Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Senator Carr) to a question without notice asked by Senator Troeth today, relating to a carbon price.

Senator Carr is on record—I believe in today’s press—as saying that the debate on industries and climate change should be based on facts not on fear. He also mentioned in today’s answer that it is a fallacy to believe that Australia is ahead of the rest of the world in releasing greenhouse gases. I point out to him that particularly since 1990 the cement industry in Australia has achieved a 23 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions through, firstly, investments in best technology, secondly, the use of alternative fuels and raw materials and, thirdly, the use of supplementary materials. Yet there is a genuine fear on the part of the nine plants which are operating mostly in regional Australia, with an annual turnover of $2.14-plus billion, that they will be shutting down as a result of the government’s carbon tax policy and that we will have to import cement.

If Senator Carr and the government have been so good at explaining the carbon tax and reassuring these industries that they have a bright future, why are they so afraid? If we import cement from Asian countries such as Japan, China, Thailand, Taiwan, Philippines and Indonesia the likely result will be higher emissions than if we continue to use Australian produced cement. In the first place, Australia, as I have said, is an efficient producer of cement, emitting fewer tonnes than average of CO2 per tonne of cement. Secondly, as I would have thought any reasonable person would agree, importing cement will result in emissions from shipping.

A cement plant, by nature, is highly emissions intensive. When you consider that cement is manufactured by heating a precise mixture of limestone, clay and sand, which results in the production of cement clinker, which emerges from the kiln, is cooled and then finely ground to produce cement, of course this process results in emissions. Why do we want to import cement when we can produce it here with fewer emissions than imported cement causes and also, most importantly, produce it with a largely regional labour force in regional Australia, a long way from our capital cities? Regional Australia depends on that labour force to remain economically active. As I said, the job losses will occur from existing plants in regional areas.

I have been to the cement plant in Waurn Ponds in Victoria and they genuinely fear job losses as a result of this legislation. They also operate in Western Australia at Kwinana, at Angaston and Birkenhead in South Australia, at Railton in Tasmania, at Kandos, Maldon and Berrima in New South Wales and at Rockhampton and Gladstone in Queensland. We want a viable, efficient industry in this country of ours. We certainly do not want any proposed tax which will stop our highly emission efficient domestic industries maintaining their full production. It would be a very poor environment policy if global greenhouse gas emissions went up by importing more cement into Australia at the expense of the Australian cement industry.

If a carbon pricing mechanism is to deliver any kind of certainty, other than certain death, it must deal with leakage, provide a long-term price signal and provide support for technological development. Nothing that I have heard of the government’s proposed carbon tax is going to fulfil any of these requirements. If Senator Carr wants facts, what I provided in the questions I asked today and the information in this speech are facts; what the government is spreading is fear.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a fascinating debate when the proposition put forward in the motion to take note by those opposite only tells a fraction of the story and tells that fraction inaccurately. We have just heard from Senator Troeth that there is no word about innovation, investment in renewable energy and the sorts of technological innovation that we need to take this country forward. In fact, all of those policies are in place. Those policies are implemented through a range of investments, including the restoration of the research and development investments through our public universities and our research and development system of innovation in Australia.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boyce interjecting—

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has gone backwards. I recall coming into this place in 1996 and one of the very early speeches I gave was reviewing the then Howard government’s absolutely massive cutbacks to both the higher education system in this country and the research and development budgets. It was only through the re-election of a Labor government that the integrity of that public investment in our public universities’ research and development was finally restored, and this was through a period of economic growth under the Howard government which we know was completely and utterly squandered. We did not invest in our future. We did not invest in the kinds of jobs that our future will be built on.

We find ourselves in 2011 arguing the basics of a carbon trading scheme that was established as bipartisan policy a long time ago and only abandoned by the coalition, by the opposition, when it was politically expedient for them to do so. The betrayal by the opposition of the Australian public as a result of their walking away from a then bipartisan commitment to an emissions trading scheme for Australia was one of the greatest abrogations of their public responsibility as a major political party in this country.

We now find ourselves in the midst of a climate debate again reasserting, as is the responsible thing for a government to do, the strong science that underpins the argument for a price on carbon, yet we are dealing with such a base opposition that they are even contending the science. These issues were resolved a long time ago and the science continues to come in. I noted with great interest today that Senator Wong shared with you some of the scientific facts about climate change in the chamber. I think it is important to remind those opposite that it is one thing to just sit there and say mistruths again and again about the science; it is another thing to be confronted with the facts on a daily basis, which we will continue to do.

We find ourselves today having a debate about a price on carbon and whether or not that is somehow creating fear amongst business. I can tell you that, apart from a number of notable contributors to this debate, business needs a price on carbon. They need it for business certainty. They need it to be confident that the Australian economy is going to be prepared for the future. If we are going to be serious about ensuring that our economy can compete, we need to put a price on carbon. The government has again done the responsible thing within the circumstances. We have put a price on carbon that is a price on pollution for Australia. It is an appropriate first step; the polluters must pay. Call it a carbon tax if you like but the polluters will pay it. The proposal by the opposition is to make householders pay through their so-called direct action plan. Those are the alternatives confronting the Australian public at the moment. We are a government that is taking a sensible first step to a market based trading scheme for carbon and, in the first instance, placing a price on carbon for which the details will be resolved as we go forward.

Senator Troeth stood up here and talked about fear among business and then gave a speech promoting fear. It was unfounded in facts and uninformed by the actual policy that we have put forward, and it ignored the opportunity that we have put out there to allow business to provide feedback and interact with this government on the details of the policy. This is the most responsible way to go to allow that kind of input. Again, Labor has put in place a policy that makes polluters pay and we will provide for those householders and for industries affected by that in the first instance. (Time expired)

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a load of rubbish we are hearing from this government when it comes to the impact of a carbon tax on the people of Australia. They seem to be living in what I can only call a fairyland of unreality when it comes to the impact that this is going to have on people. What have we seen today? We have seen Minister Wong making the outrageous statement that there are no contrary views to the science. What a load of utter rubbish. We have just had Senator Lundy saying the science is resolved. This is absolute rubbish.

Let me take you just for a moment to some of those scientists and professors who do have the contrary view that Senator Wong is denying. There is your denier; she is denying that there is even another view. Whether or not she accepts it is entirely up to her but she should admit that there is another view. Let us have a look at Professor John Christy, who is the lead atmospheric scientist of the IPCC. We have got Professor Roy Spencer, Professor Bob Carter and Professor Ian Plimer, just to name a few who have a different view. We were not asking Senator Wong whether she agreed with them; we were asking her to say whether or not she recognised they even exist and she said no. That is how far this government have their heads buried in the sand over this whole issue.

Let me share with you what Professor John Christy actually said in his statement. He concluded:

… this pervasive result from climate models has not been detected in the real atmosphere.

What a surprise when we have got colleagues on the other side of this place from the government telling us that there is no other view and that the science is settled. All we were saying was that the government should recognise that there are scientists with an alternative view. The minister, Senator Wong, chose to say, ‘No, there is no contrary view.’ Senator Lundy is here saying, ‘No, the science is settled.’ It is absolute rubbish—I would use a stronger word but I am in the chamber amongst very good company. The minister, Senator Wong, should say right now that there is an alternative view, because she is misleading the Australian people. If she truly does not believe that there is another scientific view, there is your denier, right over there across the chamber in the government.

What other extraordinary things did she say today? We had a carbon tax rally out the front of this building today from people who were so concerned about what the impact of this carbon tax is going to be. There were over 3,000 people out there on the lawns of Parliament House and I note that the Prime Minister did not even bother to turn up. According to the minister, Senator Penny Wong, they are not a real audience—‘that other audience’ I think was the phrase she used. Those people who were out there on the front lawn are mothers, fathers, daughters, children and grandmothers. There was a 91-year-old lady there, and I do hope she is feeling all right because the day was a little hot and a little too much for her. We have got a 91-year-old woman prepared to go out there and stand up for those people who are saying there should be no carbon tax. That is a real person; that is not ‘the other audience’ that we were with out there, as the minister contends.

If that is what she seriously thinks about mainstream people in Australia, if that is what she seriously thinks about those working families who took time out to travel from right across this country to come to this place and give the Prime Minister their view, that is appalling. It just shows the arrogance not only of the minister, Penny Wong, but of this entire government. They will not recognise the impact this is having on the Australian people and the Australian people are saying no. What the government is putting forward is not going to make the slightest bit of difference to the climate. All of this pain—the taxes, the costs and the hikes that are going onto the Australian people—and the major emitters around the rest of the world are doing absolutely nothing. It is not going to make that slightest bit of difference to the climate.

Senator Feeney—and I must repeat this because unfortunately the President did not hear it at the time—today referred to those at the rally as somehow part of the Ku Klux Klan. That is appalling and he should have withdrawn it off his own bat. This government needs to take a long hard look at itself. The Australian people are saying no to a carbon tax and it is about time the government realised it.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is all right to get hot-headed, bang the desk and carry on about it all, but that does not actually—

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nash interjecting—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is exactly right, Senator Nash. I saw other senators yesterday doing the same sort of thing and then throughout question time I saw the same sort of thing. The dramatics of the situation from your side do not change the fact that we need to have a carbon price. It is the right thing to do for the economy. As has been mentioned on numerous occasions, a fixed priced for the first three to five years will help to provide certainty with carbon pricing.

Senator Wong spoke about facts earlier today and I interjected—but, unfortunately, it was not heard—but it is the facts versus the fiction. The fiction comes from those on the other side. Our side has evidence based science to back up our arguments; all your side has is dramatic technique, which you think might help win the day. I do not know what school the other side sends their senators to for dramatic technique but, really, it is overkill.

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

It’s Playschool.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it is Playschool. I will take that interjection, Senator McEwen, it probably is Playschool. To be honest, I do not think it adds any value to your argument to get up and be dramatic all the time and oppose everything, as you have been doing for months on end. Senator Nash was saying that we have talked a lot of rubbish. Well, let me tell you that the rubbish is not coming from this side of the chamber; the rubbish is coming from the other side of the chamber. You cannot validate your arguments. You have a leader who wants to tax households. We want to tax the polluters. Your leader has stated that he wants to increase the tax on everything and he wants to tax households. Not only that, he is completely out of step with members of his own side, and in referring to that I am talking about the member for Wentworth.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re a fantasist.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am not a fantasist.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are a fantasist.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not. The fantasist side is your side. You tried to recreate history on a number of occasions; you tried to rewrite history on a number of occasions. You almost live in an alternative world, a second life world where the opposition people belong.

Senator Troeth mentioned the issue of internationalism in regard to carbon pricing. Scores of countries have already started the transformation to a low-pollution economy, so for Senator Troeth to stand up and speak as she did earlier is misleading. There are 32 countries and 10 US states that already have emissions trading schemes in operation. Others, including China, Taiwan, Chile and South Korea and a number of Canadian provinces, are either considering developing their own or already have trial emissions trading schemes in place. Carbon taxation is in place in the UK, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. It is also in Canada, China and India. So, for those on the other side to stand up and purport that it is not an international issue, or that Australia is going it alone, is completely untrue. It is misleading the public and that is inappropriate.

The opposition exaggerate on a number of issues. One was the exaggeration on the number of people that were allegedly on the front lawns today. My sources told me that there was nowhere near the number as purported by the other side. We know they are climate change deniers and we know that they base their arguments on fear and on trying to scare the Australian people. When the Australian people understand what the direct action plan from those on the other side is, they will not think that is appropriate either. But it is appropriate to get the big polluters to pay. That is the appropriate way to go. In regard to jobs and manufacturing it is the right thing to do for the economy. As I said earlier, when we have a fixed price, it will give some certainty to businesses to be able to determine what they do.

The other thing I must mention, of course, is the Leader of the Opposition’s many views. As the last count I did he had eight— (Time expired)

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would have preferred to take note of the excellent question and speech by Senator Troeth today than to have to take note of the answers, or nonanswers, to the questions that we received on the topic of carbon tax and carbon pricing. I am bemused by the fact that this government and Minister Carr would try to suggest that facts should somehow get in the way of the carbon tax debate, as though they have never engaged in deception. We have Senator Bilyk claiming that there is no other way. She claimed the road ahead must lead directly to a carbon tax to save the economy. She said it is a carbon tax that will save the economy.

Let us look at the deception piled on deception that this government is currently indulging in. It was only the day before the last election that the Prime Minister said that there would be no carbon tax, and that a carbon tax would never be imposed on the frail Australian economy by a Gillard government. That was the day before the election. That is deception No. 1. Now we are told that there will be a carbon tax. In fact we are told that there must be a carbon tax, and that this government is the sole custodian of truth on the topic of carbon tax.

You then say: ‘No-one is debating with us. No-one is working on the detail.’ What detail? There is no detail. They have never set out any detail. There is no pricing out there at all in the current situation. How can we argue about what this is going to do to the Australian economy without pricing? We can certainly say that the deception by Senator Wong and others that only the big polluters will pay it is just that: an outright deception. Unfortunately, I think it is based on their complete lack of experience and knowledge of how manufacturing and business in Australia work. I do not think they deliberately set out to be dishonest on this particular point, although that is what their rhetoric achieves in the end. You cannot claim that only the big polluters will pay.

Perhaps we could look at why there are emission-intensive companies and operations in Australia. Why are they there? They provide products absolutely vital to our economy. Senator Troeth mentioned the cement industry. I would like senators to think for a moment about what it is in Australia that can be constructed without the use of cement. The answer is nothing. If we import all that, what will happen is that emissions will rise by at least 15 per cent because every one of the competitors to our current producers is at least 10 to 15 per cent higher in their emissions production than those of our current manufacturers.

Let us look at other areas where there is indeed fear. Irrespective of what Senator Carr says, there is fear within the steel manufacturing industry, within the coal industry and within the mining industry. There is fear everywhere. Yes, these companies are a high polluters. They are (a) less polluting than their international competition and (b) they are providing what are absolutely vital and essential inputs for every business in Australia. It is not just big polluters who will pay; it is everyone. It is every business, it is everybody who ever builds anything, it is everybody who ever uses any product made using a polymer—and the list goes on and on. It is Australia that will pay, and to pay in a situation where we do not have the capacity to match our international competitors is folly; it is complete folly and deception.

Question agreed to.