Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Climate Change and Water (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Fierravanti-Wells today relating to the proposed emissions trading scheme and the steel industry.

I particularly refer to the steel industry and Labor’s flawed CPRS. As I have spoken about in this chamber earlier this week, my concern is about the impact of the CPRS on jobs, the economy and in particular the regions. As an Illawarra based senator, I can say that the steel industry is crucial not only to the Illawarra but to the exports of our country as a whole. I am particularly concerned that the steel industry in the Illawarra and in other places supports thousands of jobs. Therefore, areas like the Illawarra will bear the brunt of Labor’s flawed CPRS. In my speech in this place on 12 August I highlighted the real concerns that Illawarra residents in particular have had, which have been articulated by BlueScope Steel. They identified that the Rudd government’s scheme threatened to erode tens of millions of dollars from their books within the first year and had the potential to threaten the viability of the 12,000 jobs that its operations support.

Might I remind senators, particularly those senators opposite, that this region has traditionally been their heartland. At a time when these jobs are very much at stake, many in the area are crying foul that the one-time party of the workers appears to have lost touch. But I will come back in a moment to some comments about that. Today’s headlines in the Illawarra Mercury compound the worst fears of those residents. Under the banner ‘BlueScope steeling for success’, Mr O’Malley is quoted. The article reads:

He also fired a salvo at the Rudd government, saying it needed to amend its contentious Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme or put at risk the 12,000 jobs in the Illawarra underpinned by BlueScope.

It is important to note that BlueScope is a very important company as far as our exports are concerned. I really have to acknowledge the efforts of the Illawarra Mercury in highlighting consistently the concerns of its residents, and in particular as far as the steel industry is concerned, about this scheme. A headline reads ‘O’Malley demands changes to carbon pollution scheme’. The article says:

BlueScope Steel yesterday called on the federal government to consider amendments to its proposed carbon scheme because of concerns over the future impact it would have on the Port Kembla steelworks. In the Illawarra 12,000 workers and their families rely on the steelworks.

I quoted portions of a press release in my questions to Senator Wong. BlueScope Steel has a proven track record as an environmentally responsible company. In a press release yesterday BlueScope cites investing $50 million on environmental improvements globally over the 15 years. Mr O’Malley says:

… the Directors have grave concerns about the current design of the Federal Government’s proposed CPRS and the negative impact it would have on the world competitive Australian steel industry.

The Company strongly believes that the cumulative net cost impact of the current design of the proposed CPRS would be highly significant and material, and that it would severely damage our competitiveness, putting domestic investment, Australian jobs and the Australian steel industry at … risk.

Mr O’Malley goes on:

This is not a one-off tax.

It is very clear. As one person—and I would like to requote this—recently commented in response to an article in the Illawarra Mercury this year:

Champagne socialists, the lot of them. They’re not the working person’s party anymore.

One only has to look at the comments of Jennie George in the House of Representatives on 3 June to know that the government berates us but that there are people on their side who are very concerned about jobs and the regional economies. (Time expired)

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to respond on the issue of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in taking note of answers today. Those opposite spoke briefly last week about their Frontier Economics report—the plan you put forward when you do not have a plan; the plan that does not have agreement in their own party room. In fact, there appears to be very little that those opposite are agreed upon. They are divided on the issue of climate change, they are splintered on the issue of how to deal with it and they are shattered when it comes to credibility in addressing the challenges confronting the environment. It is fair to say that a report card for them would have recorded ‘Failed’ next to each one. But that does not deter them from standing up in this chamber and making a noise on environmental issues. For over a decade they were in government, and what did they do to address the crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin? What did they do to address the issue of carbon pollution? What was their response to signing Kyoto? What was their contribution to addressing the environmental issues, the damages compounded day by day? These questions could be answered by silence. But silence is difficult to record in Hansard, so in its place I will respond with one word: nothing. That is what those opposite did. They are naysayers—advocates of doing nothing, of waiting and seeing. What did they do last week in this chamber? Still divided on the existence of climate change, they voted down the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

These environmental problems—droughts, lack of water, carbon pollution—did not happen overnight. Damage to our rivers, the Great Barrier Reef, ecosystems—the list goes on—has been developing over time. Those opposite had 12 long years to address them, yet they have the nerve to come into this chamber and put questions to this government about the way that we are addressing these issues. The Rudd government was elected in November 2007. We went to the election with a commitment to the people of Australia—a commitment to address the issue of climate change. We were not going to be like those opposite and bury our heads in the eroding sand. Last week in this chamber, we put forward a piece of legislation that would go some way towards addressing this issue. But those opposite, after 12 years, are still divided and still undecided. So they voted the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme down.

The government’s primary objective in designing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme has been to get the balance right—to set in place a scheme that reduces carbon pollution and supports economic growth. The government has listened to the views of all stakeholders very closely, including the views of the iron and steel industry, in developing and finalising the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Activities in iron and steel manufacturing have been identified as potentially eligible for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries assistance under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. They are currently undergoing a formal assessment to determine their eligibility.

The government understands that Australian businesses are currently dealing with the worst global recession since the Great Depression. In this environment, the government has acted further to support jobs and assist businesses by providing a global recession buffer as part of the assistance package for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries for the first five years of the CPRS. This buffer will provide an additional five per cent of free permits for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries activities eligible for 90 per cent assistance and an additional 10 per cent of free permits for the EITE activities eligible for 60 per cent assistance. Other measures, such as the delay in the start of the CPRS by one year and a one-year fixed price phase, will further help Australian companies manage the impact of the global recession.

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

Sometimes I think the Greens must have done a recruitment campaign and recruited a lot of the ALP. You would expect a speech like that from Senator Brown or any of the other Greens, but where is the Labor Party when it comes to defending the blue-collar worker? Where is it? We have never seen it. They have given up on it. It is not only the National and Liberal parties that are saying that. Jennie George, the member for Throsby—which is in a particularly relevant area—has said that this is not going to work. Chris Trevor, the member for Gladstone, has written to say that the coal industry needs more support. The Treasurer of New South Wales has written to say that the CPRS will not work. The Premier of Queensland, Anna Bligh, has expressed her dissatisfaction with the CPRS. So not only is it the coalition but there is a break-out amongst the ALP hierarchy. Why wouldn’t they break out? They can see their blue-collar vote being eroded. They can see it going down the chute.

This is a wake-up call to every blue-collar worker: you have been deserted by your so-called political allies. They were your political allies but have now ceased to be your political allies. They have neglected you and walked away from you as they put your job on the line. Your job is under threat. Do not be under any illusion. Your job is under threat, and it is only the Liberal and National parties that are standing up for you. You have to realise that you have been sold out by the ALP.

We see it time and again. Here we have BlueScope fighting for survival with a $66 million loss. So what do we do? We put a tax on them—no, two taxes! The government put on an ETS tax and then they double it up with a tax under the renewable energy target. So BlueScope have two taxes put on them by the ALP. But it gets worse: because the ALP will not decouple the ETS from the RET, we find that the steel industry are left out when it comes to any benefits under an ETS that should have flowed across to the RET. They miss out on that too.

This is a disaster beyond all disasters. But it is not only a disaster for the steel industry; it is a disaster for all Australian manufacturing. We do not have a lot of Australian manufacturing left—a lot of it has gone offshore. But what we do have depends on low energy costs. That is why we have all our workers; otherwise, a lot more manufacturing would go overseas. But we are penalising our niche advantage, which is low energy costs. We are putting a charge on energy that is going to put the price up by 40 per cent, between the RET and an ETS. And then we expect people like BlueScope to be able to compete, when none of their competitors overseas have to meet these costs. They are not miracle men. They cannot create something out of nothing. In the papers today BlueScope are saying they have lost $66 million and they are going to lose more if an ETS comes in.

It is not only our manufacturing base that is affected; it is our mining industry, our aluminium industry, our primary industries—all of them are threatened under the CPRS. What are the Labor Party doing about it? Lecturing us on what our obligations are. Well, why don’t you let us start lecturing you on what your obligations are to your base? They are the blue-collar workers who put their hard-earned money towards supporting the Labor Party. They are paying $600 and $800 a year to support you, the ALP, and what are you doing? You are turning your backs on them and not giving them any support at all. You are going to destroy the steel industry, you are going to destroy the cement industry, you are going to destroy the coal industry—all these industries that have hundreds of thousands of jobs for blue-collar workers. But you do not care. You are going to support doctors’ wives. You are going to support those people but neglect your blue-collar base. (Time expired)

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too would like to contribute to this debate today and take note of answers given by Senator Wong to questions from the opposition about the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I cannot help but start by acknowledging Senator Boswell’s comments. I have to say, I think I have heard Senator Boswell’s speech before. Once again, I would like to point out that, despite his claim that the Labor Party has deserted blue-collar workers, it was his party that deserted blue-collar workers when they introduced the Work Choices legislation—and those workers of Australia handsomely repaid the now opposition for introducing Work Choices by in fact voting them out at the last federal election.

This is the second day this week that the opposition have asked Minister Wong questions about the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. That of course is the scheme that they voted down last Thursday when they voted against the legislation that would have set Australia on the path to reducing our carbon emissions. The legislation that we put before the parliament last week was for a CPRS that was responsible, including economically responsible, and measured, and that compensated emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries such as the steel industry, as indeed it contemplated compensating lower middle income households. Those two factors of the legislation they defeated never seemed to figure in the discussions the opposition had here in the chamber.

The CPRS was to have been but one of a range of measures introduced by the government to address climate change. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, one of the first things that the government did on coming to office was ratify the Kyoto protocol. We have also introduced a number of other measures to deal with climate change, which most of the opposition apparently still do not believe in. The evidence of that—that they do not believe in climate change—is apparent every day that they ask the minister questions about the CPRS.

Instead of assisting the nation to move to being a low-carbon-emission nation, which most of the rest of the developed world is attempting to do, this opposition simply comes up with a range of furphies and a fear campaign to try and justify its complete lack of a position on how to deal with the very real problem of climate change and carbon emissions. The range of furphies that they have come up with this week includes, once again, including agriculture in the ETS when of course, as has been pointed out, agriculture was not included in the legislation that they defeated last week. Yesterday, I think, we had questions about CPI increases arising from the implementation of an ETS. The government has already acknowledged that such bold and courageous legislation does not come without a cost; however, the government has a number of initiatives in place, as I previously discussed, to deal with that.

And today we had the steel industry and then border taxes as the latest furphies that the opposition have put on the table to try and cover up their complete lack of policy and their complete lack of direction on the single most important issue facing the Australian nation. I suppose that tomorrow they will ask some more questions, because they will probably still not have a position on it. It will be curious to see how it pans out with the renewable energy target legislation that the government wants to introduce as the next important phase of assisting the nation to address the problems of climate change and global warming.

Despite professing to be the party that represents business, the coalition have again demonstrated today in their questions during question time that they are not committed to supporting business, because they will not commit to the certainty that is needed in this country to address climate change for the future. (Time expired)

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McEwen talks about furphies. She says that the coalition do not have a policy on emissions trading. We rejected the bill last week.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where is your policy?

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that policy enough for you? A no vote from the majority of the Senate, by the way—that is a policy if ever I saw one! And Senator Boswell, I should add: what a wonderful address he gave the chamber. He still has the passion. After 25 years in this chamber, he still has the passion, and this issue is one that raises the passion more than most. This is definitely an issue that goes to the top level. It ranks with native title and other very emotional issues.

But Senator McEwen and other previous speakers call our questions ‘furphies’. Yesterday she called our question on agriculture a ‘furphy’. That just shows that she has no concept and that the Labor Party has no concept at all of the knock-on effects of the emissions trading scheme on the rural sector. It is all there for them to see. The bells are ringing, the alarm bells are ringing: ‘Hello from earth, Senator Carr!’ The alarm bells are ringing with regard to the rural sector if the scheme goes through as it stands without an international agreement—is that policy enough for you? If the scheme goes through, dairy farmers will pay up to an extra $10,000 at the farm gate and that will break an already ailing dairy sector.

It is the same with the beef sector. Is it not enough today that BlueScope’s CEO rang the alarm bells? Isn’t it enough for you today that he said jobs will be lost? Where is your defence of the blue-collar workers? Senator Boswell was right: where is the defence of the blue-collar workers? To the credit of Jennie George, she has tried to alert those on the other side, but those on the other side are not interested in the blue-collar workers. They are not interested in the knock-on effects that the ETS scheme will have. They have got two interests in this. One is definitely the politics of it. They believe that maybe they can win an election on this. What they have missed, and you hear it from Penny Wong’s language—

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

Order! You will refer to people by their correct title.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Wong, the ‘high priestess of climate change’, I once heard her called. You hear it from her language. It is the language of old. It is the language of some 12 months or so ago when extremism was the politics of the day. If science, or if anyone, dared question climate change, they were in fact burnt at the stake.

But what they have missed is that in the last 12 months the politics of this has changed dramatically. The public has started to wake up and they want a far more moderate approach to this. They want to know how this will affect their jobs and how this will affect the economy. You talk about science—hello, to earth, Senator Carr—and what is to be believed in science. Did you know, Senator Carr, that the Antarctic in fact is not shrinking at all, and that is a scientific fact which no-one denies? But Peter Garrett still gets out there and tells us—doom and gloom—that the Antarctic is shrinking and polar bears are falling off the edge. That sort of extremism is not happening and Minister Wong is still getting up in this chamber and using the old language of extremism. She has missed the political shift in all of this.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have a policy, do not worry about that, and, as I said before, our policy is that we voted it down. How much more of a policy could you get than that?

But I want to return to the issue of the day that we have raised, which you have just brushed aside—forget about the jobs in the steel industry. BlueScope has just reported a severe decline in its profit for the coming year, a 30 per cent reduction in the price of steel for future contracts. So they are facing hard times. You can talk about recovery but it will not be coming to BlueScope Steel for some time. The CEO alerts you, and it has been read out today, that one of the greatest risks to their viability—not profitability, viability and competitiveness internationally—is the ETS, and you just brush it aside because politics is No. 1 and the second one is the tax grab.

I know that Senator Forshaw and Senator Hutchins and a lot of those New South Wales politicians do not believe in the scheme that you are putting forward, but they do believe in the tax grab that is coming, and I believe that the Prime Minister has his eyes on it more than anything else. If you want to take this to an election, we are happy to fight on it.

Question agreed to.