Senator BIRMINGHAM (3:15 PM) —I rise to take note of the responses given by Senator Wong in question time today, particularly to questions from Senator Johnston and me. Last week Reserve Bank of Australia board member Warwick McKibbin urged the government to delay the introduction of the emissions trading scheme. He did so based on the uncertainty that exists as to how the rest of the world will react. His comments were derided by the Treasurer, Mr Swan, who said:

The question today is: where are Mr Swan and Minister Wong hiding their crystal ball? Quite clearly they think they know the outcome of the international negotiations—or that would appear to be the case from the responses Minister Wong gave today and from the detail that underlies the Treasury modelling into the so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

The minister today told us that four scenarios had been modelled by the Treasury; two of them were Professor Garnaut’s scenarios and two of them were scenarios that the government itself had inserted. So we have four options. But did the minister refute the suggestion that none of those four options countenanced other countries doing nothing? No, she did not. She backed up, by her silence, the reality that the government has had the Treasury model four different scenarios for the introduction of the CPRS and its impact on the Australian economy. Not one, not two, not three but all four of these scenarios failed to consider that other countries might not act in concert with Australia. That stands up either as the height of foolishness and recklessness or as the government seeking modelling to provide the answers that it wants to hear. These are the allegations that Minister Wong must respond to if she is to return any shred of credibility to the economic modelling upon which the government plans to base its CPRS.

We are now seeing the impact that this pre-emptive action can have. We have seen the outcomes from Western Australia, where investment decisions are already being influenced and put in jeopardy. We saw the statement today by Nyrstar, an important employer in Port Pirie in South Australia, as it is in Tasmania, highlighting the risk to jobs from early the implementation, in advance of international movements, of the CPRS. These are jobs of real mums and dads, real Australians, who rely on their living to support their families in regional areas like Port Pirie, where a company like Nyrstar stands out head and shoulders as the most significant employer in the township and the area. It is outrageous that the government should be jeopardising those jobs because it will not conduct honest and truthful Treasury economic modelling of the consequences.

Contrary to what Minister Wong might wish to represent, this stands in stark contrast to the position that the coalition had, as advanced by the Shergold report last year. Our position would have ensured not just that we acted in a timely manner that reflected what countries like the United States, Canada and New Zealand, as well as China and India, would do but also that we took all necessary steps to protect Australia’s trade-exposed industries—those emissions intensive industries that are at serious risk if we get it wrong. I for one very clearly support the notion of the precautionary principle in taking action on the risk of climate change, and have done so since the beginning of my time here. But what is most important is that we get any action we take right. There is absolutely no point in people in Port Pirie, Tasmania, Western Australia and right around Australia losing their jobs because of pre-emptive action based on economic modelling that has failed to model all the clear scenarios—and the scenario that other countries will not act is very real—and that fails to take into account that we have many emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries that need clear, lasting protection; the type of model the government is proposing.