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

With the current unemployment statistics confirming an increase in unemployment in Australia, the fact that in excess of 200,000 Australians have lost their jobs since August of last year and the continued predictions by the government that unemployment in Australia will rise, it is imperative that every single aspect of government policy be focused on effective measures to ensure that employment in Australia remains high—not policies that will cost Australians their jobs. The evidence given to the inquiry that I participated in confirmed that the CPRS in its current form is both a badly-designed scheme and seriously flawed. It should not be supported. The evidence is clear that, as the government’s central policy to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions, the CPRS fails to reduce carbon pollution at the lowest economic cost, fails to put in place long-term incentives for investment in clean energy and low-emissions technology, and fails to contribute to a global solution to climate change.

There is a considerably wide diversity of views on the subject of climate science, in particular the cause and extent of climate change and the extent to which climate change is a consequence of human behaviour. The diversity of views was reflected in the evidence that was presented to the inquiry. I have disagreed with the conclusion expressed on behalf of the committee at paragraph 2.36. I do not believe that that conclusion properly reflects the evidence that was presented to the committee and I have qualified my views in the report. However, I affirm my view that the planet should be given the benefit of the doubt, but in that respect the only action that should be taken by government to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions is responsible action. Action that is taken at the expense or to the detriment of the Australian people should not be taken. The CPRS in its current form is action that is going to result in Australians losing their jobs. This is not responsible action. It should not be supported.

As a senator for Western Australia, I am particularly concerned about the continued claims made not only to the committee I participated in but to other committees about the potentially disastrous impact of the CPRS on the Western Australian economy. An Access Economics report commissioned by the state premiers and published in June 2009 confirms that the government’s emissions trading scheme would cost 13,000 jobs in WA alone. I will stand up for Western Australia, even if those on the other side of this chamber will sell it out.

I am also concerned at the continual claims that the Treasury modelling in respect of the assessment of the need for the Electricity Sector Adjustment Scheme assistance uses the same competitive spot market assumptions made for the eastern states electricity market in its assessment of this need in Western Australia. In other words, Treasury have failed yet again to recognise the difference in the Western Australian electricity market. This failure to distinguish between the respective models results in a detrimental impact on WA. The failure of Treasury to distinguish between the respective models needs to be rectified in any future modelling.

The evidence given to the inquiry was clear. It is apparent to all serious policymakers on this issue—and unfortunately those on the other side are not in that box—that there is no unilateral Australian solution to climate change, only a global solution. The government’s current Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, if agreed to in its present form, will result in action being taken at the expense of the Australian people—but, worse than that, its implementation is likely to achieve the perverse outcome of Australia actually increasing its global emissions.