Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Climate Change and Water (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senators Cash and Colbeck today relating to the emissions trading scheme and to water management of the Clyde River, Tasmania.

Only a short time ago I came to this place and asked what additional evidence the government requires before it will take responsibility and acknowledge that its proposed ETS is not only seriously flawed but, if the government does not listen to the concerns of industry and does not take into account the current global financial crisis, it will have a severe impact on all Australians. I implored those on the other side of the chamber not to put at risk thousands of Australian jobs and billions of dollars of capital investment in the resources sector and the energy sector because of their reckless approach to implementing an ETS. Australia and Australians deserve better.

And what do we have today? We finally have members of the government who have seen the light and confirmed that the coalition’s long-held position of responsible action when addressing climate change is actually correct. The penny is finally dropping for everyone on the Labor side except Minister Wong. I was pleased to read today in the Sydney Morning Herald that there are members on the government side who have adopted the coalition’s stance: that we need to take responsible and economically conservative action on climate change.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! There is too much audible noise and discussion in the chamber.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am about to name those senators. In fact, I am going to quote from the Sydney Morning Herald, because it is a delightful quote that needs to be placed on the record:

The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has told his backbenchers to hold their nerve over Labor’s emissions trading scheme amid internal concerns about its impact on jobs and intense lobbying by interest groups.

…            …            …

NSW Senator Steve Hutchins warned of the impact on jobs should Australia proceed unilaterally with an emissions trading scheme during an economic downturn.

…            …            …

Senator Glenn Sterle, from Western Australia, spoke up—

finally—

for the liquefied natural gas industry, which is complaining it will lose billions in investments because it does not qualify for the compensation that will be given to the heavy-polluting industries.

I and others on this side of the chamber have long warned in this place that rushing towards a 2010 deadline to implement an emissions trading scheme would see unpredictable damage to Australian industry and Australian jobs. The coalition has a proven track record on the economy. We know that, without a doubt, climate change is best tackled from a position of economic strength. Under Labor, however, companies in Australia are to be put at a competitive disadvantage because we have a government which adopts a ‘go it alone’ approach. I say it again: common sense dictates that being in a position of economic strength is the best way to deal with climate change.

It may be news to those opposite, but take this from a real economic conservative: extra regulation, taxation and competitive disadvantage are not going to engender a position of economic strength in this country, especially in these financially difficult times. To this end, an effective ETS must be designed to protect our export and import industries until the rest of the world has signed up to a course of action on climate change. A hasty decision on this matter will damage the very industries that have supported the robust economic times we have previously enjoyed in this country.

Quite simply, an effective ETS should be designed to shield our export and import industries until a level playing field has been established worldwide. And Senator Sterle, a Labor senator from Western Australia, has now acknowledged this. But no—this is obviously too logical or too boring for a spin driven government such as this one. Where is the media story in being sensible and responsible? Spin over substance every time—that is what this government is all about.

The coalition is committed to responsible and effective action on climate change. The ETS proposed by the Prime Minister and Minister Wong has the potential to drive up unemployment and to export emissions overseas. This is not a responsible response to climate change but, oh, it is so typical of policy from the Rudd Labor government. (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak on the opposition’s motion to take note of Minister Wong’s answer to Senator Cash’s question. All I can say is: thank goodness we have daily newspapers delivered around Parliament House these days, because the opposition clearly would not know what questions to ask in question time otherwise. Their strategy is derived from newspaper headlines and articles.

Industry and business organisations such as the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, the Property Council of Australia and the Australian Council of Trade Unions have been mentioned in today’s Financial Review as talking about climate change, as have AMP Capital, BT Financial Group and Colonial First State. There is only one thing that these organisations have in common with the Labor Party and not with the opposition, and that is that they are talking about climate change. The opposition have just come on board recently, if at all.

It is 12 months today since the Rudd Labor government was sworn in, and the opposition have had 15 positions on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in 14 months. Only recently a coalition backbencher let the cat out of the bag and actually confessed that they had to pretend that they cared about climate change for electoral reasons. That is what we have got sitting across from us—pretenders, wanting to get on the program but not really quite committed about whether or not this is action that they should sign up to as a party. That is unlike the Rudd Labor government. We went to the election last year, 12 months ago to this very week, and we committed to reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions at least cost, adapting to the impacts of climate change that we cannot afford and helping to shape a global solution to this global problem.

It is a tough decision to make. It is going to be tough action, but the impact on the economy and the impact on this country would have been greater if somebody had not stepped up to the mark and committed to this as an election promise. That is exactly what we did and it is exactly why we are on this side of the chamber—because people around this country wanted a government that was going to start to tackle the issue of climate change, and that is what we have done.

We have spent 12 months preparing this country for the challenges of the future by tackling climate, by actually engaging in the world arena about where we will go with climate change, by signing up to the Kyoto protocol and by spending many, many months looking at what we will do in terms of our Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. We are committed to ensuring that our greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and are reduced at least cost. We want to ensure that we adapt to the impacts of climate change that we as a country cannot avoid. The opposition turned a blind eye to them, but we have stepped up to the mark and have realised it is something we need to tackle head-on.

We want to be in the tent, on the program, part of the world dialogue helping to shape a global solution. Unlike the opposition, we are not climate change sceptics. We are realists and we want to be there as a major player around the globe—as we have been under the leadership of Minister Wong—making sure we participate in that debate. We want to be part of the solution to this global problem, and that is one of the reasons why the Australian people put us on this side of the chamber—to ensure that we can continue this work.

We have set a target of 60 per cent cuts to emissions on 2000 levels by 2050. We have set a medium-term target by the end of 2008. We are going to expand the renewable energy target to 20 per cent. We are going to drive a clean energy revolution with policies such as establishing a $500 million Renewable Energy Fund, a $150 million Energy Innovation Fund and a $500 million National Clean Coal Initiative. These are all programs that we have committed to in the last 12 months.

As soon as Minister Wong returns from her next round of international discussions and dialogue, our white paper on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will be produced, for each and every person in this country to have a look at and to continue their dialogue about us tackling climate change. Unlike the people opposite, who have come to the show late—they have decided to arrive at interval and get on the program at a very late moment—we are taking definitive steps. (Time expired)

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

Confronted with the realities of life and confronted with the realities of life in government, government backbenchers are back-pedalling at a rate of knots. If they keep going at this rate, in a year’s time they will actually call for Australia to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol. Where is Senator Hutchins? Where is Senator Sterle? Where are they? They should be here explaining the concerns they have as to Australian jobs and the concerns they have about the impact of the government’s proposed emissions trading scheme on the Australian economy.

The reality is this: all Australians want to do the right thing by the environment. We want to do the right thing by the environment. Australians are prepared to pay a price—but how much and for what outcome? These are some of the questions that the government have to answer, but they refuse to answer them. They have presented some Treasury modelling which was nothing more than a snow job. They did not even assess a circumstance where the United States, China and India do not take action at the same rate as Australia is proposing to do. They did not even assess the impact of the global financial crisis. There is not an appropriate framework to cater for the impact on the LNG industry, in particular in Western Australia.

Do you know why Senator Hutchins knows about the flaws in the government’s proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme? Because he is a member of the Senate Select Committee on Fuel and Energy. Along with Senator Bushby and me, he has been listening to the evidence from industry. He has been listening to evidence from the Department of the Treasury and from the Department of Climate Change. Do you know what they said to us when we asked them why they did not model or assess some of the more realistic scenarios in terms of the circumstances that Australia finds itself in and the circumstances under which Australia is proposing to implement the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme? The answer we got from Treasury officials was that the scenarios that were modelled by the Treasury were done at the direction of the government. The government is intent on doing a snow job.

Do not tell me that we on this side are climate change sceptics. We are raising valid concerns. Senator Steve Hutchins, Senator Glenn Sterle and Jennie George have raised some very valid concerns. I urge Jennie George to make a submission to the Senate Select Committee on Fuel and Energy to bring her concerns to the attention of the committee, particularly those in relation to BlueScope Steel’s Port Kembla plant. Just to show that this is not a biased party-political approach to things, I note a comment by Mr Colley, the National Research Director of the Mining and Energy Division of the CFMEU. Do you know him? When we asked him about the Treasury modelling, do you know what he said? ‘None of the scenarios are particularly realistic’—go and check Hansard, as that is on the record. The reality is this: yes, we do want to do the right thing by the environment and, yes, Australians are prepared to pay a price. But it is time that the Australian government came clean and levelled with the Australian people. What is it trying to achieve? What is the outcome that it is trying to achieve in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally? Is what you are doing in Australia going to have a positive or a negative effect in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally? What is the impact of the disastrous consequences, for the LNG industry, of exporting not only jobs but emissions to China, India and Japan? The government should give us some answers. We have not had any answers from the government. It is time that some proper scrutiny was applied to the government.

I am very pleased to see that Senator Sterle and Senator Hutchins are finally raising those concerns inside caucus. This will stop the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, from making absolutely bizarre accusations about nonbelievers and climate change sceptics. There will be a time when the Prime Minister and Senator Wong will be the only ones left on the top of Mount Kosciuszko, giving a sermon on the mount, with nobody left on their side of the argument. Everybody will have realised that there is a serious need for some proper scrutiny. The currently proposed design of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is seriously flawed and, unless we make some corrections and unless we make sure the design is right, its introduction is going to be a very irresponsible course of action. It is not going to be good for the economy and it is not going to be good for the environment.

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

The sceptics just refuse to acknowledge the reality. While we are quoting from newspapers, I did happen to read today in the West AustralianWestern Australia is the state Senator Cash comes from, I believe—an article painting a bleak picture of climate change in action. If you all want to have a look at it, it is on page 13. It says:

War, hunger, poverty and sickness will stalk humanity if the world fails to tackle climate change, a 12-day UN conference on global warming was told yesterday.

A volley of grim warnings opened the marathon talks, which are aimed at drawing up a new worldwide treaty to cut greenhouse gases and help countries exposed to the fury of climate change.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

I am quoting from the West Australian. It goes on:

“Humankind in its activity just reached the limits of the closed system of our planet Earth,” …

The sceptics on the other side do not like the fact that we are consulting. They are in complete denial. They just will not accept the fact that we are undertaking an economically responsible position. It is a hard position, as we heard earlier. Because we do not take the emu approach and bury our heads in the sand and say, ‘It’s all too hard so we’re not going to do it,’ they want to have a little panic. The opposition have had more positions on this than I saw in the last ballet concert I went to. They have had 14 positions in 15 months. I have been to ballet concerts that had fewer positions than that.

The global financial crisis is having a substantial impact here at home. We know that. We cannot deny it. The Rudd government are working towards making the best of that situation. We are working around the clock to make sure that our country is buffered against the full force of the global economic crisis. We are working hard to get the balance right. When you listen to the scaremongering and the irrational concerns of those from the other side, it makes you wonder what they are actually doing here.

The global financial crisis highlights exactly why it is important that we tackle the big economic challenges of the future, which those opposite denied. They refused to do anything in 12 years of government. That is why people voted for change and wanted a change of government. They were fed up with the approach of the then government of living in the fifties and that is exactly what is happening in regard to climate change. They refuse to accept that it is happening. They are still living in the fifties and they do not want to move on. Australians want the government to deal with this issue so that their kids and future generations are not punished because we failed to take any action. I do not want my grandchildren brought up in a society that suffers so much from climate change and from impacts such as drought and extreme weather conditions. Those opposite should not say that it is not happening—that is just being complete sceptics.

Adaptation to the emerging impacts on climate change forms a key pillar of the Rudd government’s comprehensive response to the threat of climate change. We are demonstrating leadership on climate change. The first job we undertook when in government was to ratify the Kyoto protocol. The Prime Minister, ministers and senior officials have worked through key high-level forums to drive multilateral negotiations on a post-2012 agreement. We are reducing the greenhouse gas emissions as much as we can. We are adapting to the impacts of climate change but we cannot avoid those climate change issues. We are helping to shape a global solution to this global problem. It is no good for those opposite to bury their heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

As I said, the global financial crisis is having a substantial impact in Australia but the government will not be diverted from building a low-pollution economy for Australia’s future. Australians want the government to deal with this issue so that future generations are not punished because we did not take any action. (Time expired)

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

I note that the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, has followed the coalition’s approach of waiting to see where the rest of the world is going before deciding targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions. But the question is: why does the government continue to rush the introduction of their own emissions trading scheme without waiting to see the outcome of the meeting of all countries being held in Copenhagen late next year and the detail of what the new United States President, Barack Obama, will want to see implemented?

The coalition has long warned that the government’s rushed 2010 deadline will lead to a flawed model that will damage Australian industry and employment in this country. Likely to greatly influence the impact infrastructure can have in the years ahead is the design and timing of the government’s planned emissions trading scheme. To this end an effective emissions trading scheme must be designed to protect our export and import competing industries until the rest of the world has signed up to a course of action. However, as it stands today, the Rudd government’s preferred design for an emissions trading scheme would effectively impose billions of dollars of additional tax on those Australian import and export competing industries which are high users of energy ahead of any commitment by our major trade competitors to sign up to such a scheme. This surely makes no sense.

The proposal for an emissions trading scheme is a structural change of major proportions. The opposition has met with many companies over the last two months—concrete, zinc, lime, steel, energy, metal works, paper waste, dairy and many more—and all confirm that the government’s determination to heavily tax the emissions of these export and import competing industries, irrespective of what the rest of the world is doing, is a very reckless action indeed.

We must be very careful not to shoot ourselves in the foot by letting industries close and move offshore or by having resource projects that never materialise. Woodside has made the point that if the cost of the ETS is too high there will be no further gas developments by them off the North West Shelf. In all of these cases jobs will head overseas. The Rudd government must defer the politically inspired start date of 2010 until we have some idea of what the rest of the world decides to do late next year in Copenhagen and what the new United States President intends to do.

As well, we must have some feel for the impact of the financial meltdown currently affecting the global economy on Australia’s real economy and the capacity of Australian industry to cope with a new tax. The revelation that the government’s economic modelling takes no account of the global financial meltdown absolutely beggars belief and leaves the exercise dead in the water.

The government also just assumes that the rest of the world will sign up to a global emissions reduction scheme and it did not even bother to model the cost to Australia of pursuing a scheme in haste ahead of the rest of the world. After all, it was the Prime Minister who told us just two and a half weeks ago that the world as we know it has changed in the wake of the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression. And may I say that it reveals much about the Rudd government’s ideological rush to implement an emissions trading scheme by an artificial 2010 date that they are rushing to put this in place in total defiance of world economic conditions. Australian industries can— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.