Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I say from the outset that I certainly will be supporting the amendment moved by the member for Kingsford Smith, but I will return to that a little later. The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill 2007 establishes a single national framework for reporting greenhouse gas emissions, emissions reduction actions and energy consumption and production of corporations from July 2008. As I understand it—and I have no reason to doubt this—this is an absolutely essential precursor to establishing an emissions trading system. By the 2010-11 financial year, the reporting framework will apply to approximately 700 companies that emit more than 50 kilotonnes of greenhouse gases. However, the fact remains that this particular bill is being rushed through this parliament so that this government can claim that it has passed primary legislation to enable the establishment of an emissions trading scheme.

I concede that the bill is necessary. It certainly underpins the introduction of a national emissions trading mechanism. However, the bill’s has major shortcomings. Firstly, there is the provision of excessive reporting powers to the Commonwealth, which could be used, quite frankly, to usurp and marginalise some of the existing state laws and programs dealing with similar matters. Secondly, the timetables are so constrained—and they are certainly constrained from Labor’s point of view—that, under the way the bill is drafted currently, they would not be able to allow an emissions trading scheme to be introduced by 2010, which, I remind the House, is Labor’s policy.

All members of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts that sat to consider this bill when it was referred to them have recommended significant amendments to this piece of legislation, particularly in relation to the excessive reporting powers as drafted therein. Labor recognises the urgent need for progress on emissions trading, but it does not excuse the poor process or a lack of genuine consultation not only with industry or environmental groups but also with the community at large.

The bill, which was introduced in this place in August of this year, includes the following elements: mandatory registration and controlling corporations with a national scheme; the requirement of registered corporations to keep records and provide reports; requirements concerning the security and disclosure of information under the scheme; compliance and enforcement of arrangements; administrative arrangements, including the establishment of a position of a greenhouse and energy data officer; and compliance monitoring arrangements. I have no issue with those. I think they are matters that are required as natural precursors to establishing a mechanism upon which to base a national trading scheme.

This bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, and that committee convened on 3 September of this year—not all that long ago, you would say. At that stage the committee heard evidence from a range of groups. One of the consistent areas of complaint throughout the evidence that was taken by that committee was the fact that there was little if any consultation with key stakeholders within the environmental area, within industry and within the community. Regardless of who they were, whether they were expert witnesses, state governments, industry groups or environmental groups, all agreed that, while the objectives of this legislation are sound and are necessary to underpin a proper emissions trading scheme, this bill as it is drafted—as it is poorly drafted—is riddled with problems.

The inquiry heard that the bill would deliver unintended consequences, such as a significant rise in compliance costs; would produce a fractured system, which may not include as a consequence all the major emitters; would undermine state laws on climate change; and could conceivably cut across other state laws which, while not directly or primarily connected to greenhouse emissions, would nevertheless be involved in emissions and pollution control issues. The Investor Group on Climate Change—not an insignificant group—were of the opinion that the time frames for introducing a practical emissions trading system are far too slow. They were calling for better quality in the drafting of this piece of legislation in order to deliver a trading mechanism sooner. I will come back to the issue of the investor groups.

Whilst everyone is talking freely these days about aspirational targets, one of the main things that industry want is certainty. Industry want to know how they are going to raise capital to invest in a number of these technologies which will deliver greenhouse abatement benefits. To do that they need to have certainty in relation to raising funds, whether publicly or privately, and that is why industry say that they are on the outside and are what some might see as needing to be dragged into this tent. The people who I deal with in the industry, quite frankly, are looking for leadership. They are looking for government leadership when it comes to proper attention to greenhouse gas emission. Industry are not our problem at the moment; a lack of direction from this government is.

As a consequence of its drafting, the bill sets in place a number of issues. According to the evidence of those who participated in the inquiry, for those in the business community who are looking for an investment opportunity it sets in place a slowness for Australia to actually take action on climate change. It is all very well to have an issue brought to the parliament at this stage of the electoral cycle—at a time when the government is trying to demonstrate some credentials, after 11 years, in relation to environmental concerns, particularly the emission of greenhouse gases. But this hastily cobbled together piece of legislation, which is, as I said, a precursor to the development of a national trading scheme, has been put together with no consultation. And the Senate inquiry, having heard evidence from those who appeared only very recently, on 3 September, had to deal with the consequence of this very hasty attempt by the government to try to establish some meagre environmental concern.

I indicated that there would potentially also be issues in relation to the application of this bill to existing state law. That is a real and present danger as a consequence of the drafting of this legislation, particularly in terms of New South Wales. Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, you are probably familiar with the greenhouse gas reduction scheme that operates there. In a previous life I had much to do with the New South Wales greenhouse abatement certificates issued to commercialised projects and, indeed, with those issued to commercialised projects in Queensland, of all places, as a consequence of the New South Wales system of gas abatement certificates. It is important that the stakeholders in this legislation also include those states which are, by default, running their own de facto mechanisms in this respect. If anything, from what we can see, this legislation is simply moving to usurp those mechanisms which are available in many states presently.

The Labor members on the committee that dealt with this matter on 3 September all supported the urgent implementation of the comprehensive mandatory greenhouse emissions energy reporting scheme. That is not something that is going to be contested. It is something that must be achieved. Unfortunately, the time constraints imposed by the bill make it difficult to think that this bill as it is currently structured could actually lead to the development of an emissions trading scheme by 2010.

In the absence of federal leadership on climate change, state and territory governments have been taking steps—disparate as they may be across the nation—to address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. As a consequence, Labor members on the committee had the view that clause 5 should be amended to rein in the proposed overly broad Commonwealth powers, which can extend over state laws. Labor members also want to amend clauses 27(1) and 27(2)(c) so that it is necessary to provide reporting information to state governments. I do not think it should be the objective of government to simply impose some exclusivity when it comes to addressing greenhouse gas emissions when there are clearly measures at a state level which are making inroads. We should be looking for a degree of harmonisation, but certainly keeping those states which are applying themselves well in this area in the loop. Rather than reducing uncertainty, this legislation, as I read it, has the potential to deliver unintended consequences, such as legal ambiguities, which will increase the compliance burden of this scheme.

There is no doubt that the sooner we act on emissions trading the longer the economy will have to adjust to the market signals and the better placed we will all be to prosper under the growing international approach to carbon markets. That is just an economic fact of life. I mentioned earlier the timely nature of this bill—and probably put it somewhat facetiously—with the bill coming in at this point in the electoral cycle. The fact remains that in the 11 budgets delivered by this government there has not once been a mention of ‘climate change’. In the whole 11 years of this government—this government which wants to contend that the single biggest thing that occurred at APEC recently was the statement in relation to aspirational targets and the fulfilment of the government’s objective in that respect—not once has it listed climate change in its budgets as a line item.

Yesterday in the matter of public importance debate the member for Kingsford Smith, whose amendment I am supporting, read the following statement:

Climate change is a serious issue. It is a global problem and the solution will also have to be global. The cost of adjustment must be distributed fairly evenly among developing economies as well as developed ones. We have a comprehensive national response to limit our greenhouse gas emissions.

That statement was made on 28 August 1996 by the current Prime Minister. Climate change has dominated real politics now for some time, yet the language of the Howard government remains the same as that enunciated back on 28 August 1996.

Recently there was a contention by some in this place that climate change really was not an issue of concern. You may remember, Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, a report of the Inquiry of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation into geosequestration. I am a member of that committee and enjoy my participation on it. The committee gains a very real insight into the issues referred to it, particularly by having access to some of the best scientific and academic resources available in dealing with the various subjects referred to it. The minister had referred to the committee for inquiry the science of geosequestration. This is effectively the science of carbon capture and storage of CO₂ as a consequence of energy production. The committee looked at the science of capturing that CO₂, putting it into liquid form and storing it in the earth. This is something that the government, to its credit, is investing in as a real and viable technology in addressing the issues of CO₂ emissions, particularly in relation to power generation.

As I said, I am a member of that committee. This particular inquiry took around 13 months, during which we heard evidence from a range of highly credible witnesses, including representatives from industry, academia and CSIRO. Throughout the committee’s deliberations there were those who certainly had concerns in relation to the efforts of government or alternately wanted to have their position on this technology recorded—enough on the history of that. The point of the matter is that the majority of the government’s elected members on the committee produced a minority report. The member for Tangney, the member for Lindsay, the member for Hughes and the member for Solomon all combined to write a dissenting report, which, as I understand it—and I have only been here a short time—is a pretty rare occurrence. The government has six members on the committee, so the majority of government members on the committee all combined to write a minority report.

The basis of their dissenting report was that they wanted to record their view that they do not believe in climate change. They are climate change deniers. These four members of the committee produced a report denying the fact that climate change has been caused in any way by greenhouse gas emissions and saying that the jury is out as to whether greenhouse gas emissions have been contributed to by man. This dissenting report said:

Another problem with the view that it is anthropogenic greenhouse gases that have caused warming is that warming has also been observed on Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Pluto, Neptune and others.

This dissenting report wanted to question whether there is any reputable science underpinning the notion of greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change and wanted to cite what is occurring on other planets and moons. If they are the majority of people that this coalition government put on their committee to look at the consequence of carbon capture and storage, how many other people— (Time expired)

See this speech in context