ETS 'will cost 23,510 mining jobs'

22 May 2009, 1:35 pm   -   Source: AAP
Share This

The government's emissions trading scheme will cost more than 23,000 jobs across the mining sector by 2010, the Minerals Council says.

The government's emissions trading scheme will cost more than 23,000 jobs across the mining sector by 2010 and almost triple that number by 2030, the Minerals Council says.

Half of those jobs would be in Queensland alone, the Minerals Council of Australia says in a study released on Friday.

Council chief executive Mitchell Hooke says this showed the government's proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS) was out of step with global efforts to reduce emissions, with other international trading schemes and with the development of the low emissions technologies needed to reduce emissions.

"It will impose the highest carbon costs in the world on Australia's mineral exporters," he said in a statement.

"We share the government's commitment to reducing emissions but this modelling shows the CPRS is fundamentally flawed. By imposing the highest carbon costs in the world on Australia's mineral exporters, it will eliminate jobs while failing to materially reduce global greenhouse gas levels."

Mr Hooke said recent changes to the CPRS including a year's delay in introduction would not fix its fundamental flaws.

"The simple message of this report is that the CPRS as it is currently designed will result in a transfer of exports from Australia to our international competitors," he said.

The study was produced by economic consultant group Concept Economics and conducted by Dr Brian Fisher, former executive director of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

It doesn't cover the natural gas and oil industries.

The study points to 23,510 job losses by 2020 with 11,440 in Queensland, 4,260 in NSW, 3,410 in Western Australia, 1,990 in South Australia, 1,050 in Tasmania, 1,210 in Victoria and 150 in the Northern Territory.

By 2030 job losses will have risen to a total of 66,480 - 34,090 in Queensland, 14,600 in NSW, 5,750 in WA, 3,150 in SA, 2,520 in Tasmania, 5,830 in Victoria and 540 in NT.

In the long term most jobs would go from the smelting and refining sector with 8,570 jobs lost by 2020 and 33,670 by 2030, followed by the coal industry with 9,040 by 2020 and 15,610 by 2030.

Mr Hooke said a simple change to the CPRS would deliver a cap and trade emissions reduction scheme without the job destroying impact of the current design.

He said it should include a phased approach to emissions trading with the number of carbon permits auctioned increasing over time.

"Such a simple change would deliver a scheme with good outcomes for the environment and save thousands of jobs," he said.

"Other schemes around the world have adopted a phased approach. It is hard to understand why it has been ruled out in Australia."

Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard has defended the government's emissions trading scheme.

Ms Gillard says the government has worked with the business community to get the best design for the scheme.

"I know that there are going to be a variety of views on this and as we close out for vote on the legislation in the Senate, I think we're going to see some very big ambit claims made in the newspaper," she told Macquarie Radio.

"But we believe the scheme gets the balance right, we believe this scheme will work with our economy but will also work to tackle the challenge of climate change."

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says, modelling for the ETS shows job increases across all sectors, contrary to minerals industry predictions of large job losses.

Senator Wong said that as the debate on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) progressed all sides would be producing their own studies calling for changes.

"I would make the point that we undertook as a government the largest modelling exercise in the nation's history last year," she told ABC Radio.

"What that showed was employment growth in all major employment sectors in the years ahead even with the introduction of a scheme."

Senator Wong said it also showed that the renewables sectors would grow 30 times out to mid-century.

She said the government had to maintain focus on the national interest and do what Australians wanted which was to take action on climate change.

Senator Wong said the government was proposing $750 million assistance to industry to support jobs as the nation moved to allow carbon economy.

A coalition senator says it will take longer to get through the 11 pieces of legislation on Labor's carbon pollution reduction scheme than it does to read "War and Peace".

The Senate's economics committee has been asked to report on the bills by 15 June but Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce says they deserve more time to scrutinise the legislation.

Senator Joyce and Liberal senator Alan Eggleston have criticised the inquiry's reporting date, saying it is too soon to draw up detailed recommendations based on the hearings which began in Canberra on Friday.

"We've received something that's just slightly bigger than War and Peace, 1,300 pages, that's been launched on our desk," Senator Joyce said.

The committee had been given the time it takes to read a "Phantom comic to look at it", he said.

It was "fair enough" for people to criticise the coalition's attempts to ram through legislation when it was in government, he said.

"And on certain issues, not only can they say that, they were right.

"But what are we going to say now ... that two wrongs now make a right."

None of the coalition's legislation it introduced was as extensive as the carbon pollution reduction scheme laws, he said.

Senator Eggleston said the government was holding the inquiry even before the closure of submissions on June 4.

He said with two weeks of Senate estimates coming up, and one week of hearings before the reporting deadline, it was a "very tight and unrealistic timeframe".

The opposition would prefer to push the reporting date back to June 22, Senator Eggleston said.

The government's climate change adviser, Professor Ross Garnaut, is critical of some aspects of the proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme but says the legislation should be passed.

Prof Garnaut has largely endorsed changes to the scheme.

However, he remains critical of some parts of the scheme, including assistance for trade-exposed industries.

In relation to trade-exposed industries, the legislation does have some characteristics "that I would consider to be less than ideal" he told the inquiry in Canberra on Friday.

"I think the most important thing is that we make it clear that we are going to get rid of the system of assistance for trade-exposed industries, when the rationale for it disappears."

And that would happen either when comparable emissions constraints were in place "in a large part" of the rest of the world, he said.

Prof Garnaut said there were three significant steps that would need to be taken to make the emissions trading scheme beneficial.

The first of those measures was to put back on the table the condition of 25 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, he said.

"The government's done that and my assessment is that it now would be clearly a positive for this bill to be passed into law."

But Prof Garnaut dismissed concerns raised by the Minerals Council of Australia which suggested the government's minimum target of reducing emissions by five per cent of 2000 levels would cost 24,000 mining jobs over the next 10 years.

He did not believe an emissions trading scheme would mean fewer jobs.

"There's no reason to think that a regime of ambitious emissions reduction will lead to a net fall in jobs," he said

Overall, there will be as many new jobs created as old ones lost.

Prof Garnaut said there was no reason to wait until after December's climate change summit in Copenhagen to introduce an emissions trading scheme, adding that he had been buoyed by the mood coming out of the US and administration of US President Barack Obama.

"I don't think there's much doubt about where the world is headed," he said.

  • Follow us: 
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Follow us on Youtube