Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Lyne for his efforts at providing constructive amendments. He has remained very actively and positively engaged in this debate all the way and supports, I know, immediate action on climate change. Whilst the government does not support the member for Lyne’s amendments, they have been well considered and comprehensive, and they deserve being addressed in some detail and I will endeavour to do so in the time available.

I will address the member’s proposed amendments to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] firstly in relation to advice on scheme caps, which are amendments Nos (3) to (6). These amendments would give the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority the role of developing draft regulations which prescribe national caps and gateways. The government appreciates that the intent of the amendments is to have independent expert input into the cap-setting process but the government does not support the amendments.

In the government’s view an independent expert advisory committee appointed under part 25 of the bill, we believe, would be much better equipped and qualified to provide advice on scheme caps and gateways than the authority. Unlike the authority, which has a regulatory and administrative focus, an independent and expert advisory committee will have to have a broader outlook and include expertise in climate science which will be important in consideration of scheme caps and gateways.

As to the removal of emissions-intensive trade-exposed assistance touched upon, I think, in amendment No. 7, this amendment would remove part 8 of the bill which provides for assistance to the so-called EITE activities. In the view of the government there is a genuine need for assistance to industry for emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities in the period before effective international action on climate change and in order to minimise the risk of carbon leakage. The provision of assistance for these activities is fundamental in the government’s view to the design of the CPRS and we certainly do not support this amendment. I spoke on that issue at some length in the second reading debate.

Amendment (8) moved by the member for Lyne is in relation to the removal of coal-fired electricity generation assistance. The government does not support this amendment which would remove part 9 of the bill relating to the assistance for coal-fired electricity generators. The government considers it appropriate to partially recognise significant losses of asset value experienced by investors in coal-fired generators where that investment was committed prior to the emergence of bipartisan support for emissions trading when the then government announced on 3 June 2007 that it would support an emissions trading scheme, and so we do not support that amendment either.

Amendments (9) and (10) from the member for Lyne are in relation to the voluntary cancellation of Australian emissions units. These amendments relate to clause 282 of the bill, which addresses voluntary cancellation of units. These amendments, in the government’s view, are unnecessary as the legislation already imposes a binding obligation on the minister to cancel a Kyoto unit for every Australian emissions unit that a person voluntarily cancels. This allows individuals and organisations to contribute to stronger climate change mitigation by reducing the supply of eligible emissions units. There are of course mechanisms provided for that to occur. The government is accountable for the Kyoto units allocated to this country, and it is only appropriate that the government is not hampered in its ability to manage these units.

Amendment (11) is in relation to the appointment of an expert advisory committee member. This amendment would make a person ineligible for appointment to an expert advisory committee which undertakes five-yearly reviews of the CPRS unless approved by all members of the relevant committee of the House of Representatives. The government does not support this amendment, which would give an effective veto on appointments to every member of a parliamentary committee. That would impose needless delays and obstacles on the establishment of the committee and the conduct of reviews and could result in the lowest common denominator being adopted. For example, there is a risk that just one climate change sceptic in the parliamentary committee could prevent the appointment of an eminent climate change scientist to the independent advisory committee. For all of those reasons, the government opposes the amendments put forward by the member for Lyne.

See this speech in context