Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Thanks. On the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009 and on the suite of Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation generally, I think, depending on what happens in the other place later this week, I look to be the Independent of Independents and probably the only one who has taken a position of supporting the government in regard to this range of legislation that we saw pass through the last session and see in this one. That does not mean—and I made the point in the speech that I gave when the CPRS legislation went through—that I am 100 per cent happy with this legislation. It is far from an endorsement of this legislation. It is more of a position of supporting the hope that we can turn this legislation into something of substance in the future. Essentially, it is the framework for a market based response to the natural resource question of our times. That is a concept that I support.

I tried to move amendments to the CPRS legislation to establish an independent authority to oversee the framework questions that at the moment—and we are seeing it again in this legislation—are falling in the hands of executive authority and ministerial discretion. If there is one thing that government and this place need to look at very, very closely in all this legislation as it passes through this place, it is that increasing centralisation of decision making around those framework questions, around the minister and the executive, and treating this as a political exercise rather than a policy exercise. This will be dangerous if it is not addressed in the future.

I can understand the reasons in the establishment of this framework for having to have so much intimate control over so many aspects of the framework legislation. However, over time I would hope that there will be recognition of the point I am making about the value of an independent authority looking after the framework questions just as the Reserve Bank looks after many of the financial issues that face this country in independent way and just as, in a state like New South Wales, an independent corruption authority looks after issues of public sector corruption within that state. If this legislation is so important, if this legislation needs to let the science flow then it needs to allow that to happen and not get caught in the political mosh pit of what we are seeing this week and what we have seen in the birth of this framework of the suite of CPRS legislation.

In the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill we see a shift to ministerial authority. This bill as it stands proposes to remove the power and authority of the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer under section 75, which currently allows the GEDO to determine, by legislative instrument, guidelines to be followed by an audit team when conducting a greenhouse and energy audit and preparing the appropriate reports and to place this power and authority within the hands of the minister. Again, we see the philosophical point of difference between me and, I think, many members of the community and government as to the role that government should play in the future management of and decisions about CPRS and the attached legislation that we are seeing pass through.

It is as much in the government’s interests to keep this at arms length as it is in communities’ best interests. If we can project out 10 or 20 years and if the CSIRO is to be believed that we could potentially pay around eight dollars a litre for fuel, the political pressures on a government to make a decision under this legislative package are going to be enormous, and so it is necessary to keep this at arms length so that hard decisions can be made when they need to be made. If this is science based issue and we want to be genuine in allowing the science to flow, then there are dangers for any government in keeping these decisions within the executive and very close to the relevant minister of the time.

From a business and investment point of view there are also enormous dangers in keeping this as a political rather than an arms-length, independent process in relation to the questions of investment and security of tenure. If I were an investor, even if the indicators were harder and tougher, I would be much more confident in the investment environment if it were at arms-length and independent from the political process. So I think it is better legislation and better policy for the government, in this legislation, in legislation we have seen go through this place already and in future bills—whether they are renewable energy bills or anything that is attached to this general suite of CPRS legislation—to really consider the role of divorcing the executive from the framework that is being built so that, in the future, independence and scientific evidence rather than vested interests or political imperatives can lead the decision-making process. I would hope that the government and the opposition consider that in the future when or if this legislation passes this week or in the future.

Whilst I was not opposed the CPRS, similarly I am not opposed to this bill, other than to make the continued point about the need for greater independence in future decision making. I want to pick up on a couple of key quotes in the second reading speeches on this legislation and on previous legislation made by the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change on the question of ministerial power under section 75. When introducing legislation the parliamentary secretary made the point:

This will ensure greater levels of consistency in the conduct of audits and reports provided by auditors.

The point I have just made is relevant in that I argue that this need for consistency in the marketplace should be monitored and regulated by an arms-length body, an independent body, as ministers change, as governments change and as political pressures change and this is where, if it remains a ministerial discretionary power, we lose consistency. Consistency cannot be guaranteed because, as we all know in this place, things change. If it is a genuine exercise in trying to establish consistency, I continue to make my point that we need to look at being arms-length in future framework questions, just as a whole range of independent bodies have been established by state and federal governments around this country.

Another point he made in a previous speech, when I put up the amendments to this question, was that the government basically rejected the concept because they believe the issues are so important they deserve parliamentary scrutiny—which is a very polite way of voting down an amendment. In the end, I would be more comfortable with parliamentary scrutiny, but executive authority is being gained in this legislation, and that is significantly different to parliamentary scrutiny. It is ministerial authority that is being gained. A lot of it will not be seen by us in this parliamentary chamber, and we will have very little control over more than 20 key framework questions that we are seeing go through this place as part of this package of legislation. They are new principles, new concepts, that have been established by government.

I have no problem with those principles or concepts but I do have a significant problem with the fact that the future decision making around those principles and concepts is owned by the people on that bench—in particular, one, two or three of the people on that bench. That has huge problems attached to it from an investment point of view, from a policy point of view and from the point of view of community level confidence in this being a genuine exercise in trying to answer one of the great science questions of our time. I am not opposed to this legislation but I am concerned about that particular point and I will continue to raise it as each of these attached pieces of legislation come through.

It seems that everyone in this place has been writing essays or reading essays during their break. Over the past six weeks I have been reading an essay, ‘Quarry Vision’, which was published in the Quarterly Essay 2009. It makes some tremendous points about the language that is used in this place, the general view that we have of this legislation and who the drivers of the legislation are. Some of the points it makes include this: not one credible piece of economic research suggests that making deep cuts in emissions by 2050 would cause even a temporary recession let alone crash the economy, cut GDP, send energy prices spiralling or cause whole industries to shut down or flee our shores. Every serious study of the costs finds that deep cuts would delay the trebling of the economy and doubling of real wages by a few years at most later this century.

For all of us in this place, a consideration of the language shows that, rather than saying that halving Australia’s emissions by 2050 would result in the sky falling in and GDP being cut by at least 10 per cent, in reality what is going to happen is that it will not grow by 280 per cent but by 240 per cent. We can use positive rather than negative language about this. There are good business and good community outcomes for establishing a very important market based response to this natural resource question. We should be proud of that, we should be positive about that and we should push for that. We should push for the best policy outcome that we can. There are jobs attached to this. There is a new economy attached to this. I do not think it is something we should be afraid of. All of us in this place should consider the real place in the GDP of today and of the future of the vested interests that are knocking on our doors trying to protect their patch and what we can do to grow the best possible economy of the future as well as be a good international citizen with regard to this key science question of our time.

See this speech in context