Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to raise some serious issues on the emissions trading front that have not been exposed. The government is determined to go ahead with an emissions trading scheme, and no modelling has been done on the white paper, which is the paper that the legislation was based on. There is no modelling about going it alone. There is no modelling on carbon leakage. There was no modelling done as a result of the green paper on where the economy is at the moment. The green paper was written when the economy was at full bore, yet there is no modelling on the downturn of the economy.

On Wednesday, 25 February I asked Ms Quinn from Treasury if she had modelled the government’s CPRS. The answer was that the treasury department had not modelled the white paper. That is the paper that the legislation was taken off. That is a very serious situation. We are in the worst financial crisis that we have faced for some 60 years. The government is still determined to go ahead with an emissions trading scheme about which the largest companies in Australia—the big end of town; the largest employers in the steel industry, the cement industry, the mining industry and the oil and natural gas industries—had warned the government that there would be thousands of jobs lost. Companies will not go ahead with projects; some will simply become distribution centres, with the products sourced from overseas.

It is the most serious situation for Australian jobs that has been faced since the Depression of the 1930s. Treasury has admitted that the white paper on which the legislation was written has not been modelled. At a previous estimates session I asked when the green paper was modelled and if the world economic situation and the downturn in Australia’s economy were taken into consideration. The answer was no. I asked at the same estimates hearing if any modelling had been done where Australia went on an ETS alone. The answer was no. There has been no modelling done, despite the fact that China, India and America have said that they are not going into an emissions trading scheme. Other countries have given vague commitments, saying that they might start in 2050 or 2027, and of course developing countries have said they will be exempt from any such restrictions.

The American President’s envoy on climate change, Senator John Kerry, stated, ‘The only way you’ll get a treaty that’s passable in the United States Senate is going to be if there is global participation.’ Then there is the statement of President Obama:

To protect our climate and our collective security, we must call together a truly global coalition. I’ve made it clear that we will act, but so too must the world.

He then goes on to say:

… that’s how we will ensure that nations like China and India are doing their part …

I hate to tell the President, but India and China have said they are not going to be part of any world emissions scheme. President Obama then made the statement that he was keen on this emissions scheme and flicked it to congress. If President Obama were keen to get this up and running, he would get behind the scheme, using the might of his office and his immense power as the most powerful person in the world to push this through congress—but he has not. He has ducked it. The Labor Party knows he has ducked it.

But we are bravely going alone with an emissions trading scheme. We are unmodelled. In answer to a question by Senator Milne, we find that even carbon leakage was never modelled. Dr Parkinson admitted that to the estimates committee:

… it took no account of the costs that were avoided. We would have to go back and see whether Treasury has specific details on the extent to which there was any leakage.

There was no modelling. In real terms this means that in many cases Australian industry would import products that are higher in CO2 than what we would produce ourselves—in other words, we would add to, not subtract from, the global problem.

The emissions-intensive trade-exposed sectors have not been modelled. The mining industry, despite what the Prime Minister told parliament this week, is not even considered to be an emissions-intensive trade-exposed industry, so not one permit was allocated to the probably the greatest Australian exporter and employer. There are thousands of people in the coalfields of Queensland today who are worried about their jobs. The CPRS legislation has not been modelled. The white paper has never been modelled. The green paper was modelled assuming international participation would be part of it, with the cost of carbon from the world’s largest emitters, the US and China. We find that neither of them, not to mention India, has such a cost. There was no consideration of the economic impact on this country and no consideration for the jobs and the families dependent on the manufacturing and mining sectors.

I have listened intently to questions answered by Senator Wong and I have asked many in the chamber and in estimates. These permits she is handing around with great largesse are said to be worth 60 to 90 per cent of emissions exposure, but when you drill down you find that this is completely untruthful. The permits only cover part of the process of manufacturing, not all the process, so you do not get 60 to 90 per cent at all. In some cases you just get 10 to 20 per cent less. The steel industry, the aluminium industry, the plastic and chemical industries, the pulp and paper industries, cement, oil and LNG are severely exposed to international markets and will not be competitive with them under Senator Wong’s scheme. The industries have little to no chance of maintaining their current operations, let alone investing in future expansions.

Senator Wong and the Rudd government are misleading not only industry but also the blue-collar workers who work in these factories. The fact that we are going alone was not modelled. Ms Quinn made that admission to the Senate estimates committee. Ms Quinn said, ‘We were asked to look at scenarios that achieved certain environmental outcomes.’ The important word here is ‘environmental’. These are environmental scenarios. They are not about jobs, the economy, growth or prosperity; they are solely environmental. In the estimates hearing I asked who in the government gave Treasury the instructions and directed the assumptions that they were to use relating to actions that would be taken by overseas countries. I was told the treasury department and the Department of Climate Change gave the instructions. I then asked further questions and was told Senator Wong and Wayne Swan were involved. If you want a predictable answer that fits in with your policy, get the ministers to ask the questions they want to get their policy firing.

This climate change policy is developing into high farce, and people are starting to realise that. When you get the mayors of Labor towns and cities coming out and calling for a halt to this emissions trading scheme, you guys should realise that you are in deep trouble. The mayors of Gladstone, Mount Isa and Newcastle have pleaded with you. The union movement is pleading with you. But it is full steam ahead.

This is the largest piece of economic reform this country has proposed to undertake for decades, and we find there is no modelling. We are flying by the seat of our pants. What is the government doing? What are you trying to do? Are you trying to out-green the Greens? You are sacrificing the blue-collar workers that have paid their union fees and have been the backbone of the Labor Party movement for years. This is a repeat of the Tasmanian timber workers, when Latham sold them out for Greens preferences. The workers refused to have their jobs exchanged for Greens preferences. Latham made that mistake and lost an election. Rudd is going down the same path, putting Australia’s blue-collar workers’ jobs at risk. We have already seen 2,700 jobs lost in the mining industry in Queensland alone due to the downturn. There are going to be thousands more jobs lost when a carbon tax of $2.4 billion is placed on the Queensland coal industry.

But what is the reason for this? Our emissions are about 1.4 per cent of the world’s total emissions. What are we going to achieve if no-one else gets on the boat with us? I suppose Rudd can strut around the world stage saying, ‘I’m leading the world on climate change.’ He has visions of grandeur. Someone has to sit him down and tell him this is just a no-go area. Why don’t you do it in the party room? Through you, Madam Chair, I ask: do any of you have the courage to get up in the party room and say, ‘In my electorate this is on the nose’? If Mr Rudd has not realised yet, Australia is facing an unemployment problem the likes of which it has not faced since 1930. It is virtually going up by the day. We borrowed $200 billion for various stimulus packages; the last one was $42 billion. That was to sustain the economy. On the other hand, if this legislation goes through it will strip out $49 billion in additional charges for permits. That does not take into account a carbon charge on every electric motor, on every factory, on every conveyer belt, on every dragline in every mine, on every processing chain and on every hide puller in every abattoir—anything that moves with electricity will have an additional carbon charge.

This is a question that the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, should be asking: how will Golden Circle compete in his electorate of Lilley? Golden Circle had to tell their pineapple growers last year that they would have to reduce their growing quotas by a third because imports from low-cost countries were eroding their sales. They were also losing sales from processed fruit and vegetables. I challenge Wayne Swan to have the guts to stand up outside Golden Circle at lunch hour and tell the 1,000 to 1,200 workers that they are being called upon to sacrifice their jobs for a CO2 world where Australia’s contribution to the carbon output is 1.4 per cent, and no other countries are going to follow.

I don’t like the policies of the Greens. They are unrealistic. They take no account of jobs, the needs of families, Australia’s defence position, foreign affairs or economics. And they do not even want people cluttering up the environment. The environment is front and centre of everything. But at least you have to say they are consistent, even if they are consistently wrong. But the Labor Party have a bet each way. It depends on the day and on who their audience is as to which position they take. They have to decide whether they are the representatives of the workers and whether they will stand for them through thick and thin, or whether they support the Greens for the sake of urban Greens preferences in seats like Lindsay Tanner’s. It is time for Labor to make a decision and tell the voters of Queensland, three days before an election; tell the people at Golden Circle; tell the people in the mining industry, the paper industry, the cement industry and the oil industry; tell the unionists who have held them together with blood, sweat and tears and paid their fees whether you support them or you support the green movement.

This ETS policy started out in high farce when Professor Garnaut advocated that Australia reduce its cattle herd and sheep flock and farm 240 million kangaroos and turn Australia’s arable farming land into tree plantations. It was a farce then; it was laughable—it was a joke. But it is certainly no joke now. This is getting very serious.