong, and Mr Combet has been brought in to try to sort out the mess that has been left by the Labor government.

In this debate I could not believe my ears when I heard Labor senators saying and implying that all of the ills of the world will be cured if we pass this Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill this week in the Senate. Are those Labor senators seriously trying to tell me that we will save the Barrier Reef if we pass this bill this week? I heard a Labor senator say yesterday that the tropical diseases coming down from the north would be addressed if only we could pass this bill and Australia could start reducing some of its less than 1.4 per cent of world greenhouse gas emissions. Are these Labor senators seriously trying to tell us that the rainforests will be saved if we pass this bill this week? Give me a break! Australia exudes less than 1.4 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. This bill, even in its horrendous complexity and regulations, will only reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by a little bit. To suggest that the Barrier Reef is going to be saved by passing this bill just insults our intelligence.

Where is the intellectual rigour in that argument? A former Labor Treasurer of Queensland, Keith De Lacy, said that even if Australia stopped emitting all greenhouse gas today then within 12 months China would pick that up and a bit more. As Senator McGauran has just said, Martin Ferguson, a quite courageous Minister for Resources and Energy in the Labor government, agrees that Australia’s actions are only a pinprick in the world’s fight against climate change. If emissions are the cause, then it needs action from the big emitters.

Seriously, is there any real, meaningful prospect of reduction from these other countries? Is the United States going to substantially reduce its emissions? We have heard a lot about the bill that has passed through the House of Representatives, but all of the informed commentators will tell you that it will get nowhere before Copenhagen and in the end the United States will look after itself.

We have heard what China is doing. Whilst they will have words to say, they are increasing their emissions. And it is the same for India, South Africa, Indonesia, Columbia and Argentina, those countries which are big competitors of ours in coal and beef exports. They are not even contemplating an emissions trading scheme and yet Minister Wong and Mr Rudd want to penalise Australian industries, and therefore Australian workers’ jobs, in this horrible political ego trip they are embarked upon at the present time.

To suggest, as Minister Wong does, that Australia has got to go to Copenhagen with a legislated response so that the rest of the world will follow suit, is ridiculous. How vain! How absolutely stupid to think that, just because Senator Wong turns up in Copenhagen with a completed bill, that is going to influence anyone else in the world as to what they should do.

I refer senators to the evidence given by Dr Brian Fisher, the former very distinguished head of the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics and now a distinguished consultant. He has been involved in international negotiations on climate change. He was there at the Kyoto round when Australia did quite well. In evidence before a Senate committee he just pointed out the stupidity, the vanity of Senator Wong in believing that it is essential for her to go to Copenhagen with a passed piece of legislation so that the rest of the world will follow suit. I know that the rest of the world laugh at Mr Rudd and Senator Wong. They laugh at their naivete and cannot quite believe the egos that this pair must have, believing that they are the world saviours on climate change. Get real! I cannot believe that the Labor Party have fallen for this at all.

In fact, sitting in two Senate committees that have looked very closely at climate change and this CPRS bill, I saw that Labor Party senators, whilst they are fighting the good fight and saying the right words, deep down know that this is a crock of a piece of legislation. They know that their mates in the union movement—the bosses do not seem to be very concerned about this at all, but the actual workers—are petrified at the job losses that will flow from this. If they were going to lose their jobs to save the Barrier Reef, perhaps they might be prepared to put up with that. But of course it will not save the barrier reef. It will not reduce carbon emissions. All the evidence that was given at the Senate committee hearings has shown that it will mean that Australia’s emissions-efficient coal industries will simply go to South Africa, Colombia or Indonesia, and there will be greater greenhouse gas emissions. Australian workers will be losing their jobs for no reward at all.

These industries—the coal industry, the aluminium industry, the cement industry—are run by multinational companies who have international boards who will put their investment dollars where they can get the best return. They are not going to put them in Australia, which is being burdened by huge taxes in the production of coal, aluminium, all of our minerals and metals, and cement—those activities and those products that we support and compete with others in. They will put their investments into places like Indonesia, who will not be looking at an ETS and who will not be looking at taxing their industries out of existence.

What happens to the workers I represent in my state of Queensland and who, I regrettably say, the Labor Party has again abandoned? We heard from witness after witness, and there are statistics. Time is not going to let me get anywhere near the statistics I wanted to put into this debate, but it is clear from the evidence that the jobs of people in the Bowen Basin coal area, in the Gladstone area of Queensland, and in Mackay, Townsville, Rockhampton and Mount Isa are going to be thrown to the wolves.

The copper refinery in Townsville, where I have my office, is 50 years old this year. In the last 50 years it has produced marvellous wealth for Australia. The refinery has employed a hell of a lot of Australians. They will be looking at moving overseas. Why? Because 82 per cent of the world’s copper comes from countries which do not have and will not have an emissions trading scheme. So the Australian copper industry, which is going to be burdened with millions of dollars of taxes, will again become uncompetitive against the rest of the world. In Mackay, a city that lies on the Bowen Basin coalfields, what is the local member for Dawson doing about this? What is the local member for Flynn, based on Gladstone, doing about this bill which will cost the jobs of workers in his area? Absolutely nothing. I regret to say that senators from Queensland on the Labor Party side are going to vote to destroy the jobs of so many Australian families in the mining and minerals processing area.

The evidence is there. In the dairy industry there will be $6,000 to $8,000 per farm per year in additional costs—and that is immediately; that is not waiting for 2015, when agriculture is brought into the scheme. This is simply from the initial aspects of the Labor Party’s CPRS. We heard evidence in Mackay that rates will go up by 20 per cent in the city of Mackay, directly related to the CPRS. We have heard that electricity costs for ordinary Australian households will go up anywhere between 50 per cent and 200 per cent, particularly 200 per cent when you add the renewable energy scheme to the CPRS. These are costs that Australians are going to have to bear simply to pander to the political egos of Mr Rudd and Senator Wong. The list goes on and on. The Teys Bros abattoir in Rockhampton currently employs about 1,000 people. When this scheme comes into operation—if it ever, heaven forbid, does—they will have to cut their production by half, and 400 jobs will go out the window in Rockhampton. What is the member for Capricornia doing about this prospective job loss in her electorate? Absolutely nothing.

I have a view, and I formed this view from seeing Labor senators at various committees and from reading articles in the paper, that Mr Rudd and Senator Wong never really wanted to get this scheme through. They know—they cannot help but know—that this scheme, in advance of our competitors, is just going to cost the jobs of Australian working families. They are playing politics. They are hoping against hope that the Senate will knock off this bill, and it will. They will then be able to go out to those who believe Senator Wong is the saviour of the world and say, ‘Look, we tried to do this but those nasty Liberals knocked it off.’ But they will be pleased in the knowledge that all of the job losses which were clearly going to happen will then not happen. The Senate will save those working families from the job losses which would follow the passing of this bill. I cannot believe that—and I know that—the Labor senators are so gullible as to accept that this bill would do anything.

If the bill was going to make one iota of difference to the Great Barrier Reef, to the rainforest, to tropical diseases or to all the other things that Labor senators are mouthing will be saved by the CPRS, perhaps we could accept it, but it will not make one iota of difference to the changing climate of the world. What will make a difference is getting Russia, China, the United States, Indonesia, South Africa, Columbia and Argentina involved. Get them involved, then Australia should play its part. For Australia to play its part before those major competitors do would be to sacrifice Australian working families on the alter of political correctness and the political egos of our Prime Minister and our Minister for Climate Change and Water.

I would ask Labor senators to do the right thing, to be honest about this. I know what you believe deep down in your hearts, but put some courage and backbone into your duties here in the federal parliament and vote with us on this bill. Show Mr Rudd and Senator Wong that you will not be part of the destruction of working families’ jobs in this country. (Time expired)

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills. The complex issues presented in these bills have been comprehensively ventilated. I do not intend to go over the same arguments in exhaustive detail. However, as has been well and truly telegraphed, the coalition will not be voting for the Rudd government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in its current form, on the basis that it is both structurally flawed and ultimately ineffectual to transition Australia to a low-carbon economy. I hasten to say that the issue here is not whether the coalition should support a framework to deal with climate change. After all, an emission reduction scheme is coalition policy, which was in fact taken to the election in 2007. So at some point in the future the parliament would have been confronted with a carbon reduction package regardless of whichever party formed government.

Yes, there are differences of opinion in the coalition about what the design should look like, when it should be implemented and how this matter should be handled. But the overwhelming majority of us do understand that science does not always provide definitive answers. This is manifestly so in the case of whether carbon emissions are responsible for climate change. Rather, science tells us about probabilities and, on the science, probabilities favour the view that climate change should not be ignored and requires a carefully calibrated and targeted global response.

A global problem requires united global action and it is illogical to lock in a flawed scheme when we, as an emitter of just 1.4 per cent of global emissions, have limited capacity to contribute to or influence a meaningful outcome apart from the rest of the world. Dealing with the problem requires decisions today that will be right for tomorrow. It requires diligent and honest efforts to get the balance right and to get the right scheme for Australia at the right time. The legislation in front of us does none of this. It is devoid of the regulatory detail that outlines how the scheme will reduce emissions, despite Mr Rudd pronouncing this as ‘the greatest moral challenge of our time’.

While the proposed legislation has been on the table for some months, Minister Wong and Mr Rudd have apparently been unable to produce the regulations for the scheme, so it is impossible to know how this scheme will even work without the formulas, methodology and detail you would expect to see when being asked to vote about a scheme with the far-ranging consequences that these bills portend for Australia. Without these regulations, we have countless unanswered questions about the make-up of the scheme and how it will be implemented. For instance, we have no idea how the treatment of emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries will be determined and laid out.

Senator Wong presented some of the regulations in June, but the majority of them are nowhere to be seen. In fact, it seems they are yet to be decided. As the minister admitted on ABC radio recently, aspects of the emissions trading scheme are still being negotiated with industry—and that is just a couple of days out from the impending Senate vote.

Absent that detail as presented, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is fundamentally objectionable in terms of the permit system, the churn or recycling of billions of dollars of taxpayer money through the system at the government’s discretion and the impact on Australian jobs, particularly in regional Australia. The sale of permits will see the Rudd government simply collect huge revenue from driving up the cost of energy. The CPRS is the equivalent of hiking the GST from its current rate of 10 per cent to 12½ per cent. This new tax to be foisted on Australia will generate $13 billion in year two, growing rapidly to $20 billion a year by 2020 or thereabouts. No new energy or resource project will succeed without parent companies begging for a quota of free permits from the government in order to be competitive. The 30 to 40 per cent increase in household and workplace electricity bills will result in tens of thousands of businesses facing indirect ongoing costs which many, in the short term, will be able to do absolutely nothing about. It is a tax on industry and on growth.

On top of this, the government plans to recycle the moneys collected by compensating low-income earners for the major increase in electricity costs. A huge bureaucracy will be administered to churn millions of dollars back through the economy, with the government picking winners as to who is to be compensated or not. This is not a very attractive proposition.

The truth of the matter is that, with higher electricity and transportation costs driving up the cost of employment, goods and services, emissions will merely be transported overseas to cheaper locations, making no net difference to the global emissions output. This all comes at a time when no-one, certainly not the coalition or the Rudd government, knows what the global consensus will be at the end of this year in Copenhagen, when world leaders will meet to discuss a united way forward. As many speakers have noted, we heard the UN chief scientist, Yvo de Boer, just last week admitting that Australia does not need an emissions trading scheme before the meeting in Copenhagen and that what matters is countries coming to the table with targets. Very well. The coalition has already offered full support for the targets that Mr Rudd has proposed to take to Copenhagen, but you certainly do not hear much about that.

The United States’ form of the emissions trading scheme, contained in the Waxman-Markey bill, has been approved by the House of Representatives but is yet to pass the Senate. Clearly, the United States, responsible for over 20 per cent of global carbon emissions, will provide a benchmark for developed world economies as to how they reduce and treat emissions. Why would Australia, responsible for around 1.4 per cent of global emissions, lock in place a scheme risking our jobs and our economy before knowing how the US is going to do it?

Whilst we cannot know what the United States or other developed nations will have as a final position on carbon emissions, we do know the disastrous impact the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, as it stands and as we are being asked to judge it today, will have on Australian jobs. Now is not the time to be introducing legislation that will undoubtedly kill Australian jobs, such as is contemplated in this bill. Fighting off the effects of the global financial crisis, governments across the globe have desperately implemented stimulus packages to support jobs, yet we have seen that, even in Australia, where the downturn has been less sharp than expected, unemployment is still forecast to trend upwards.

In case there is any doubt, there have been clear and unequivocal warnings from industry as to the likely impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on existing and future jobs. A $4 billion investment to extend an aluminium smelter in the Hunter Valley will be shelved, a move that will see 15,000 construction jobs and 3,000 permanent jobs gone. These are not just make-work jobs, like those that we have seen in the stimulus packages that have been introduced by the Rudd government; these are real jobs. Rio Tinto has warned that the CPRS will cost jobs now, as has the Minerals Council, which warned that over 66,000 jobs will go. Xstrata has said that up to 10,000 jobs across Australia will go. BlueScope Steel and OneSteel have said that 12,000 jobs will be under threat. Ford Australia believes the ETS will drive Australian jobs overseas. That should be of some concern to Senator Carr, sitting here in the chamber.

Even industries working towards a cleaner environment will be punished under a poorly thought out and sloppy scheme, showing just how poorly planned the design of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme really is. Clean energy projects such as ZeroGen and Envirogen predict that up to a thousand jobs could go, should future investment be cancelled. Visy, the recycling company that employs thousands of people in regional areas, has warned that this legislation will disadvantage its business because—can I say rhetorically—guess what? Recycling is not recognised under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Visy’s own renewable steam energy is not counted under the CPRS emission offsets. It really beggars belief.

Research prepared for the state and territory governments showed that 126,000 full-time jobs will be lost or put at risk throughout Australia under the government’s rushed and bungled scheme. There will be 45,000 jobs lost in my home state of New South Wales alone, which brings me to the concerns for regional Australia. The CPRS would largely ignore the adverse impact on regional and rural Australia. We used to be concerned about having two Australias—a disadvantaged regional Australia and other people living in very different circumstances in metropolitan areas. Research commissioned by the New South Wales government found that regional areas such as Gippsland, Geelong, central west Queensland, the Hunter Valley—which I have already mentioned—central Western Australia, the Kimberley and Whyalla would shrink by over 20 per cent under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. An average dairy farm would face new and annual indirect costs to the tune of $9,000 with absolutely no way to offset the cost. The beef and sugar industries would be hit. The grains industry, a low emitter anyway, would face annual indirect costs of up to half a billion dollars. Under the CPRS, agriculture would be ignored by the Rudd government, even as a source of abatement—of which there are many. In comparison, the US legislation explicitly excludes agriculture from the cap. It also explicitly includes the industry in the opportunities to develop carbon offsets and to use this as a revenue stream for farmers.

You can go on and on about the problems with the scheme. Obviously the coalition believes the Rudd government have gone the wrong way in the way they have designed the scheme. The Rudd government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme does nothing for the environment and everything, it would seem, to destroy jobs. But, when we boil it all down and look at how the debate has moved on over the past few days, what is most disappointing about the government’s approach to their CPRS is the high-handed and arrogant way in which they have refused to consider any alternatives or to even sit down with the coalition to discuss how to make the scheme more efficient and workable.

Just last month the coalition released nine principles that we believe must underpin and inform a considered approach to dealing with any carbon scheme. Without canvassing all of them, at the heart of the opposition’s principles is a united position to protect Australian jobs and industry. Critically, we contend that there must be no less protection for jobs, small business and industry from an Australian scheme than from the one that is finally agreed to in the United States Waxman-Markey bill. In addition, we agree that an Australian scheme should not encourage carbon and production leakage, exporting emissions and jobs. Emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries need to compete on a level playing field with the United States and other advanced economies. As well, agricultural emissions should be excluded and agricultural offsets from biosequestration should be included in the scheme. The Rudd government has complained that these principles are not amendments. How petty is that, when it would be perfectly sensible to discuss these concerns as a precursor to developing complex technical amendments?

There needs to be a discussion to thrash out basic positions to go forward, but this Labor government is not genuinely interested in going forward; it is hell-bent on forcing this flawed scheme to a vote. We have watched the Rudd government in action for almost two years now, and we know that this is a government that is all about seizing a political advantage and not, sadly, about safeguarding the broader national interest. You need only look at its treatment of the renewable energy targets. The coalition supports the renewable energy targets, but the government has chosen to play cynical politics by incorporating them into the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 in a vain attempt to wedge the opposition into passing this deficient legislation. This political opportunism was evident on Monday, when Frontier Economics published the economic modelling on the Rudd government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Mr Combet, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, voiced his shrill opposition even as it was being released, and, rather than considering the many findings and recommendations that the research offered, Senator Wong was out calling the document a ‘mongrel’ by lunchtime.

The Frontier Economics report shows that the Rudd government’s CPRS will unnecessarily drive up electricity prices, destroy jobs and expand the size of government in Australia. Under the Frontier approach, output, real wages, employment and investment would all be higher in a cleaner, greener, smarter scheme. There may be arguments about the detail, but, should the Rudd government sit down and talk to the coalition and crossbench senators, Australia could work toward an emissions trading scheme that would potentially be twice as green at a much lower cost to Australians and the broader economy. In fact, the economic costs of the scheme could be reduced by $49 billion over the next 20 years, from $121 billion to $72 billion.

The Frontier approach offers far more bang for one’s buck, and I believe the government should be condemned for failing to even give it the time of day and for continuing to maintain this rhetoric about wanting to see specific amendments. The coalition’s principles and the Frontier Economics findings do warrant discussion and action. To propose that an Australian emissions trading scheme should offer no less protection for jobs, small business and industry than its American counterpart is a totally legitimate proposition when the Rudd government itself has repeatedly said that there is no Australian solution and that there must be a global solution.

As it stands, the Rudd government must understand that the CPRS is currently friendless legislation. So far as I understand it, the Greens are not happy with it; the independent senators, Senator Fielding and Senator Xenophon, are not happy with it; the National Party is not happy with it; the Liberals are not happy with it; Australian business has grave reservations; and the Australian public, I believe, is confused about the impact that this flawed scheme will have on the economy and on their livelihoods. But instead of listening to concerns and heeding the warnings from the numerous groups and individuals who have spoken out against the scheme and its design, the Labor Party arrogantly parades on.

The Rudd government took the advice of the opposition and pushed the emissions trading scheme start date back to 2011. Mr Rudd and Senator Wong should be utilising this valuable extra time to ensure that Australia is in line with global action, to work with the opposition and to ensure that Australia has a quality and workable scheme. That is certainly the motivation and the intention of the coalition in not voting for the scheme the way it stands and the way we are being asked to look at it in the Senate today.

The Rudd Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme as it stands is not balanced. It offers virtually no benefit to the environment. Indeed, it is a futile piece of legislation because it is not going to have the benefits contended for it. It threatens productivity, Australian competitiveness and Australian jobs. It is our responsibility as a coalition not to vote in favour of such a flawed set of bills.

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

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 represents for Australia the most significant economic upheaval in generations. The impact is by far more significant than any of the deregulating reforms of the Keating government and has more domestic impact than the GST reform of the Howard government. Indeed, this Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and its administrative, reporting and government revenue provisions completely dwarf—in fact, render diminutive—the costs and impacts of the GST and its implementation.

The government has, in pursuit of its climate change nirvana, set up a federal department, namely the Department of Climate Change. This department has cost Australians $2 billion. This department has no justification whatsoever without a world-class, credible and economically sensible cap-and-trade greenhouse gas reduction plan. The whole of the department is built upon the legislation that is currently before the Senate.

In furtherance of these objectives, the government has undertaken a green paper and a white paper and has retained the services of Professor Ross Garnaut, all at some considerable expense to Australians as taxpayers. The responsibility for this complex and very opaque legislation rests upon the shoulders of one person. The responsibility for the department rests upon the shoulders of this one person. That person, of course, is the minister, Senator Wong. Senator Wong also has national responsibility for water. Given the importance of this legislation—I pause to say that it is, as I have indicated, probably the most important legislation that will be before this parliament for this generation—and the value of the government and the taxpayer’s commitment to this plan, one would be entitled to expect that the responsible minister would engage stakeholders in a reasonable, courteous and engaging way, seeking to take those very stakeholders with her on this nationally very important journey.

The exact opposite has occurred. The minister has successfully established herself as the most dismissively arrogant of all ministers, not just in this government but in all state and federal governments. This is quite an amazing achievement and conforms precisely with her performance in the water portfolio. The minister has taken to new heights the alienation of industry, particularly the energy generation industry, the coal mining industry, the aluminium industry, the cement industry, the oil and gas industry and the agricultural industry. This is quite a crowning achievement for this minister.

The minister set about the task of initially disdainfully dismissing calls for a delay in the start date, branding those calling for a delay as sceptics and climate change deniers. She was wrong, and the start date for this legislation had to be put back, as we all have seen. She started out stating that the government would follow Professor Garnaut’s recommendations. She was wrong, and he has transformed to simply being one of a number of inputs. She started out saying there would be a 25 per cent 2020 target. She got it wrong again. Anyone with a concisely put, factual, contrary position is instantly dismissed as some form of heretic by this minister and as someone who is simply playing politics. We see this response, of course, daily at question time.

Broadly speaking it is crystal clear that this minister is not on top of this, the most important of briefs. That is not just my opinion; it is obviously the opinion of the Prime Minister. Why else would he have seconded Minister Combet, then just a mere parliamentary secretary, to hold her hand and provide a civil and courteous face to the implementation of this plan? The minister imparts no confidence in her capacity to deliver what is needed to achieve an effective legislative framework. Here we are today with a most important piece of legislation and she has not a friend in the world. The Greens are opposed to it, the crossbenchers are opposed to it and the opposition is opposed to it. The responsibility for that denial and the ultimate failure that this legislation will meet here and now is entirely due to one person, the minister. She has arrogantly thumbed her nose at everybody and taken nobody with her.

Keith Orchison a former chief executive of the Electricity Supply Association said:

It is the government—and especially Wong and her department—that, in the words of stakeholders trying to offer input, has been intransigent and arrogant, notably deaf to attempts to point out some of the biggest problem areas.

May I, Madam Deputy President, say this again: she has been intransient and arrogant, notably deaf to attempts to point out some of the biggest problem areas. Even ALP wordsmith Bob Ellis has said of the minister that she is ‘an Orwellian figure of comprehensive secrecy’. She has said to the National Press Club:

The Liberal Party can do this the easy way, or the hard way.

The only thing missing is the baseball bat accompanying that expression. This is not the politics, the ethics or the decorum of a minister entrusted with such an important responsibility. She has failed her party, the government and the parliament. That this important piece of legislation is the hotchpotch it is with not a feather to fly with and not a friend in the world is her responsibility, and she stands condemned for the failure that is about to befall that piece of important legislation. The minister is truly the only person playing politics with this legislation in this parliament, in this chamber.

The coupling of the RET with this legislation is just another example of this minister’s fixation on the politics instead of the national interest. The failure of this legislation is at her feet and she needs to go to her Prime Minister and apologise for its demise. And what of the minister’s scheme? The New South Wales Labor Treasurer Eric Roozendaal has written to the federal Treasurer setting out his ‘important concerns’ as to the minister’s legislative plan for the proposed emissions trading scheme in driving away investors in the electricity generation industry, damaging the value of coal-fired assets and posing significant regulatory risks. I pause to point out that the states have exclusive jurisdiction over the generation of electricity in our country and are in a position to know about investment and regulatory risks. Indeed, the New South Wales government has used the services, I pause to acknowledge, of Frontier Economics to assess the pain of Minister Wong’s scheme.

So it is that Premier Bligh has registered her concern as to the ongoing competitiveness of the Queensland coal industry. So it is that Mr Brad Page of the Electricity Supply Association says that the $3.5 billion in free permits is inadequate in the face of government modelling showing asset value losses of at least $10 billion. Of course the obvious follows, as Mr Page notes in the Australian:

What happens is that you inject enormous sovereign risk and undermine the confidence of debt and equity providers—the very people you want to invest in the low emissions future.

The minister has achieved the precise opposite of the objectives of this legislation. It is truly an amazing feat. Even Treasury officials have said that its modelling ‘doesn’t capture all the transitional elements’. What this classic piece of Canberra-speak really means is that Treasury does not know how many jobs will be lost as victims of this, the minister’s scheme. It should be noted that the livelihoods of Australians are reduced in the ice-cold reference of these Treasury bureaucrats to ‘transitional elements’. What a disgrace.

This government and particularly this minister simply take no prisoners. So what of the mining industry—the industry upon which all of this Canberra bureaucratic Disneyland is built and, more importantly, paid for? It is the mining industry of Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia that pays for this nirvana here in Canberra. Mitch Hooke, the Chief Executive of the Minerals Council has said that this scheme will shed 23,510 jobs in the minerals sector by 2020—mostly in my home state of Western Australia and in the state of Queensland—and more than 66,000 jobs by 2030. He said back in March:

We would much prefer that you adopt the same kind of approach that every other country in the world is adopting, that are introducing emissions trading scheme and that is a phased approach to full auctioning. That way you avoid the unseemly scramble over who’s in and who’s out and who’s carved out and who has and who hasn’t.

Ralph Hillman from the Australian Coal Association said:

Yes, people were very frank and saying the sort of things that I’m saying to you now, that the introduction of an emissions trading scheme posed major issues for the competitiveness of many Australian industries.

Woodside CEO Don Voelte said of the minister’s scheme:

It puts in jeopardy the industry’s LNG plans in Australia, depending again, let me say ... how the final outcome of this legislation comes out.

I pause to say that he was quite optimistic about some changes—a forlorn hope.

I want to quickly add that Woodside is all for an emissions trading system, but it has to be very carefully implemented to not make us uncompetitive, ’cause Australia’s going alone.

Frank Jotzo, an economist with the ANU, said:

And in a world that efficiently reduce carbon all over the world, you would actually see aluminium smelting going to those locations where you can use hydro electricity or perhaps gas right. You wouldn’t see aluminium smelting remaining in locations where it relies on coal.

The coal industry is our biggest export. To reduce the people working in the coal industry and their livelihoods and jobs to, in the words of Treasury officials, ‘transitional elements’ is, as I have said—and I repeat—a disgrace. The work, the employment, the livelihood, the bread and butter on the tables of these people should never, ever be reduced to the expression ‘transitional elements’. These are jobs; these are people. The minister has ignored all of that.

Ralph Hillman of the Australian Coal Association says:

Eighty per cent of Australia’s black coal is exported and we are competing with countries that are unlikely to take on targets for the next say 15 years. Our competitors are South Africa, Indonesia, Mongolia, Mozambique, Columbia, a range of countries like that that are not going to be taking on targets.

So we will be taking on a cost impost to the coal industry not borne by our competitors. That means that we become a less attractive place to mine coal and that means fewer jobs in coal mining in Australia.

Mitch Hooke, as I said, the CEO of the Minerals Council, says:

The big risk will be carbon leakage, in other words we will encourage investment offshore or activities business offshore to regions or countries where they don’t have the disciplines that we’re trying to invoke here in Australia and that we’re trying to get the rest of the world to follow our lead.

So here we have it: a government hell-bent on pushing ahead, hell-bent on proceeding with a scheme that does not have a friend in the world. Why would the minister not sit down with people who have taken the time and trouble to look at what is important and to look at the mitigation of the effects—to try to preserve the employment in this industry yet move to a cleaner, greener, cheaper outcome? Why would the minister simply say, within minutes of seeing the opposition’s proposal, ‘It’s a mongrel.’? The reason is that it fits perfectly with her conduct to that point: disdainfully rejecting every informed input, every complaint, in the most high-handed and arrogant of ways. I repeat: this very, very important piece of legislation, this important reform for Australia, will fail and the responsibility for that failure lies entirely with this minister, who herself has failed. She has failed her party, the government and this parliament in the way she has handled and brought forward this legislation.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rarely in the parliament are we confronted as elected representatives by issues of such huge moment as contained in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills. Mostly, the matters which routinely come before us for consideration and approval are mechanical by nature. Alternatively, they deal with refinements to existing legislative regimes. They are important in a domestic sense for the operation of government on a relatively apolitical agenda—mostly—effecting changes to policies and programs in a short-term sense. They are not what anyone would call momentous in their long-term implications. Nor are they global in their implications. Nor are they derived from millennia of change upon the planet, affecting the future so dramatically. Yet of course we debate them energetically, often depending on the extent to which political advantage is perceived or seen—sometimes according to a particular philosophical position, whether that be opportunistic, vague or ill considered. Indeed, we are obliged to vote on the relative merits of legislation according to our political positions, which we freely adopt and carry out.

In most cases, the legislation passes through, rarely ever to be repealed in full. When it is repealed, it is always in response to public outcry, as reflected at the ballot box. A recent experience is the opposition’s Work Choices regime. That, of course, represents a healthy democracy at work. The extent to which this process is easy or difficult depends on the degree to which the matter is considered to be of real substance, on the research and evidentiary analysis which precedes it, and on the level of understanding in the community about both its intent and its effect. The poorer this process the greater the controversy. However, as we will see and are seeing in this case, there is no real limit, it seems, to political opportunism of the most venal kind.

So it is with this legislation. There can be no doubt that around the world and in Australia there is a very, very strong perception that the climate we live in is changing, albeit in the very short term of one generation only. Consequently, both major political parties have drawn the link between carbon emissions and the environment. Both have given an undertaking to do something about it by way of using a carbon trading scheme as a brake, not just to slow the growth but to reduce the level of those emissions. Around that there has developed a controversial and mostly healthy debate about causal link and the science behind it, with a whole lot of claims by way of doom and gloom about the consequences either way. We are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

I think it is worthwhile trying to put this debate into some form of context. I do not pretend to be able to resolve the conflict concerning the science around the link between alleged global warming and carbon emissions. With issues such as this, there are still many questions to be answered, including some that have not yet been asked. This legislation, as I said, is global in its implications. It is derived from a millennium of change upon the planet. It is not derived from any short-term policy surrounded by domestic political politics or vested interests. People naturally evidenced the extended drought, violent storms and the disruption of agricultural production. It is affecting rural economies and food production.

We all know that the environment of planet Earth has been suffering in many ways now for probably a thousand or thousands of years. Let me cite some of the more well known and graphic examples. The spread of deserts in Africa and the Middle East has continued unabated for thousands of years—in fact, it is now accelerating. Potable water is becoming more difficult to secure, threatening the human species and all other living organisms. Many rivers have ceased running and many others have become so polluted as to be hazardous to human life. Forests are being removed at an alarming rate, reducing biodiversity and causing extensive salination problems, not just by direct human activity but by the pollution of acid rain. Ocean resources have been depleted by overexploitation and by land based pollution. Large areas of land have been lost to food production due to poor management practices over many centuries and through simple and continuing overexploitation. There has been the disappearance of countless species of animal and plant life and the increased risk to human life of toxic waste in soil, water and the atmosphere. This, of course, is not an exhaustive list, but its cumulative effect is now quite clear to all those who want to see it; although I perceive the debate, apart from the subject of climate change, has lost much of its intensity in Australia.

But that is not to say that those massive problems I identified are not being addressed. In the developed world, they have been attended to with remedial action, often with outstanding success. In the three key areas of water, air and soil quality, much has been done, including in Australia. Air pollution, for example—which has a continuing focus in this legislation—has been a problem since the industrial revolution. Relatively speaking, however, in some Western economies it has been ameliorated by regulatory means. Water quality, not quantity, has also been addressed. We are all aware of the return of marine life to many rivers and harbours around the world. The Thames in England and Sydney Harbour are very obvious examples.

In Australia we pride ourselves on the dramatic improvement in land-use management, particularly by our farmers. Most interestingly, these land-use changes have come about through education. Unless we sustain our soil, production will decline. To that extent, programs such as Landcare are invaluable and deserve significantly more support. We need to realise that the future of productive capacity of the environment and the future health of our society are dependent upon the increasing care of each of these three basic elements: air, water and soil. This is very important in the context in which I speak because too often in debates such as this we lose sight of the real issues. We become blinded by vested interests and short-term impacts which, indeed, are threatening for some. We understand that, as with many other reforms of the past, there will be some painful adjustments as we go through the process.

If we accept that reform is necessary—and there is at least some consensus on that—the real question becomes: how should that reform be managed? Perhaps the best example of such reform has been the control of the production, distribution and disposal of hazardous chemicals. For many the prime concern, as I recall it, was the growing hole in the ozone layer and the implications then of global warming. I mention this example specifically because amongst those chemicals are greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are targeted by this legislation as carbon equivalents, remembering that, while they only form one per cent of the carbon emission equation, their effect on the atmosphere is said to be 1,000-fold.

But, as we have seen, regulation to date has been patchy and ad hoc. We are all familiar with the changes made to refrigeration gases and the disposal of used products containing heavy metals, chlorofluorocarbons and polyvinyl chloride, otherwise known as PVC. We are getting better with our practice of disposal of batteries, computers and mobile phones. We have long banned chemicals such as DDT and restricted others which have terrible effects on mankind, like 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, not to mention, of course, nuclear waste. This regulation is now part of our daily life and we accept the need for it.