Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Hansard source

It is an extraordinary position from the government that they are advocating a command economy approach to this. Maybe they have been listening to those Maoists in education departments. But they are wrong and they are shown to be wrong if you look at what was actually said. When he was Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, in a media release of 11 December 1997, said:

The Kyoto agreement permitting Australia an eight per cent  increase in emissions of six greenhouse gases by 2012 over 1990 levels will preserve the interests of farmers, miners, manufacturing industry and the economy in general.

Former senator Warwick Parer, who was then the Minister for Resources and Energy, said:

The Kyoto protocol provides a sound basis for protecting Australia’s export competitiveness and employment prospects in our minerals processing and energy export industries.

Robert Hill, the then Minister for the Environment and Heritage, said on 19 December 1997:

There are those who foolishly believe that Australia has something to win by derailing the Kyoto protocol.

John Howard said the Kyoto protocol is ‘a win for the environment and a win for Australian jobs’. You need market based mechanisms and a whole-of-government approach if you are going to fix the problem. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage mentioned clean air. In fact, greenhouse gas emissions trading is modelled on the Clean Air Act, brought in by George Bush Sr in the United States in 1990 to control sulphur dioxide—acid rain—and it was successful.

The government says that Kyoto is flawed and somehow blames everyone moving to developing countries on the Kyoto protocol. Here in Australia we are seeing manufacturing industry go to China. We are seeing Qantas and Telstra move jobs offshore. Is that because of Kyoto? What an absolute nonsense. The truth is that we need market based mechanisms to drive that change through. We need it to happen. The Kyoto protocol provides $133 billion of projects through the Clean Development Mechanism. They are already in the pipeline—already approved. The fact is that Australian companies are only able to use the Clean Development Mechanism if projects are owned by overseas companies. We are seeing great Australian companies like Pacific Solar fly the flag of another nation and companies moving to New Zealand or Fiji.

It is simply irresponsible to argue that the sorts of changes that are required to avoid the economic and environmental problems that have been identified by reviews—most notably the Stern review on this very day—are not required. But it is not just the Stern review; it is absolutely consistent with what the participants in the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change have called for. They want a price signal. BP, Visy, Westpac and Origin Energy—these great Australian companies—know that the action is needed. And they know that the government is frozen in time while the globe warms around it.

The government really are being left behind on this stuff, like absolute dinosaurs. The community has moved on; business has moved on. These amendments, simply asking for a climate change definition and for climate change to be included in the environmental legislation, are worthy of support.

Question put:

That the amendments (Mr Albanese’s) be agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (10) to (22) together:

(10)  Schedule 1, after item 67, page 16 (after line 14), insert:

67A  After section 25 (subdivision G)

Insert

25AAA  Requirement for approval of climate change actions

        (1)    A person must not knowingly, intentionally or recklessly take a climate change action that has, will have, or be likely to have, a significant impact on the environment.

                               Civil penalty:

                      (a)     for an individual—5,000 penalty units;

                      (b)    for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units.

        (2)    Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to an action if:

             (a)    an approval for the person to take the action is in operation under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or

             (b)    Part 4 allows the person to take the action without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or

             (c)    there is in force a decision of the Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that

                           (i)   the action is not a controlled action; or

                           (ii)  the action is a controlled action but this section is not a controlling provision for the action.

25AAB  What is a climate change action?

                 A climate change action means any of the following:

             (a)    establishing an industrial plant or other facility which emits, or is likely to emit, more than 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide equivalent per year; or

             (b)    any other action, series of actions, or program of actions, which will lead, or are likely to lead, directly or indirectly to the emission of more than 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

25AAC  Requirement for decisions about climate change actions

                 In deciding whether or not to approve for the purposes of section 25AAA the taking of a climate control action, and what conditions to attach to such an approval, the Minister must consider whether the direct or indirect emissions of carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide equivalent that are likely to result from the action will be minimised by the use of best practice environmental management and low emissions technology.

                 For the purpose of subsection (1), best practice environmental management and low emissions technology are management and technology to achieve an ongoing minimisation of the emissions of carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide equivalent through cost-effective measures assessed against the measures and technology currently used nationally and internationally.

(11)  Schedule 1, item 85, page 20 (line 32) to page 21 (line 1), omit the item.

(12)  Schedule 1, item 388, page 144 (lines 21-25), omit the item.

(13)  Schedule 1, item 415, page 150 (lines 25-29) omit the item.

(14)  Schedule 1, item 448, page 159 (lines 7-11), omit the item.

(15)  Schedule 1, item 465, page 163 (lines 25-29), omit the item.

(16)  Schedule 1, item 530, page 184 (lines 1-5), omit the item.

(17)  Schedule 1, item 550, page 202 (lines 21-22), omit paragraph 324JJ(5)(b).

(18)  Schedule 1, item 607, page 256, (lines 16-17), omit the item.

(19)  Schedule 1, item 759, page 294 (lines 8-9), omit the item.

(20)  Schedule 1, item 762, page 294 (lines 15-19), omit the item.

(21)  Schedule 1, item 840, page 369 (lines 1-8), omit the item.

(22)  Schedule 1, item 841, page 369 (lines 9-10), omit the item.

                           (i)   the action is not a controlled action; or

                           (ii)  the action is a controlled action but this section is not a controlling provision for the action.

What members might not know is that they have actually just voted against any recognition of climate change being included in the federal environmental legislation. This is absolutely absurd. The first lot of these amendments that we are moving onto now would establish a climate change trigger in the EPBC Act.

Introducing a greenhouse trigger would provide another measure for addressing our international responsibilities in relation to climate change and ensuring Australia meets its Kyoto target.

Those are not my words; those were the words of Robert Hill on 10 December 1999 when he released a consultation paper on the possible application of a greenhouse trigger under the EPBC Act.

The climate change trigger would apply to the establishment of any industrial plant or other facility which emits or is likely to emit more than 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide or equivalent per year—or any other action, series of actions or policies which lead or are likely to lead to the emission of more than 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide or equivalent per year. Any such action will require ministerial approval unless the minister decides that the action is not controlled under the act. If the action is approved, the minister can, under the act, attach conditions to the approval such as the need to mitigate its greenhouse emissions. This is a sensible amendment. It is sensible to actually acknowledge that one of the actions that needs to be a trigger in the federal environmental legislation is the impact of climate change.

If the government truly acknowledge that climate change exists, they should support these amendments. Labor has moved amendments which would repeal the proposals contained in this bill that will curtail third party appeal rights, undermine public consultation processes and further politicise decision-making processes. These amendments would restore the right to appeal ministerial decisions before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which has been removed under this bill.

The bill contains seven separate measures to strip away the right to appeal ministerial decisions before the AAT. They relate to threatened species, migratory species, marine species, whales and dolphins, wildlife trade permits and complying with conservation orders. That shows extraordinary arrogance and sets an amazing precedent. The appeal rights in relation to wildlife permits have existed since 1981. It is very important that there be a balance in the act and Labor will restore that balance and that transparency.

We have also moved an amendment to maintain the Register of the National Estate and require the government to take it into account in decision-making processes. The Whitlam government, through the leadership of my friend Tom Uren, established the Australian Heritage Commission as an independent statutory authority. The commission was responsible for managing Australia’s Register of the National Estate and it served Australia well in managing that role. Today the register has some 13,000 sites of natural cultural and Indigenous heritage significance. So I pay tribute to the register and argue that it must be maintained.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage in his second reading speech referred to the archiving of the Register of the National Estate. Let us be honest: that means it is being abolished. The bill removes the requirement for the minister to have regard to the Register of the National Estate when making decisions and five years after the act comes into force the Register of the National Estate will cease to exist.

In moving these amendments, Labor want to restore a balance in the act. The government portrays this legislation as being absolutely critical. (Extension of time granted) The government does not want debate on this legislation. In spite of the fact that we are against this legislation we did not call a division on the second reading in the interests of proper debate, but we demanded to have our amendments outlined. None of this has occurred. The fact is that currently the government and the minister are against the minister’s own legislation. Section 28A says:

Every 5 years after the commencement of this Act, the Minister must cause a report to be prepared on whether this Part should be amended …

It goes on to say:

Before preparation of the report is completed, the Minister must cause to be published in accordance with the regulations (if any):

(a)

a draft of the report; and

(b)

an invitation to comment on the draft within the period specified by the Minister.

None of this has occurred. One of the amendments that I have moved is an amendment to remove the suggestion in section 324JJ(5) that, in deciding whether or not to list a place on the National Heritage List, the minister must have regard to advice from the Australian Heritage Council but may also seek and have regard to information or advice from any other source. What does that mean? That we will give carte blanche to this government to take advice from any other source? Could it be from a Liberal Party branch or from a particular business with an interest? This undermines the objectivity that is required in this act.

I conclude with this statement—and it is not from me; it is from Western Australian Liberal Senator David Johnston. On 18 October in the Senate, he stated:

This explanatory memorandum is probably one of the most appalling I have ever seen in the short time I have been in the Senate. It discloses no motivation, no reasoning and no justification for some of the most draconian powers that this parliament can conceivably and possibly enact:

And further:

… this legislation should go back to the drawing board.

That is right. He got it right, and that is why we will be supporting these amendments and, if they are not successful, we will be voting against the third reading of this legislation. It is sloppy legislation, hastily put together, it undermines the balance of the EPBC Act and, most importantly, it ignores the greatest global challenge facing the world community—not just the greatest environmental challenge but the greatest environmental, economic and social challenge: climate change.

See this speech in context