Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2008, which seeks to amend the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. The purpose of this bill is to make amendments to the public disclosure provisions in that act and to clarify the administrative processes in relation to it. The measures in this bill are designed to underpin this nation’s introduction of and transition to a carbon pollution reduction scheme and subsequent emissions trading scheme. As well, the bill will assist the government in ensuring that our nation meets its international reporting requirements when it comes to carbon emissions.

The government’s green paper in relation to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme has outlined initial objectives, guidelines, transitional arrangements and time frames. It represents a clear policy direction on the part of the Rudd government to fulfil the mandate it was given by the people of Australia at the last election to introduce an emissions trading scheme in this country and to act on the issue of climate change. This is a very clear and deliberate path that is being put in place, not one that is being rushed. The government has a green paper in place which puts on the record the direction in which the government is going but which, at the same time, seeks to consult with all the stakeholders in the lead-up to the announcement of government policy through the white paper at the end of this year and then through legislation in this parliament. This is a very clear direction and a very clear path, which we are proceeding upon in a very deliberate and careful way.

This stands in contrast with what we have seen on the other side of this House and what we saw on the part of the Howard government prior to November last year. When we have probably the single most critical issue facing our globe and our nation, we have seen on the other side of the House nothing but a gaggle of shadow ministers desperately seeking to outdo each other via the latest media sound bite. What we have on that side of the House is nothing but politicking. The Liberal Party sees the panacea for reducing the financial burden of households in this country as a 5c reduction in the petrol excise, without breathing a word of how that tax relates to the issue of climate change in this country. As late as last week we saw the shadow resources minister and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition trying covertly to push onto the Australian electorate the idea of nuclear energy, when that idea was comprehensively rejected by the Australian people at the election last November. We have a Leader of the Opposition who cannot tell the electorate when he would like to see a carbon pollution reduction scheme put in place in this country.

We have on this side of the House the culmination of a series of actions which give us policy chaos. If business and the stakeholders in this country were trying to get an indication of where the country was going from the utterances which we have seen from the conservative parties in this parliament, they would have absolutely no idea. When it comes to this vitally important issue for the future of this country, we have seen from the coalition nothing but politicking. In contrast to that, we see on our side of the House a very clear direction, carefully and deliberately prosecuted, with consultation of all the stakeholders and taking us down the path that this country and our globe must go down to deal with the great issue of our age.

As you know, I represent people in the city of Geelong. I am sure everyone feels the issue of climate change and the potential effects of an emissions trading scheme in their own way, but I think it is fair to say that Geelong is really on the front line of the whole issue. We are on the front line, in a sense, on both sides of the equation. Geelong absolutely stands to feel the consequences of climate change. We are a seaside city which exists in one of the unusual parts of the world where scientists predict that climate change will give rise to a reduction in rainfall. Indeed, we have already seen that. Geelong has been under a variety of water restrictions for the better part of a decade now. We are a water stressed city—much more so than Melbourne, in fact—so we are already experiencing the effects of climate change in Geelong. Of course, being a seaside city, our town and its economy is inevitably intimately connected with the foreshore and with the sea. Much of our great industry in Geelong—Shell, Alcoa and Pivot, a large fertiliser plant—is located along the foreshore. Were there to be rising sea levels as a result of climate change, each of those industries and those plants would feel it significantly.

A bit further down the road from Geelong we have the Great Ocean Road, which is one of our country’s great tourist attractions and which is itself the basis of an emerging and very large industry for our region: tourism. Tourism on the Great Ocean Road is defined by the shape of our coastline. Were we to see climate change giving rise to rises in sea levels, we would see that coastline change and our tourism enormously affected. On the side of the equation which is the consequences of climate change, Geelong is very much on the front line. We are already experiencing the consequences of it.

On the other side of the equation, we are predominantly a manufacturing and industrial town. Almost half of those employed in Geelong are employed in connection with industry and manufacturing. That industry and manufacturing is exclusively fuelled by carbon based fuels. Indeed, at least two of the large multinationals that are based in Geelong produce that carbon based fuel. We absolutely feel the issue of climate change and the potential of an emissions trading scheme from the point of view of bearing the responsibility of putting that emissions trading scheme in place. I think experiencing this from both sides of the equation certainly clarifies it, if it does not give a unique perspective on the issue. It is a very stark perspective that we have in Geelong: we need to be acting on this issue right now. I want to take the House through that.

As I said, we have a number of high emitters who are based in Geelong. There is perhaps no issue being dealt with by this government which will have a greater impact on the people of Geelong than climate change and a future emissions trading scheme. It is critical for the people of Geelong that the government get this policy right. That is why it is so important and so good that we are proceeding down the path that we are, in the careful and deliberate manner that we are, so that we will get this policy right.

Last week, Ford announced further job cuts in Geelong in tandem with the job cuts which were announced last year with the closure of the Ford engine-stamping plant. This closure is due to occur in 2010. The consequences are that 600 jobs will be lost in the lead-up to that. In tandem with that, Ford has also announced that it will be producing the Ford Focus locally in Australia at its Broadmeadows plant. I think I am right in saying that it will become the first locally produced four-cylinder car in Australia—or the only one produced at the moment. It is a significant decision being made by Ford, and it bears some examination because there are important lessons to be learned, both for our country and for an industrial region like Geelong, in the context of climate change. Whilst Ford has made this decision to manufacture the Focus in Australia, it is no thanks to the former government, which showed a distinct lack of support for the automotive industry in this country.

The former government also showed a distinct lack of foresight on this issue of climate change, did very little, as I stated earlier, to provide the kind of policy indicators for business to move down a more carbon neutral path and did very little to help them in the transition to that. It is good for me to be able to report here that the Bracks review into the automotive industry has recommended significant increases of funding for the automotive industry. We have on the table now a policy in relation to climate change, of which this bill is certainly a part, which is giving very clear direction to business.

Having made that point, we see in the shift of Ford to producing a four-cylinder vehicle in Australia a response which I think is indicative of a move towards more carbon neutral and carbon friendly products and manufacturing processes across industry and manufacturing on a global scale. That is largely driven by consumers. It is also driven, to a lesser but increasing extent, by government regulation around the world through emissions trading schemes. It is true to say that part of that consumer choice is driven by an increase in petrol prices, but in a sense that only adds to the argument that we are moving into a world which is going to be much more carbon neutral and much less desirous of using carbon-consuming energy. What is important here is that our industry in Australia actually gets ahead of this curve. If we are going to have sustainable industry in Australia, in a world which is moving to more carbon neutral technology, then it is essential that that technology is developed in Australia and that that forms the direction that industry is moving to in Australia. Of course, there can be no guarantees about what industry will face as we move forward into a carbon pollution reduction scheme, but I think the one thing we can be sure of is that if we lag behind the rest of the world—if we are the last to move on this issue, if we are the last country to stay holding on for dear life to carbon intensive industries—that is a guarantee of job losses into the future. The smartest thing we can do for industry in this country to ensure the future growth of jobs in manufacturing and industry in Australia is to make sure that our industry is embracing carbon neutral technology or more carbon friendly technology.

There is a stereotype in all of this which says that if we put in place an emissions trading scheme ahead of the rest of the world—and of course that in itself is not quite right, given that 27 other countries have preceded us—we will lose industries who will continue to do their polluting in other countries, and that represents a danger. It is articulated in the green paper and it is very important that we take account of that and that appropriate transitional arrangements are put in place. The government is clearly working very carefully on it. But there is another form of leakage of industry that we will experience if we do not embrace this, and that is watching industry leave our country to go to places which have more carbon friendly and more carbon neutral technology in place. That is the real long-term danger we face if we do not start orientating our industry to a more carbon friendly and more carbon neutral path. That is why it is so important that as a government we put the indicators out there to encourage business down that path. It is the morally right thing to do. It is also the pragmatic and smart thing to do to ensure that we promote jobs in our country.

On 11 August, I held a forum in the electorate of Corio on the whole issue of the emissions trading scheme and greenhouse gas emissions. Whilst not wanting to go into detail about what each of the participants from industry in that forum said, I think there was an acknowledgement, firstly, that human caused climate change is actually occurring and that something needs to be done about it and, secondly, that an emissions trading scheme is the way to go. I think there is an appreciation for what the government is trying to do. I think there is also a real appreciation for the fact that the government is engaging with them and participating in a consultative process by its green paper/white paper process. This is a critical issue for Geelong, as it is for our country, as it is or our globe. The amendments that we are debating today form an important part of the suite of measures that we are talking about to underpin a future emissions trading scheme.

In the time that I have left I want to briefly describe what is being put in place here under this bill in the additional reporting requirements which provide, as I say, for an underpinning of a future emissions trading scheme. This bill will expand the suite of issues which are required to be published by a company in relation to greenhouse gas emissions and energy use. It will require the separate reporting of direct carbon emissions—that is, direct emissions that the company itself causes. It will also require the reporting of indirect emissions—that is, emissions that might be caused by a separate company which provides energy, and causes emissions as a result of that, which the first company then uses. It provides for the disclosure of the methods which are going to be utilised by these companies in calculating their emissions. It provides an ability for companies to report carbon offsets that they are putting in place, which may in fact be done in a different place or by a different business unit within the corporation. It provides for the disclosure of information, not the specific amount of carbon emissions which are occurring but rather reporting the range between two levels of carbon emissions. The importance of that is that that will then enable commercially sensitive information, which might otherwise be disclosed by providing a precise measurement, to be maintained by the company. To that end, there is also a provision for a company to apply to withhold its emissions information on the basis that that would disclose a secret.

In addition, there is a range of other administrative measures in the bill which will assist in the reporting regime. For example, the minister can specify, as part of this, the conditions and methods by which the measurement of greenhouse gas emissions occurs. There is a simplification, for example, for the process of corporations registering under this system. There is a clarification that the term ‘penalty units’ will have the same meaning in this act as it does in the Crimes Act and so forth. So this actually undertakes a number of cleaning-up mechanisms, if you like, in the whole reporting regime. The information which is collected under these provisions will assist in the refinement of the policy in relation to greenhouse gas emissions and energy issues. Importantly, these amendments will not provide any further regulatory burden on business beyond the original intention of the act, and there will be very little impact on the public purse. As I indicated, these measures will provide for a robust system which will underpin a future emissions trading scheme and provide for clear and transparent sources of information to the public as well as assisting in Australia’s obligations to report internationally.

As I have stated, there has been an enormous amount of consultation in relation to this bill, separate from that in relation to the emissions trading scheme generally. A policy paper was released in February of this year. Many of the affected industry representatives have been spoken to about these changes, as have the state and territory governments, and they are broadly supportive of them.

The implementation in this country of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and of the subsequent emissions trading scheme is as important an issue as we will face in this term of government. It is the great issue of our globe. It is the great issue of our nation. And, speaking as a representative of Geelong, it is very clearly the great issue of Geelong as well. For all those reasons, this being a bill which is an important building block for that suite of changes, I very much commend it to the House.

See this speech in context