Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2008 today. The bill will make amendments to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act, which was put in place by the coalition government last year. These amendments will simplify the reporting requirements of corporations and cut red tape by simplifying the regulatory burden and increasing the flexibility associated with the registration of corporations under the act by confirming that the obligations of a registered corporation to comply with an external audit extends also to the corporation’s group and clarifying the provisions relating to the reporting of greenhouse gas projects and offsets of emissions.

This bill also gives greater power under the act for the government to make mandatory and separate public disclosure of direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions and confirms the ability of the minister to specify conditions for the use of alternative methods to calculate greenhouse gas emissions and allow publication of information relating to those methods.

Debating this bill provides an opportunity to examine what the current government is doing in relation to the planned emissions trading scheme. As members would be aware, the coalition has a strong record in relation to an emissions trading scheme. Indeed, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act, which was put in place last year, provided the platform for the introduction of an ETS. The reporting system that was put in place by the act was formulated after extensive consultation with stakeholders. This is an important point because having open discussions between government, industry and the community is vital to the success of any emissions trading scheme.

However, since it was elected to power last November the Rudd government has displayed a concerning pattern of behaviour. Across a range of portfolios there are numerous examples where Rudd government rhetoric is not being matched by its actions. In fact, in many cases the actions of this government directly contradict its rhetoric. This is causing tremendous uncertainty for many Australians and is further undermining business confidence, which we are all aware has collapsed since this government came to office. In challenging economic times, people turn to their national government seeking certainty, seeking reassurance and seeking leadership. It is a sad reality that the current government is failing to deliver in these critical areas. Indeed, the Prime Minister is relying on spin and hollow rhetoric in order to ignore the substance which is necessary in key areas of policy. The Rudd government’s approach to the environment is a perfect example of this. On the surface we see the Prime Minister prancing around the world stage, extolling the virtues of addressing climate change. According to the Prime Minister, the world is on the precipice of an Armageddon because of greenhouse gas emissions. Anyone who questions the PM’s position is derided as a denier, a sceptic who has their head stuck in the sand. But when you look past the Rudd government rhetoric on the environment, a different picture emerges.

For example, one of the solutions to reducing the CO2 emissions from households is the adoption of solar technology. Prior to the election, Kevin Rudd travelled the country talking about the merits of solar power. Encouraging more Australians to adopt solar technology was a more sustainable way to deliver clean energy to households than coal or other alternatives, said the Prime Minister. Yet behind all the hot air there was precious little substance, because on budget night in May this year the Rudd government announced that it would means-test the solar rebate. Quite clearly that rebate was not a matter of social security; it was designed to engender a course of action to encourage households to take up solar energy. But what does means-testing it for families earning over $100,000 a year do? Is that going to increase our take-up of solar energy and solar technology? Is that going to buttress our response to climate change? Quite clearly it is not. The introduction of the means test shows the hypocrisy of this government. On the one hand it will tell you that solar power is the solution, whilst on the other hand incentives are only available for families that earn less than $100,000 per year. This is classic spin from the Prime Minister. When you look at his government, it is important that one does not listen to what it says but rather looks at what it does.

Across the environment portfolio there are other examples of hypocrisy. For example, this government has scrapped the Community Water Grants program, which provided almost 8,000 community groups, including many schools, with grants to improve water efficiency. The $200 million program set up by the Howard government provided grants of up to $50,000 to community groups to help them save water through projects such as harvesting rain or stormwater. It was a very popular program and it reflected the desire of Australians to better manage such a vital resource. So what did the Rudd government do once it was elected? It trumpeted the need for better water efficiency and then it closed down the Community Water Grants program. There are other examples where this government’s rhetoric on the environment is not being matched by its actions. Cuts to Landcare funding are another example of the Rudd government failing to deliver improved environmental outcomes.

It is against this backdrop that Australians are starting to get very concerned about the Rudd government’s rushed introduction of an emissions trading scheme. Australians are quite comfortable about the introduction of an ETS but they want the government to get it right. They are depending on their government to get it right. It is important that an ETS does not simply move jobs offshore. It is important that an ETS does not simply redistribute the carbon load, as it were, to another country. We have to have a scheme that works, not a scheme that is founded only on rhetoric.

It is essential that pensioners and families are not unfairly burdened with substantial increases in the cost of living. I know that in my electorate of Cowper there are many pensioners who are genuinely concerned about the haste with which the Prime Minister is seeking to introduce an emissions trading scheme. They are acutely aware that the government is trying to spin the line that an ETS can be introduced without having a detrimental impact on low-income families. They are also aware that the Rudd government has this propensity to say one thing and then do another. And all the signs are there that the introduction of an ETS will be no exception.

Look behind the gloss of the ETS green paper and there are some worrying signs. For example, the Rudd government plan to introduce a new tax on petrol but they have delayed its introduction to after the next election. Also, if you look at the issue of LPG, the cleanest version of fuel that is going to run our cars, it is going to be hit with a brand-new tax. What is the logic in imposing a new tax on a cleaner fuel? It defies logic—it really does.

The introduction of a carbon tax will also push up the price of virtually all consumer goods. Electricity, groceries and other consumables will rise under the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme. This is in stark contradiction to the rhetoric used by Kevin Rudd, who went to the election last year leading Australians to believe that he was going to deliver cheaper petrol and cheaper groceries. And what did we get? We got Fuelwatch, hardly a leading light in policy formulation, and we got GROCERYchoice, derided by the entire grocery industry as nothing but a farce.

Despite the hip-pocket assault on Australians, the Prime Minister has refused to explain who will be compensated for the extra cost-of-living pressures and by how much. The government have adopted a very underhanded approach to the whole consultation process. They have released a green paper and announced that they will be consulting with stakeholders, but they have refused to release the modelling upon which the emissions trading scheme is based. It is beyond belief that industry and consumer groups are expected to finalise their submissions when the government have not released the modelling upon which the emissions trading scheme is based.

The ETS represents one of the biggest structural changes in Australia’s history. A decision to introduce an ETS should not be taken lightly and requires proper consultation and consideration by all Australians. That is why the coalition believes that government should take its time to get the detail right and look towards introducing a scheme by 2012. Australia runs the risk of paying a very high price for the hasty introduction of a scheme in 2010. What is the magic in a 2010 start date? Is it written in stone somewhere that we have not seen? Why does the date have to be 2010? Why do we have to throw caution to the wind in order to get a start-up date of 2010?

Australians know that the coalition is better able than Labor to run an economy and better able to implement an emissions trading scheme which does not harm that economy. Harming the economy will reduce the standard of living of the present generation of Australians and future generations of Australians while not providing a meaningful reduction in the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. It is vital to the Australian economy that we do not get too far ahead of the rest of the world. We need to play our part, we need to be part of an international effort, but we as a nation cannot stand alone. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions can only occur if there is a truly global response. The size of emissions reductions in Australia should be influenced by international developments and in particular the evolution of global emission reduction agreements which include all of the large emitters, such as China, the USA, India and the European Union.

The Rudd government seems intent on setting an emissions target that ignores what the rest of the world does. This means that Australia could bear a disproportionate burden of reducing the world’s emissions, and this could significantly reduce our leverage in international discussions. The government’s ETS needs to deal better with uncertainty. The effect of the ETS on prices, inflation and compensation needs will fluctuate on a daily basis. The government has not made it clear what will happen if it designs a compensation regime at a carbon price of $20 per tonne, for example, and the cost of carbon rises, as it invariably will. Would low-income families fail to be compensated by an increase in the carbon price? Will they just have to bear that cost? We just do not know what the government is planning there. With global inflationary pressures being felt, it is vital that the implementation of an ETS is managed carefully so as not to increase inflation and inflationary expectations with the result of higher interest rates. So it is important that the government takes its time to get the structure and detail of an ETS right.

To return to the intention of this bill, the coalition supports these amendments because they build on what the Howard government put in place. When it comes to an ETS and the emission of greenhouse gases, the coalition is committed to striking a balance which recognises the environmental challenges of our time but respects the need to get the detail right. The Rudd government in this case seems to present the ETS as some form of magic pudding—a magic pudding where everybody benefits and nobody seems to pay, where everybody is compensated but no-one foots the bill except for governments and corporations. And that is far from the truth. The cost of carbon emissions will be borne by the whole of the Australian economy—every company, every government department and every individual consumer. The Rudd government has to take the time to get an ETS correct so that it does the least damage to our economy whilst achieving the environmental outcomes that are required.

It was interesting to note an interview on ABC radio where Paul Howes, the National Secretary of the AWU, raised his concerns. He is hardly typically a supporter of the conservative side of government. He said:

If Ross Garnaut was implemented without any amendments then I would see large proportions of trade-exposed industries in a state like South Australia going offshore, particularly industries like LNG, oil and gas, and cement. You’ve got severe impacts on the Whyalla steelworks, and I think a lot of people in the community don’t understand that what we’ll be actually doing is just closing industries for good, but actually closing these industries and they will be reopening overseas. The level of greenhouse gases will still be being pumped into the sky.

It is an important decision for Australia. The government needs to get that decision right. It should not be rushing to complete an ETS by 2010. Such haste is not in the best interests of Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context