Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill 2007. As has been outlined in earlier debate, the purpose of this bill is to establish a national framework for reporting greenhouse gas emissions, certain abatement actions and energy used in production by corporations from the 2008-09 year. It gives us an opportunity to speak about matters to do with climate change, to acknowledge importantly that this is a major issue not only for our nation but for the whole globe and to recognise the mounting proof of human induced climate change and, therefore, the need for us to take this seriously and to take measures that change human behaviour.

In speaking to the bill, I indicate my support for the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Kingsford Smith, the shadow minister for the environment. I wish to highlight the part of that important amendment where it states:

... whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1)

notes that:

(a)

the Bill was hastily drafted without any genuine consultation with stakeholders, including state governments, industry groups and environment groups;

(b)

the Bill was hastily drafted and introduced so as to prevent due public and parliamentary scrutiny ...

If one were to characterise the way in which decisions have been made by this government over its decade-plus in office and compare it with the way decisions were made during the Hawke-Keating years, there is one very stark difference. That is that, over the last decade or so, there has been a complete lack of genuine consultation and an attitude by the Howard government over these years of: ‘Don’t you worry; we know what the answers really are. We’ll tell you the direction. We don’t need anybody advising us. We don’t need anybody giving indications of what really is required.’

In contrast, during the Hawke-Keating years, changes were made in many areas—this was most definitely the case with major changes made to our economy—by the government sitting down with parties that had an interest. Most definitely, we saw a tripartite approach taken to most problems. Because it was a Labor government, of course it sat down with the organised trade union movement; it sat down with people representing the interests of workers. But the significant third leg of that tripartite approach was the government’s sitting down with business, with employers. With community affairs, we saw the Hawke-Keating government take on board the interests of bodies like ACOSS and other non-government organisations that worked in that field. On environmental matters, it sat down with bodies such as the ACF and would try to come up with things that had the imprimatur not only of government but also of the community at large. However, this is an opportunity lost. This piece of legislation is an example of the government deciding that they know what is best.

The other aspect where there is a real need for genuine cooperation and collaboration is the way in which the Australian government, the federal government, the Commonwealth government—name it what you like—sits down and works through issues with the state governments. There has been a complete failing, on the issues that are covered by this piece of legislation, concerning proper consultation—and this gives us, as a federation, great difficulties. But, if we look at business with regard to matters to do with climate change, it has to be said—I have said this before; it upsets me—that time and time again there is overwhelming proof that business is so far ahead of the Howard government that it is not funny. That should not be the case. I think it is terrific that business has understood this problem. It has understood that it presents us with great challenges, but it has also understood that it presents Australia with great opportunities. A conservative government of the type that the coalition represents itself as should have been able to find it easy to sit down with business interests and work on solutions to this problem, but it has even failed at that.

Earlier this week, we had the release of an Ai Group report entitled Environmental sustainability and industry, road to a sustainable future, which was produced in conjunction with Sustainability Victoria. On the release of the report, Heather Ridout, the Ai Group’s chief executive—not somebody I usually quote in this place—made a very telling point. She said:

Companies clearly need more information on how they can improve sustainable practices, they need a better understanding of an emissions trading scheme, and they need better incentives, particularly for small to medium firms ...

The report indicated that there was a dearth of knowledge—that businesses were crying out to see leadership from government on the simple aspect of information. This piece of legislation will commence the journey of providing us with hard facts about what is going on, which of course is a precursor step for putting in place a national emissions system. But, looking at the evidence that was put before the Senate committee that considered this piece of legislation, you will see that there was a lot of opinion that the way in which this piece of legislation had been framed was likely to slow the process down.

As an opposition, we do not want to be seen to be in the position of in any way slowing down the journey to putting in place a national emissions trading system that will require us having a metric to show what type of emissions are in place, the way in which those emissions can be abated and the way in which people can enter into the marketplace to make the sorts of trades that the scheme would require. But the government needs to understand that these are the items that are required. It is not about seeking headlines. It is not about saying, ‘Well, we’ve got our own ideas and we’ll tell you when we’re ready.’ Ratifying the Kyoto protocol is not about some magical thing that the signature will do; it is about what the protocol actually means—for instance, what it would mean for industry. If we were proper parties to this agreement, the types of mechanisms that would open up to Australian industry would be quite considerable—and they are ignored by this government. The simple fact of not ratifying the Kyoto protocol will put us outside the mechanism, which will continue in Bali in a few months time, and it is a considerable downfall of the government. We need to be involved in all international forums that are connected with this important protocol.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context