Grant Chapman (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Labor Party in this debate are referring to Senator Minchin’s answers to questions without notice today on climate change. We just heard a comment to the effect that Senator Minchin had responded to one of the questions by saying ‘we are not going to rush down a path’ with regard to climate change and emissions trading. That is a very correct response from the minister because this is an issue that requires very careful consideration and a considered policy response. After all, in recent times, with regard to emissions trading, we have seen the value of carbon credits in Europe fall by some 75 per cent, with, obviously, financial and economic consequences attaching to that—the danger of financial uncertainty. So, if we are going to introduce a dramatically different system, a new system, to deal with this issue, we need to be able to ensure that it is going to be a stable system, that it is a practical system that will work and that it will be sustainable in the long term. So it does need very careful consideration.

In that context, the government has provided billions of dollars of funding in recent times for its Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund. Those funds have been made available to a number of organisations to enable them to conduct research and development with regard to emissions trading. There are the coal sequestration projects—several of those are receiving funding. Solar Systems has received funding to establish a major solar energy project in Victoria. So the government is taking very positive initiatives in this regard.

The comment reported today by the Energy Supply Association of Australia with regard to an emissions trading scheme is one more contribution to the debate. The statement of the ESAA highlighted the complexities involved in designing and implementing an emissions trading system—again, an issue that demonstrates the need for very careful consideration before we move forward on this. Last week we had the report from the National Generators Forum which highlighted the hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this issue. It highlighted the fact that, under the Rudd-Garrett plan for deep emissions cuts, the future use of nuclear power would be inevitable. Without nuclear energy and nuclear generated electricity there will be massive and unsustainable increases in energy prices for all Australians. Australians are very sensitive to increases in energy prices. Even though they are, as is the government, concerned about the future of our environment, they have a strong and legitimate concern about the future cost of their energy. Unless we are prepared to adopt the nuclear option as part of emissions cuts, then those energy prices will increase unsustainably. The National Generators Forum report showed that there will be billions and billions of dollars in costs in requiring the full range of low emissions technologies to be applied. As I have already mentioned, nuclear energy will be an important part of minimising or avoiding those costs.

Even with nuclear power and clean coal technology, under Labor’s scheme electricity prices are projected to double. I am sure the community would be very sensitive to that projected increase in energy prices, including the price of household electricity and the electricity used by industry and business. It would be an unsustainable increase in energy costs certainly in the short term, and even in the long term it would severely damage the competitiveness of Australian industry. We already know in our current circumstances that energy prices are going to rise, but the result of Labor’s policy, especially with their ratification of Kyoto and their refusal to consider the nuclear option, will be energy price increases, a detrimental impact on industry and, importantly, a detrimental impact on jobs. Australian people and Australian workers in particular are rightly concerned about their future employment prospects. They do not want jobs destroyed as a result of government policy.

We have no explanation from the Labor Party as to how they are going to achieve their promised 60 per cent cut in greenhouse emissions. They pretend they can wipe the slate clean and achieve these emissions without any pain but, as I have already said, it will in fact involve significant increases in energy prices, significant loss of industry competitiveness in this country and significant cuts in employment opportunities. We need some policy hard work to be done by Labor on this, which they have not done. (Time expired)