Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

What a big week it is in Canberra this week and what a big week it is for the nation in relation to public policy debate. The environment certainly has become front and centre in relation to debate in Australia, and so it should be. Many of the distractions that have been going on over the winter break should be well and truly put behind us and we should move on and talk about the big issues. There is no doubt that this bill, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009, is part of that debate and that is why I am pleased to speak on it today.

In relation to what Australia is going to do in the future and what our policy direction is going to be in relation to climate change, we have seen a very significant document put on the table this week by the opposition in relation to our suggestions on how we might best manage that as a nation and how we might best protect jobs and the Australian people from higher taxes and loss of income. What has disappointed me about what happened this week, and the media today have been alluding to this, is that, unfortunately, the government does not have the will to consider other ideas. When you talk to the electorate, you find that the electorate believes that one party cannot be right on everything and one party wrong, and the reverse—that both the government and the opposition have good ideas and those ideas should be put together in a melting pot and mixed to get a better outcome for our country. I think the electorate actually yearns for that to happen, for the government to adopt the opposition’s good ideas and for the opposition to support the government’s good ideas. That is the best way for democracy to work.

In relation to what has been proposed by the opposition this week, you really have to ask: why won’t the government consider a plan that will save working families $280 a year on their electricity bills? Why will they not consider it? Why will they not consider a plan to save 68,000 jobs? Many of those jobs are in regional electorates like yours and mine, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. Why will they not consider that? Why will they not consider a plan that will save our economy $49 billion? That is an interesting question and it is something that the government have been trying to avoid answering, and I do not quite understand that. When our policy was released on Monday, the government ruled out the policy before even reading it. I think that is a bit cynical and I think the Australian public will not be happy to see that the government have adopted that position.

I am pleased to say that the original bill was a Howard government initiative to establish Australia’s first nationwide mandatory system for collecting high-quality greenhouse and energy data from industry. It has allowed for a more comprehensive and accurate picture than ever before of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and energy use, and that can only be a good thing. The 2007 act brought about a single national framework for the reporting and dissemination of information relating to greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gas projects, and energy consumption and production of corporations. It was designed to underpin the future introduction of an ETS, which we are now discussing; inform policy and the Australian public; meet international reporting obligations; avoid duplication in states and territories; and assist Commonwealth, state and territory programs and activities.

The 2007 legislation demonstrated how committed to climate change the coalition government was. We have a continuing debate in this country in which it is suggested that the opposition are climate change deniers. That is utter rubbish. On all sides of politics there will always be one or two who have a different view to that of mainstream Australia. I think it is clear that the opposition are very mindful of what we need to do, what the government needs to do and what Australia needs to do to protect the future of our kids, our jobs and our families. We have seen from the government a response that is out of touch with sound economic management, business interests and the environment, and I worry about that.

The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, introduced by the Howard government, demonstrated the coalition’s action on climate change. It was a vital link to the introduction of an emissions trading scheme in 2011. Our colleagues opposite would have the public believe that the coalition had no such commitment to the environment. How wrong they are. The bill before the parliament today seeks to better administer the 2007 act and will reflect its original intentions. Because of that, the opposition will support the bill. The coalition, in supporting the bill and the administrative changes it makes, observes that it is a significant bill that will allow a company to appeal to the AAT if it is in disagreement with a Commonwealth decision. That is standard practice across many portfolio areas and will give Australian businesses greater options for review.

I have noted the coalition’s serious concerns with the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme. Australian jobs and businesses must not be forced overseas as a result of a rushed scheme. Time and consideration are needed, and the coalition is determined to have a scheme that is in the best interests of all Australians. On Monday I communicated with my electorate and indicated this to them directly. Our new CPRS model will save jobs and industries in North Queensland. We came together in the party room meeting on Monday to back our leader and his alternative scheme, which proposes to double Australia’s carbon reduction target to 10 per cent by 2020 at a cost 40 per cent less than Labor’s model. The alternative is greener, with an unconditional 10 per cent reduction on 2000 levels; it is 40 per cent cheaper than the government’s scheme, saving Australia’s economy $49 billion; and it is smarter, because it protects regional Australia and creates more jobs. As of January this year, almost 9,000 jobs had been lost in the mining sector. That has certainly affected North Queensland. Green shoots are reappearing and Australia is on the way to recovery, as is the world, but we must not allow any further loss of jobs in the mining industry. It is so important to our economy, to our state and to our families.

The Frontier Economics report released on Monday reiterated the negative impact that the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will have on regional Australia. This should be evidence enough for the government to reconsider the design of its CPRS in order to protect workers in Australia’s export industries, and there is time to do that. There are now four credible studies available that have determined there will be significant job losses in regional Australia as a result of the CPRS.

In North Queensland we were very concerned about another element of the mining industry, which was the metals refinery area. The Yabulu nickel and cobalt refinery in Townsville, which was originally owned by BHP Billiton, was very much under threat of closure. In fact, it came within 12 hours of being closed completely, with a loss of 1,000 jobs at Yabulu and all the flow-on jobs that support Yabulu. It is now safe, thanks to Clive Palmer and his operation. We must do everything we can to make sure that that refinery stays safe, as we should with the zinc and copper refineries in Townsville.

The alternative model developed by Frontier Economics would involve lower electricity prices than Labor’s model and would save 69,000 regional jobs. The debate that we are having is about design and it is purely and simply about jobs. I would like to quote to the parliament a statement by Mitch Hooke, the CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia. He said: ‘The Frontier Economics report proposes a number of significant changes aimed at better aligning Australian efforts with those of our international competitors. The proposed changes, including better shielding for trade exposed firms and a phased approach to the auctioning of permits, will reduce the disadvantage that the CPRS would impose on Australia’s export sector. In doing so, these reforms would better align Australia’s scheme with those in place or being developed by other nations, including the European Union and the United States, and remove many of the negative employment impacts of the CPRS proposed today. The reforms will also remove the arbitrary and unjustified exclusion of the coal sector from being considered for assistance as a trade exposed sector. These changes will also address a central flaw of the proposed CPRS; namely, the preoccupation with raising revenue. In its first four years the CPRS as proposed will raise $30 billion from Australian businesses, and this represents $30 billion that will not be available to invest in clean energy technologies. This is a perverse way to promote the uptake of clean energy technology.’ Finally, he said: ‘The proposed CPRS is preoccupied with raising revenue rather than delivering a positive outcome for the environment. The CPRS debate must now shift to a genuine discussion on how Australia can continue the transition to a lower emissions economy where the job losses are minimised and environmental benefits are maximised.’

I draw the attention of the House to a concern with the bill we are discussing today. The definition ‘operational control’ is very uncertain. The government needs to clarify this definition and ensure that the mining industry can be given flexibility in its obligations under this act. In the white paper it was suggested that the term be given an operational control test. Such a test would not properly address the concerns about the ambiguity of the definition. I understand this issue is currently being considered by the department. This consideration should be undertaken urgently so as to ensure that any amendments to this section of the bill can be implemented. The coalition supports that the responsibility for calculating emissions be given to mine owners where there is no clear contractual statement to the contrary. This was the view of the Minerals Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Constructors Association. The coalition will support the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009. It is a continuation of a coalition government legislative initiative and the present bill clarifies and strengthens the audit framework of the original act. In closing, I would like to thank Keegan Sard for his help in compiling this contribution to the parliament and I indicate my support for the legislation.

See this speech in context