Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 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 Boswell today relating to the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

We have seen over recent days an extraordinary backflip by the government on its emission trading scheme. What it demonstrates is that the Australian people cannot believe what Kevin Rudd tells them. We heard before the election that the government was going to bring this scheme in and the parameters surrounding the commencement of the scheme. But it also needs to be noted that the design of the scheme in itself is a breach of promise—another demonstration that people need to have real caution when believing what Kevin Rudd tells them. In his election promise from 2007, he said:

As part of its comprehensive approach to climate change, Labor has already indicated that it will develop mechanisms to ensure that Australian operations of emissions-intensive trade-exposed firms are not disadvantaged before an effective global regime is in place. This will be pursued as a key component of emissions trading, alongside the expanded MRET.

We have seen over recent weeks that that is not the case, that it was not true. We have seen company after company and industry after industry come in to committee inquiries telling us that they would be negatively impacted as emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries. We have heard it time and time again. Obviously industry do not believe what the government told them before the election. Quite clearly they do not believe them. We have seen evidence from industries that they potentially could be forced to insolvency by the processes that are put in place by the emissions trading scheme. And now we have seen this extraordinary backflip that occurred last Monday.

We finished hearings on the Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy on the Friday of the week before. Right up until the last day, we had Labor senators asking questions of submitters to the inquiry, making suggestions to them, cajoling them, almost insisting that the global financial crisis was not a reason to delay the commencement of the emissions trading scheme. It went on for three weeks. How must they feel now, when, on the following Monday, Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong waltzed out in front of the national media and said, ‘We are going to delay the commencement of the emissions trading scheme because of the global financial crisis’? One of the key parameters that they had been arguing in the hearings for the previous three weeks had just been completely ripped out from under their feet. They were left there, wearing their little tin hats with their little guns, firing off the bullets that they had been given by the powers that be in the Labor Party: that the emissions trading scheme should not be delayed by the global financial crisis, and yet that was the very excuse that was used by the government to delay the emissions trading scheme.

It is quite clear from those three weeks of the inquiry that we have a flawed scheme. The impact on agriculture in particular is absolutely devastating. We have heard of job losses through the coal regions of Australia, and Senator Boswell has spoken of those extraordinary impacts. We heard of the cost of $6,000 to $9,000 per dairy farmer. The government told us during hearings that agriculture is not in; that there will not be an impact. Yet the pass-back impact from agriculture into dairy—$6,000 to $9,000 per dairy farmer—is the impact as the impact comes through from the processing sector of agriculture. A flawed scheme is a flawed scheme is a flawed scheme. It ignores abatement opportunities. It locks out proposals and opportunities for abatement that could be incorporated into the scheme. The rigidities of the scheme were criticised across the country. It is quite clear from the hearings that we held over the last few weeks that we cannot believe what the Prime Minister tells us in relation to the ETS. We have to be careful about what the Prime Minister tells us about anything, and I would urge the Australian people to use that as a prime approach when the Prime Minister says anything.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am really surprised that Senator Colbeck would come here and run the arguments that were supposedly put forward at the Senate select committee. I must say that Senator Colbeck had lots on his plate at that Senate select committee. And the biggest problem Senator Colbeck had was to try to get Senator Boswell to accept that something was happening. Here we have the coalition, who did nothing for 11½ years on climate change, having the gall, the temerity, to challenge this government, which has said that it accepts the science—something that is not happening over there. Those opposite do not accept the science and even those that claim they do accept the science are clearly under pressure from the National Party and from Senator Boswell and Senator Joyce.

You have the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, who says no to everything, but he will not say no to Senator Boswell, he will not say no to Senator Joyce and he will not to say no to the sceptics who just do not accept that climate change is here and that climate change will cost this country if it is not acted upon. It is a lack of courage and a lack of commitment from Malcolm Turnbull to stand up to The Nationals, Senator Minchin and those climate sceptics and deniers in the opposition. How about a bit of leadership from the Leader of the Opposition on this issue? Do not come here complaining to us about promises. It was the National Party and the Liberal Party that invented core and non-core promises. Remember that little trick? The government is determined to act in the interests of Australia and is determined to act in the interests of farmers, even though The Nationals will not act in the interests of farmers. Farmer after farmer came to the select committee and accepted that climate change was upon us; they accepted that there would be more droughts and storms and that their stock would be affected; they accepted the reality of climate change. But the so-called leaders of the farming community in the National Party are still trying to deny it. They are still the sceptics. You are doing nothing for the farming community and you are doing nothing for this nation by your denial of the reality of climate change and the need to do something about it.

For 11½ years you had the opportunity to act on climate change, and what did you do? In 1999 you did something and then after that you did absolutely nothing. You stood back and allowed this to take place and you left the Australian economy unprepared for climate change. The Labor Party will take leadership on climate change. We will act in the interests of farmers, we will act in the interests of jobs and we will act in the interests of the communities that are going to be affected. We will demonstrate our leadership and we will clearly outline your lack of leadership on this issue. The deniers and the sceptics cannot be allowed to run riot in the Liberal Party. It is about time Mr No, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, said to the sceptics and the deniers in the coalition, ‘No. We are going to deal with climate change and we will act in the national interest,’ but he does not have the bottle to do it. He does not have the guts to take on Senator Joyce and Senator Boswell. What a pathetic performance. The real test of leadership is to get leadership and some cohesion in your party. Malcolm Turnbull has failed. That will result in the loss of jobs in this country and that will result in more and more problems. (Time expired)

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

It never ceases to amaze me, or those of us on this side of the chamber, how the Labor government does acrobatic stunts like a true circus performer. Labor has consistently criticised the coalition for arguing for a delay in its flawed ETS. It has had the audacity to accuse us of playing politics. We have a Prime Minister who said, ‘The costs of inaction on climate change are actually greater than the costs of action.’ Well, haven’t the chickens now come home to roost? Guess what—yet again the coalition has been right all along. This is now acknowledged by Rudd Labor’s political backflip.

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

They have nowhere else to go.

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

Thank you very much, Senator Cormann. That is right. All along, the coalition have been arguing that in the current economic environment, if Labor were to proceed with their flawed ETS, thousands of Australian jobs would be put at risk. Billions of dollars of capital investment in the resources and energy structure would be put at risk due to their reckless approach to the implementation of their ETS. Guess what—yet again we were right. Who is reckless and irresponsible now, Mr Rudd?

The coalition has argued from day one that the government needs to sit up, take responsibility and acknowledge that its proposed ETS is seriously flawed. We have consistently argued that, if the government proceeded with the implementation without having regard for the global financial crisis, this would have severe consequences for all Australians. What do we have now? We have confirmation of the coalition’s good, strong, correct policy. Let me quote the minister from her media release with the Prime Minister on 4 May:

The Rudd Government will delay the start of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme by one year to help Australian companies manage the impacts of the global recession.

Australian businesses are currently dealing with the worst global recession since the great depression.

In this environment the Government has decided to act to further support jobs and assist businesses during these ... economic times ...

So what do we have? We have a Labor minister effectively adopting the coalition’s sound, long-held policy. My favourite quote from the relevant minister was given very recently in an interview with Adelaide 5AA. She said:

This shouldn’t be about politics. Climate change is too important an issue for people to play political games with. We are focused on doing the right thing, what we think is in the national interest. We are pressing on because this is too important an issue to play politics with.

And then she said:

What we hope is that senators from all parties will approach this issue with that sense of responsibility.

You have got to be kidding me! I stood in this place last November and argued the coalition’s position. We have long warned that rushing towards a 2010 deadline to implement what is a flawed scheme would see unpredictable damage to Australian industry and Australian jobs.

But perhaps the defining moment in this sad tale is when Labor’s handpicked climate policy adviser, Professor Ross Garnaut, gave evidence at a public inquiry into the CPRS and said: ‘Judging whether it would be better to pass the emissions trading scheme as it stands or start again would be a lineball call.’ That is the government’s handpicked adviser saying it is a lineball call. That is the faith that he has in the Labor Party policy. If we are going to have an ETS, its objective must be to encourage reductions in carbon emissions without imposing undue costs on Australians. Bad policy should never be passed. This government needs to go back to the drawing board and start again.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to those opposite: where is your plan for business certainty for the businesses of this country who said that what they need now is certainty? They know that the carbon constrained future across the global economy and in Australia is coming. They have a looming carbon liability and they need certainty from the government on how to deal with it. And the opposition are leaving businesses right across the country swinging in the wind. Where is the opposition’s plan for a global agreement and for a commitment to having a path that will help the globe lower its emissions? They do not have one. Only Labor have a plan for Copenhagen that will see us tackle Australia’s emissions and make a contribution to securing a global deal that is in Australia’s best interests, because we are at the forefront of those who will be affected with the negative consequences of climate change.

The opposition’s approach to this issue is just completely irresponsible. From an economic point of view in the competitive global economy, those businesses that adapt to change in the international environment and in the changing global economy are the ones that thrive in the long term. Those that do not adapt and those that seek to deny, ignore or avoid changes may survive in the short term but they will stagnate and eventually wither and die. That is the dustbin that the opposition would send Australian businesses to.

Emissions trading is already underway in 27 European countries. And we already know that Obama is committed to introducing emissions trading in the United States. These countries all know that by doing this they will ensure that their enterprises, their industries and their economies will thrive in the long term. They know that the day will come when countries will no longer be able to afford not to have a price on carbon.

Getting a head start on these changes, which we know are coming, is indeed in the best interests of Australian business. The opposition are leaving them in absolute no-man’s-land. Australia cannot afford this ongoing uncertainty in relation to our carbon pricing. It will have a deadening effect on our industrial innovation and competitiveness. We will not have, and the opposition do not have, a coherent framework to guide the economy through this transition. What we have from the opposition on these issues is absolute gobbledygook. Rewards will be distorted and industries of the future will struggle to get off the ground while those that must adapt to survive will put off till tomorrow what should be done today. That is why this scheme needs to be passed: in order to provide that certainty.

Investment opportunities will be misdirected and opportunities will be lost, and Australian industries, which have proven so resilient and adaptive in the past, will struggle to survive in the carbon constraint future unless we provide them with a path and a way forward. We will be left in a carbon intensive cul de sac with declining living standards and vanishing job prospects. These dangers of delay were indeed evident in information provided to the committee.

We know that, when countries do not take action relative to when they act together and they end up having economic costs, it is because they continue on their emissions intensive pathway of development. When they enter a scheme later on they find themselves at a disadvantage relative to countries that took action earlier. Investment flows to countries that took action earlier, so countries that delay are worse off by delaying their schemes. That is what Meghan Quinn from Treasury said to our committee.

But the real question is not delay; it is one of certainty. It is a matter of those businesses knowing what the framework is. It is about that legislation passing this chamber. It is about giving businesses the certainty so that they can take action and adapt, and the opposition are leaving those businesses swinging in that wind. Prolonged uncertainly, particularly at this time of global recession, is going to constrain capital flows and threaten even the supply of electricity, which is what Origin Energy said in evidence before our committee. No scheme at all will leave us with only one lever and that is that someone will sit there and say, ‘This will work, that will work, and something else will work.’ But there is a high probability that all of those decisions could be wrong. (Time expired)

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

What I have not heard about in this debate is the most prominent sufferer—that is, the blue-collar worker. One would have thought Senator Pratt or Senator Cameron would have at least mentioned the phrase ‘blue-collar worker’. We have had the cement industry coming in and saying, ‘We’re going to have to put people off; we won’t be able to proceed with our new projects.’ We have had the beef industry saying it is going to cost $34 extra to process a cow through its abattoirs. We have had the steel industry come in and say, ‘We can’t survive.’ We have had every industry in Australia—with the exception of Origin Energy, who are retailers; all they do is pass the cost on—come forward with three messages: (1) ‘We’re going to have our assets stranded’; (2) ‘It’s going to add costs to us’; and (3) ‘We’re going to have to put off people.’

You would think the Labor Party would be worried about that, but no: ‘Don’t you worry about a thing; we’ll create green jobs.’ I do not know where these green jobs are going to pour out of the sky from, but maybe the representatives of the working class, the Labor Party, are going to say to the Australian blue-collar workers: ‘You’re going to have to compete against the Chinese, so you’re going to have to work six days a week, 12 hours a day, if you want the green jobs.’ With anything we manufacture in Australia, if you can do it better and cheaper in China then that is where the manufacturing goes—unless you want to put on tariffs. These green jobs are a dream. They are not going to happen. Manufacturing will go to the same place where it always goes: to China, because they can do it cheaper. I do not say they do it better, but they can certainly do it cheaper. Where are the representatives coming in and saying: ‘We’ll get you the green jobs, guys; don’t worry about a thing. It’ll be a little unpleasant for you because you might have to live in a dormitory with your wife up the other end with the women, and you’ll have to work 12 hours a day, but we’ll get you the green jobs’? What a nonsense!

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Even your own side’s laughing at you here—look.

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

Don’t you talk to me, because you have never stood up for the blue-collar worker in your life. You do not even count in this place.

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

Order! Senator Boswell, address your remarks through the chair.

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

Yes, Mr Deputy President. I think one of the directors of the Reserve Bank, who was also a director of BlueScope Steel, said it perfectly. He said it for Australia; he said it for industry; he said it for the blue-collar workers; he said it for everyone:

The Australian economy will survive the economic downturn but it may not survive the emissions trading system.

That is what he said. He must have some credibility, for the government have him on the Reserve Bank. I admire his tenacity and strength in coming out and telling it as it is. That is what it is all about: you have turned your back on the blue-collar jobs. It is a tragedy.

But gradually it is filtering through. Last week I went up to Allies Creek, a million acres of forestry plantations, with apiarists and cattle. It has all closed down. About 300 jobs have been lost in the sawmilling industry. Who suffered? It was the sawmillers and the blue-collar workers who suffered, sold out for Green preferences. These guys are going to wake up to you. You have absolutely deserted them. You have walked away from them. You are selling out. You sold them out in the Riverina yesterday—800 working-class jobs gone through your minister again selling the blue-collar workers out to the environmental lobby, the green lobby. You have got away with it—you have Green preferences in the state—but it is not going to last. You can fool people some of the time, but you cannot fool them all the time. The blue-collar workers are not stupid. They can see their jobs being traded off for Green preferences. It happened in Allies Creek. Sixty years of development, 15 homes—working men’s quarters—sheds and fire engines were sold off for $270,000. Sixty people made their living there, and it was sold for $270,000. You are selling these guys out, but you are selling them out cheaply. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.