Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009. It was a couple of years ago that I spoke on the original National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill. I am pleased to see that important progress was made through that 2007 bill and that we are continuing to review the operation of this bill under the current government.

It is fair to say that we have not had to face these issues before and that it is a bit of a movable feast in trying to establish a process. I was a bit perplexed by the comments from the member for Wills in terms of his criticism of the former Howard government on this because this bill was originally introduced by the Howard government. In this day and age with so much opinion and speculation surrounding the best way forward to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, it is fundamentally important that we get the groundwork right. This is precisely what this bill in its original form sought to do, and I believe the amended bill going to the Senate inquiry has strengthened the operation of those measures.

In 2007, the Howard government set to work on establishing a national framework for reporting and dissemination of information about greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gas projects and energy use and production by corporations. The information collected was intended to be used as a basis for future emissions reduction policies. One of the biggest factors considered was how best to minimise red tape but maximise the efficiency of the system. That is a very important point. We do not need to continue to overly burden our industries with red tape. So that was an important part of the brief in establishing the groundwork for this reporting system.

Today, the Australian parliament is looking to further refine the system that is in place by making a number of amendments aimed at improving the function of the act and strengthening the audit framework of the act. This bill fundamentally highlights that when you have a good idea, some good original legislation, and both parties are willing to work cooperatively to better it, we can end up with a world-leading initiative or, as the parliamentary secretary for climate change has said, as a world leader in the collection of emissions data. I think it is a great pity, as we debate this framework, this bill which sets the important groundwork for a carbon pollution reduction scheme, that we do not apply the same principles of working together to get the best possible outcome. That certainly is not the principle that is being applied to the forthcoming introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills into this place. It is such an important issue and it is incredibly important to the Australia public that we work together to get this right because there is a great deal at stake. I think it is a great pity that the government have seen fit to play fairly crude politics on this particular matter that is yet to come before this place.

On the other side of the spectrum, we have seen the Labor government pick up on some very good emissions reduction policy from the previous Howard government but, rather than working constructively, they have played politics again with those initiatives. You hear platitudes all the time from those on the other side about the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, yet they have set about dismantling many of the programs that were set up by the coalition to achieve the reduction of greenhouse gases and, importantly, to allow every citizen to participate in the reduction of greenhouse gases.

The playing of politics is doing none of us any good in this place in terms of public perception. What we are ending up with is a very poor emissions trading scheme which deals the public out of the equation. Making a change to improve Australia’s environment is not something that can be done unilaterally, I do not believe. This is a very, very major issue. It is something that the world is struggling to come to terms with. There is a lot of confusion, there are a lot of different opinions, but I think it is something that requires a bipartisan approach to produce the very best outcomes that we can. The actions of individuals must count and we must do everything we can to actively engage individuals in the process of finding a solution to our environmental problems.

The first key change to be implemented by this bill is some clarification of the terminology used. Previous references to external audits and auditors have been amended to remove any confusion. Taking responsibility for improving Australia’s environment and lowering emissions of greenhouse gases should fall to each and every individual, as I said before, as well as all companies and organisations. Every legislative instrument aimed at improving Australia’s environmental future must be clear and comprehensible to everyone so that we can move forward with a clear plan.

This bill will also establish a new register of greenhouse and energy auditors from which audit team leaders must be drawn. We can then be confident that audit team leaders all have a guaranteed level of competence, expertise and independence. A decision by the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer not to register an auditor will be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It is enormously important in this foundation legislation that we make sure there is public confidence in what is being done and in that audit process in particular. As I mentioned, we need to do everything we can to empower individuals to make changes in their lives that, en masse, will make a change to their local environment by allowing the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer to make public certain audit results. There will be greater transparency and reliability in the emissions data and its public availability. While transparency is essential, we must also recognise that in many cases full disclosure of audit reports may compromise commercially sensitive information, and for this reason the bill broadens the secrecy provisions so that the audit team leaders and members who disclose information from the audit process may be liable for two years’ imprisonment.

We need to make sure that this bill is as flawless as possible because it is, after all, the groundwork for perhaps the most significant pieces of environmental legislation in Australia’s history—the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. There have been a couple of unresolved issues that were raised during the consultations, and the first issue concerns the definition in the bill of operational control. This is especially relevant for contract mining corporations because they would become liable for reporting emissions directly associated with a resource such as fugitive emission in addition to operating liability such as emissions produced during extraction and haulage of a resource. According to Leighton Holdings, who made a submission in this regard, this places contract miners under an unfair burden that should properly fall to the financial operators of mines. One-third of work in the mining sector is undertaken by contractors.

This is not just an issue that will affect the greenhouse and energy reporting framework. The law firm Allens Arthur Robinson has noted that it has also had ramifications on the liabilities under the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation as well. The correct direction for this legislation is to amend the definition of operational control so that the responsibility for calculating emissions will rest with mine owners as a default position where there is no contrary contractual advice. In this respect, I understand that my colleague Senator Johnston will be introducing in the Senate an amendment to this effect when this bill reaches the Senate. It is a wise amendment that will ensure the smooth operation of this scheme in the mining industry, and I hope that the government take that advice on board and make that change.

The second unresolved issue relates to submissions from PricewaterhouseCoopers and CPA Australia regarding the independent requirement for an auditor at the time of registration with the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer. These submissions suggested that the independence of an auditor be ascertained at the outset of an audit rather than at the time of registration because they note that independence is relative to the corporation being audited. Again, I hope the minister will consider these issues when the subordinate legislation is being designed.

Reporting schemes are only one part of a move to a comprehensive greenhouse emissions program. Clearly, lowering greenhouse gas emissions is a vital element to environmental policy and to a carbon pollution trading scheme, but it is not the only means. I think the government have established an incredible record watching things. They have watched fuel and they have been watching grocery prices—and both these policies I might say, despite all that watching, have failed—and they sometimes get so transfixed watching these levels that they limit their vision and can only see limited solutions. This bill will further strengthen the framework for watching greenhouse gas emissions. It is crucial to Australia’s environmental future in this case that we have an effective framework in which greenhouse gas emissions can be monitored and can be watched, but this system should not cloud the view to other aspects of environmental degradation that the community expects us to address.

I think I have said before in this place that we are at a crossroads and we can move forward blindly or we can look all ways and proceed with reasonable caution. By not looking further than an emissions trading scheme the government is driving the nation straight through this intersection, I think, without care or regard for what might hit us. Australia does face a much wider ambit of environmental problems than energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and it only makes sense that we consider the full ambit of available solutions.

In my home state of Western Australia—and I divert momentarily from the content of the bill—salinity is a major environmental concern, with 70 per cent of Australia’s dryland salinity in Western Australia. The numbers are indeed disturbing. In 2000 over a million hectares of land in the south-west agricultural region was affected by salinity. The research suggests that this number is continuing to rise. According to statistics published by the ABC in an article on its website called ‘Salinity: Australia’s silent flood’, by 2050 over 450 plant species will have become extinct and about $400 million will have been lost in agricultural production as a direct result of salinity.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australia is one of the highest producers of waste in the world. We generate 2.25 kilograms of waste every day per person. Addressing our resource consumption and waste production is surely a universally attractive goal. More needs to be done to focus on the efforts of individuals and not just the big, polluting corporations if we want to make a real difference right here in Australia. Corporations will respond ultimately to the demands of consumers.

I believe in the climate change science. I am not a denier, but I accept that there are still many people who are yet to be completely convinced. If we seek to make a real difference in the environment then we should start from the ground and work up by asking, ‘How can we protect our environment?’ Tackling environmental issues like salinity, waste production, energy and resource consumption, and air and water quality are projects that not only have widespread appeal but also will make a real difference on the ground.

Not so long ago I had a forum in the electorate of Pearce called ‘Our Patch, Our Planet’. It was very popular. We had a very good attendance and some excellent speakers. It was really to try to engage the public generally to look at what we can do individually to improve our patch and our planet. I believe that most Australians, including many children, are willing to make changes to their lifestyles in order to improve the environment. I see this all the time when I am visiting schools. It is the young kids in our community who are really the drivers of changes to the way we live. They are showing great initiative, and I commend many of the schools and many of the teachers who are really inspiring young people to be more environmentally aware.

During ‘Our Patch, Our Planet’ I found the overwhelming desire of the people from the electorate who attended—and there was a wide variety—was to be dealt into this. They do not want a carbon pollution reduction scheme that is just focused on the big corporations; they want to feel that they can play their part and that they will have a role in reducing our carbon footprint. I think that is one of the big flaws in what is proposed for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

One issue that was discussed in ‘Our Patch, Our Planet’ where there seemed to be fairly universal agreement was the need to improve the environment and the need to consider the future sustainability of development. We need to look at and take more seriously a renewable energy program to adapt to the changes that are taking place around us and to consider our natural resource management, including energy conservation, green industries and the development of green skills. I think Australians are willing to embrace policies when they are confident of the benefits available to their local communities—and there are many—from being more environmentally aware.

But the Australian community is certainly far from embracing the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme designed by this government. It has very little support from a large section of the community. It is a narrow-sighted approach that lacks credibility, and Australians are not confident that it will bring about a better environment for them and their families or even the globe. It is not that they do not want something to happen; they do. But they do not have the confidence that this is the way forward. What they are sure of is that it is going to cost jobs for them and their families and their local communities and that without a global commitment the scheme is very limited in scope. They are frustrated that they are not being listened to and that changes implemented on a personal scale will be negated by aspects of this proposed scheme. It effectively disempowers individuals from making real changes to better their patch and their planet.

Some of the things the government have done have understandably made the public very cynical. We have seen the sudden withdrawal of solar rebates and the remote area solar rebate program, for example, and their replacement with something far inferior. If you listen to the government’s rhetoric of how important this is and then you go through the list of some of the programs they have applied budget cuts to or have diverted funding from you will see they include the Green Loans Program, the Climate Change Action Fund, the Greenhouse Action in Regional Australia program, the Commonwealth Environmental Research Facilities program and the Coal Mine Methane Reduction Program. It is no wonder and justifiable that the public feel cynical about the proposals that are about to come into this place. (Time expired)

See this speech in context