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

The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009 is not of itself controversial. It builds on that which was put in place by the previous coalition government and, in particular, by the now Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth. The bill fits within a broader pattern of action on climate change. It essentially deals with a further amendment to the process of ensuring that there is adequate reporting of greenhouse emissions. But it comes within the context of four major recent disappointments at the way in which the government has chosen to handle the issue of advancing the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

I begin by noting the context in which this bill is being debated whilst noting that the bill itself is not controversial and not the subject of disagreement—although it could be the subject of improvement from the opposition. The first of the recent disappointments is the axing of the solar rebate with notice effective on the day on which it was terminated. The public, the industry and the suppliers were not informed in advance that two weeks ago the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts was to draw the axe down upon the solar rebate program. That spelt enormous difficulty for suppliers and retailers. It spelt great disappointment for mums, dads, retirees and other people who were expecting to put solar panels on their roofs through the process of the solar panel rebate. That was blow No. 1. It was unanticipated, unexpected, without notice and it cut away at the very notion of certainty which sits at the heart of this bill.

The second of the disappointments is what we saw only yesterday: the Renewable Remote Power Generation program—you could summarise it as the remote solar program—was terminated. It was terminated by email at 8.33 am, as I have been advised by those businesses that received the email, effective as of 8.30 am. I have had businesses report to me that they had programs worth tens of thousands of dollars that they were expecting to conclude through contract in the coming weeks. I have had one business report to me that the effect of this decision will be the loss of $1 million a month in terms of business for a South Australian firm. I have spoken with individuals who had been planning to ensure that, because they live in remote, off-grid areas, they would have access over the coming days or weeks to renewable energy as a result of this program, which was introduced by the previous, coalition government. Again, it was axed; again, it was unanticipated; again, there was no notice—not eight hours this time, though, but minus three minutes. The notice was given after the program had been terminated. That is not the way to treat a small-business people—men and women who have invested, who have expected certainty, who had come to believe that they should be able to rely upon the government of the day in Australia to be good to its word. This bill is about certainty, but those two examples spell a lack of certainty.

The third recent contextual element that I want to present in terms of the breaking down of certainty is a very simple one: in relation to the renewable energy target, we have clearly indicated that we support the concept of the 20 per cent target, we have indicated that we wanted to take this legislation forward, and what we saw first is that this legislation was delayed for a year. It has still not been debated in this House, two days before the House is due to break for the winter session. What we see as well is that, at the last minute, this bill was coupled to the emissions trading scheme. It did not have to be thus. That was not indicated previously. There was a common test, but that could easily have been dealt with through separate parallel regulations and the government knows this.

I am advised that the initial coupling of these two bills was an inadvertent drafting error. I am advised that the government considered decoupling but that the Prime Minister’s office thought that it might be valuable in a political sense to maintain the link and therefore place uncertainty around their own legislation and therefore place uncertainty around the pipeline of renewable energy investment in Australia. That is a venal act—something which is not desirable, which should not occur and which broke the opportunity to have fast, early passage of legislation with bipartisan support. That is a great shame. We still support the renewable energy target of 20 per cent. We will deal with the legislation on its merits. I will deal with those items in more detail when we come to face that bill later this week. However, those three items have all shown the way in which this government have caused severe and significant uncertainty for people who have a focus on reducing emissions, reducing greenhouse gases and working in the renewable energy space.

The fourth of the contextual elements is the emissions trading scheme. The government has deliberately delayed the regulations. We have seen only a couple. We have seen a handful of regulations, yet we know that there are close to three figures worth of regulations affecting industries which need to be tabled and which we need to see. These are fundamental if we are to provide the certainty which this bill seeks to provide. That represents the context.

I want to make a couple of points about the core bill itself. The history of the bill is this. The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 was an initiative of the now Leader of the Opposition. It established a national framework for reporting greenhouse gas emissions for certain abatement actions as well as energy consumption and production by corporations. The act also provided for public disclosure of company-level greenhouse gas emissions and energy production and use, and it also aimed at streamlining national greenhouse and energy reporting and ensuring that a system was developed with least cost and least administrative burden. All of those things together were a good step forward.

Against that background what we see is that this bill essentially updates the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. It seeks to improve the original act and better reflect its original policy intentions to establish an audit framework under the act so as to respond to industry feedback. That is a good thing. We have no problems with that. We see that it is unlikely that this bill will make any change at all in terms of industry burden. It is my strong, clear and precise hope that it will lessen any burden that industry faces in its reporting.

Against that background I want to make three comments specifically about the bill itself. The first is that the government has been brief in terms of the fact that only 20 days had been allocated to stakeholders to give feedback on the consultation paper regarding this issue. That is a challenge for people who are short of time in the public space. They needed time, they needed additional space. Industry has nevertheless adapted.

The second thing is that we see amendments which have been tabled by the government. We have been given notice of them today. We have examined them carefully. We note that they are intended to ensure that corporations can transfer responsibility for reporting between entities under the same organisation. However it is extraordinary that the government tables these with only a few hours notice.

We will not oppose that amendment in this House. We have examined it. We have reviewed it carefully, but we will give it a double scrutiny in the Senate. If you want to act cooperatively, if you want to work in a way which actually promotes the business of the parliament, to provide a bare couple of hours for an amendment is not the way to so act.

The third thing that I want to say is this: there is one element which has not yet been addressed to the best of our understanding, and that is concerns over the definition of ‘operational control’ in relation to mining. We will examine what the government is proposing in its amendment and, if it appears that that does not deal adequately with the mining industry’s needs, then we will move an amendment to ensure that there is certainty and flexibility for the mining industry with regards to the relationship between mine owners and contract miners. We have a clear belief, after consultation with the mining sector, with the contracting sector and with broader Australian industry, that there does need to be clarity and flexibility for the mining industry by defining with certainty the operational control responsibility for purposes of reporting. So I give notice that the coalition will move an amendment in the Senate, if it is not otherwise satisfied, that there will be greater certainty for miners, mine owners and mine contractors through a better definition which gives a default position that mine owners will henceforth have responsibility in the absence of a contractual agreement for reporting greenhouse emissions.

So on that basis I note that the coalition introduced the original legislation. The way in which this legislation fits within a broader context is to note that the solar rebate was abolished with no notice and no certainty to industry. The Renewable Remote Power Generation program—or the remote solar program, in shorthand—was abolished only yesterday, retrospectively, by three minutes. Nobody had any notice. The renewable energy target could so easily have been passed this week if the government had sought in any way to work with us and not play games with the future of the renewable industry.

Finally, I note that this comes in the context of serious concerns about the emissions trading scheme and the broader debate going on at present. There are real and practical things which can be done to reduce emissions and they take the form of solar power and wind, and of reductions in all sorts of different ways in which we generate emissions. These could be dealt with through things such as a genuine renewable energy approach with bipartisan support if the government chooses to work in a bipartisan way. So having said all of that, we are not opposed to this bill. We are comfortable with the direction of it and I give notice of the steps that we will take in the Senate.

See this speech in context