Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water) Share this | Hansard source

In addressing the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2008 I want to make three broad points. First, this bill makes minor amendments to the regime which the coalition government put in place last year. Second, we have a strong history of practical action to deliver real reductions in emissions, which contrasts with many of the proposals which are currently being put forward. Third, I want to mention the ‘three pillars’ approach which we are taking to the broader issue of emissions reduction in Australia today as part of a global approach and a global way of reducing overall CO2 and equivalent emissions.

Let me be very clear, we support the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2008 for a simple reason: it makes minor technical amendments, which were foreshadowed prior to the previous election, to the system we put in place to enable an emissions trading scheme. This is a preparatory system which will ultimately assist both in monitoring Australia’s greenhouse emissions and in allowing us to prepare, in the most efficient and least disruptive way, for an emissions trading scheme.

In relation to this particular bill, we note that there are amendments here aimed at three things: firstly, simplifying the regulatory burden and increasing flexibility associated with the registration of corporations under the act; secondly, confirming that the obligation of a registered corporation to comply with an external audit extends also to the corporations group; and, thirdly, clarifying the provisions relating to the reporting of greenhouse gas projects and offsets of emissions. These are consistent with the regime we put in place last year. They are consistent with the intention which we established and they are consistent with the direction which we flagged.

Having said all of that, this then brings us to the broader background of action which the previous coalition government took to prepare Australia for a long-term approach to reducing emissions in a way which did not harm the ability of this generation to maintain our standards of living and our quality of life, and to work in such a way where we have intergenerational equity so that the present generation is not sold out to bear the load in relation to past actions or future actions. In particular, we took a series of major initiatives which led, above all else, to a reduction of between 85 and 87 million tonnes per annum in CO2 or equivalent gases which would otherwise have occurred. Overall, in the last decade we have seen Australia’s emissions reduced by about 170 million tonnes against business as usual. About half of that has come through changes in land clearing. I welcome those changes and that reduction, and I welcome the protection of biological diversity as a result.

The other half of the reduction—and this is often not credited by those on the government benches—has come about largely as a result of a range of specific federal initiatives under the coalition. That is why Australia today is one of only a handful of developed countries to actually be on track to meet our international targets for emissions reduction. We are one of the few countries in the world that are on track to meet their targets under the Kyoto protocol. There is a lot of noise about whether or not a country has put its signature on the table. Many countries have promised but few have actually delivered. We have delivered because of a series of practical initiatives which have had real effect without disrupting and without destroying the capacity of Australians to provide for themselves and their families now and in the future.

The coalition took practical initiatives such as, firstly, the first greenhouse office in the world; secondly, the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, which was aimed directly at being a world-leading project for major emissions reductions; and, thirdly, the solar homes scheme or, as it is alternatively known, the Photovoltaic Rebate Program. This program has, however, been gutted under the new government, which put in place a means test which means that mums and dads who earn $51,000 or more each are now in large part unable to afford to have solar panels on their homes. They are no longer able to be part of the clean energy revolution; they have been disempowered. This is part of a program which takes away incentives and replaces them with a culture of fear rather than one of hope, empowerment and practical action.

In the Senate, we have seen a whitewash by government members of the impacts of the means test on the solar homes program. Why do I say that? Very simply, the figures have been propped up by the Queensland government’s solar lottery, which means that $185 is all that people have to pay to get solar panels on their roofs. That program will run out soon and, as a Senate inquiry has heard, many small businesses have lost 80 per cent of their orders. This is real. It has an impact on solar businesses, it has an impact on a sunrise industry and it has an impact on the ability of Australian mums, dads and families to make real reductions in emissions savings. We reject, categorically and absolutely, the whitewash by the government members in the Senate committee. They have failed to acknowledge that the only reason the figures are holding up is the Queensland government giveaway and lottery. It is a good program. I do not argue with what the Queensland government is doing to reduce emissions; I argue with what Mr Garrett and the Prime Minister have done in gutting the solar homes project.

We also saw under the previous government, most importantly, the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate, aimed at reducing 10 per cent of the world’s emissions from CO2. Currently 40 billion tonnes of CO2 are put out. This program aims to reduce the eight billion tonnes of CO2 from global deforestation to four billion tonnes in the next five years. That is the single largest and fastest reduction the world can make, and the new government has dropped the ball on protecting against the scourge of global deforestation. It is a real initiative which should be supported and advanced. Other developed world countries are willing to participate: the United States, the UK, Germany and France. If we are serious about making emissions reductions, we should not put all the burden on Australian mums and dads. We should use the capacity of the international system and the developed world to work with the developing world on reductions of global deforestation, and nothing will deliver faster, greater, real results at a cheaper price than working towards halving the rate of deforestation and increasing net reafforestation over the next five years.

This brings me directly to the coalition’s approach to dealing with the objectives of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2008. We have a ‘three pillars’ approach to dealing with greenhouse gas reduction. First, we must start at the international level; second, there has to be a clean energy revolution; and, third, there is a role for a carefully crafted, non-destructive emissions trading scheme. But that is not what has been presented by the Rudd government.

Let me look at the first of the three pillars: the international pressure for which we unashamedly advocated. We need to do two things. First, we need to have an approach which says to the great emitters of the world, China, India and the United States: you must be a serious part of a global approach. If they are not part of that approach, then the emissions trading scheme that we adopt must be one with a low and slow commencement price. We are ready to ramp up if the other countries play their part, but we must not play our hand in such a way that we take away the incentive for other countries to act. If we allow them to be free riders, we do nothing for the planet and we do everything to hurt ourselves.

The second thing we must do is to put in place the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate, which we are now referring to as a global rainforest recovery plan. The message to Mr Rudd, Mr Garrett and Senator Wong is very clear: you must not take the pressure off the developing world to protect its forests, to protect its ecology and to make great savings in the reduction of emissions which would otherwise go up over the next five years. You must be part and parcel of a global rainforest recovery program, which can halve the eight billion tonnes, or 20 per cent, of global emissions which come from deforestation. It can do this over the next five years. It can reduce emissions by four billion tonnes, or 10 per cent of global emissions, and nothing can make more of a difference in the next five years than these great savings. Please take this policy up. Do not reject it just because we took the leadership on it. Do not make the mistake of cutting funds from this, because these are real reductions which take the pressure off Australian mums and dads.

The second of the pillars, about which there is enormous excitement in the coalition party room, is the concept of a clean energy revolution. That means a push and drive for Australia to be, amongst other things, a solar continent. We have to have a capacity for mums and dads, families, farmers and individuals to participate in the clean energy revolution through the adoption of solar photovoltaic power in their own homes. And yet we have seen, as I said earlier, the destruction of the very incentive designed to allow mums and dads and farmers and families to have solar panels on their roofs. If you earn more than $51,000 each as a couple, you will no longer have that incentive. The message to the solar industry, the message to Australian families is: we are not serious about this sunrise industry; we are happy for a political point to run it into the ground. That is unacceptable; it must be reversed. We will fight all the way to have it reversed and we stand very clearly for a bright sunrise future rather than a sunset on the solar industry.

At the level of generation of baseload power, we are on the threshold of quite a revolution in terms of clean energy here. What we are advocating and what we are saying to the Rudd government is very clear: we will push for a revolution in solar baseload. In California and Nevada, and in Spain and elsewhere around the world, we are seeing the development of the capacity not only for generating but also for storage. There are two great storage advances: first, the use and conversion of supercritical steam and, second, enormous advances in chemical storage. This is one of those technologies which is advancing faster than the international community had expected, and we want to be at the forefront; we want to see that the solar industry is supported and not discouraged. The message that has gone out to the solar industry has been a very poor one. The Renewable Energy Fund was put back rather than brought forward; the solar homes program was gutted; and I have met with numerous solar industry executives who are dismayed, disheartened and disappointed at the way in which this industry has been treated by the new government. That is where we stand on a clean energy revolution.

The third pillar is an emissions trading scheme, but we support a carefully calibrated, non-destructive, effective emissions trading scheme. There are four criticisms we have about the way in which the government have casually thrown on the table a destructive and ineffective emissions trading scheme. Firstly, they have gutted the clean energy sector. We see that LPG, the cleanest burning of the available automotive fuels at present, is set to be the first and highest taxed fuel under their new scheme. We also see, on the clean energy side, that one tonne of exported LNG—liquid natural gas—when it is transported to China, will lead to four tonnes of CO2 being reduced if it replaces coal-fired power. And yet, as Woodside and others have said—and I have met with executives of Woodside and others—this proposal, on the table right now, threatens the very viability of our industry. In short, the cleanest burning baseload fossil fuel is set to be punished and the world will suffer as a result. Global emissions will go up rather than down, Australian industry will suffer and Australian jobs will go, and that is bad for Australia and bad for people who are concerned about emissions, as I am.

The second of the great criticisms in relation to emissions trading is that it is, in the Rudd government’s scheme, a new petrol tax, but not until after the election. That is an unacceptable concept. Petrol is a largely inelastic good—the economic history around the world is that it is a largely inelastic good. We see a three-year moratorium. Basically, the new tax has been deferred until after the election. We do not accept that there should be a new tax on petrol and we will stand against it.

The third of our criticisms of the emissions trading scheme is that there is a new grocery tax contained within it which will be imposed on groceries seven months after the due date of the next election. How will this work? Very simply, we will see that commercial transport will face a new tax seven months after the election. That commercial transport is the way of passing our groceries around Australia. You cannot substitute for food. It is not as if you can substitute one item for another. Everybody will have to eat. It is a ludicrous proposition that we are going to generically bump up the price of food in the hope that it will somehow change behaviour. This new grocery tax will come in seven months after the due date for the next election. It is absurd; it is ridiculous. It will have an impact on pensioners, low-income families and middle-income Australia and it will have zero impact on emissions.

The fourth of the concerns we have is in relation to timing. We have a concern about the time when submissions are due. Submissions in response to the green paper are due in the next two weeks, before the Treasury modelling is available. That is an absurd situation. Much more importantly, the date for the system has been arbitrarily set as 1 July 2010. That is a political deadline. We know from the Business Council of Australia and from numerous Australian companies that they will face job losses, enormous balance sheet impacts. They are not yet prepared; they are not yet ready. It will not have an impact on emissions but it will have an impact on the balance sheets of Australian companies. There will be job losses; there will be a real impact. We believe the earliest feasible date is 2011—probably 2012—and we say that the government must listen to those people who will be affected. There is a real reason for that: if you want an effective system, you have to give industry a chance to adapt. Let us not drive Australia into an anticompetitive situation which will have no impact on emissions but will have an impact on livelihoods, the cost of living and Australian families.

I make, ultimately, the point that we support this particular bill—the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2008. It is, in effect, our bill, building on our system as preparation for an effective emissions trading scheme. But we approach the overall greenhouse issue with a three-pillared approach: unashamed support for international pressure; an unashamed belief in a clean energy revolution and direct engagement with supporting a solar continent vision, not the destruction of the solar energy industry as we have seen from this new government; and unashamed strength in looking for an effective emissions trading scheme with real support for clean energy, no petrol tax, no grocery tax and a commencement date starting no earlier than 2011—probably 2012. We do that because we believe in real outcomes for greenhouse reduction, based on hope rather than fear and on the capacity of individuals to have a real role.

See this speech in context