Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The coalition welcomes the government's introduction of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2022 and the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2022. There are two reasons why we are so enthused about these bills. The first is that the protection of the ozone layer continues to remain an important national and international goal. The second is that the content of these three bills is almost exactly the same as the content of three bills introduced to the parliament by the coalition in December of last year. Unfortunately, the previous coalition bills' lapsed when the parliament rose ahead of the May election, and we are pleased that the Labor Party is now following our lead by bringing them back to the parliament.

I want to pay tribute to the former Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management, Trevor Evans, a fellow South-East Queensland Liberal, on the work he did in this place to advance these three bills. On 2 December 2021, almost a year ago to the day, Mr Evans said:

The reforms and various amendments in this bill are each minor on their own. As a whole, the package of reforms represents an important step in ensuring the continued success of this program for ozone protection and synthetic greenhouse gas management.

The United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently reported that earlier this year:

… the overall concentration of ozone-depleting substances in the mid-latitude stratosphere had fallen just over 50 percent …

This is back to the levels observed in 1980 before ozone depletion was significant. This has been described as slow and steady progress by experts across the world, and, over the last three decades, this has certainly been the cause of great success across the world. It's largely been attributed to international compliance and cooperation on controls on the production and trade of ozone-depleting substances following the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. It's great to see this progress; however it is important to recognise that we are still a long way from being able to claim that the issue of ozone depletion is resolved. The passage of these bills will encourage compliance and reduce the regulatory burden on businesses whilst ensuring that the standard environmental protection provided by the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act remains high.

On the subject of ozone layer protection, there has been consistent bipartisan agreement. There's been a lot of fine work done by governments of all colours in Australia. This work started with the Hawke and Keating governments in the 1980s and 90s. This includes their efforts to devise the three original acts that underpin the Hawke government's decision in 1987 to make Australia one of the original signatories to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

The year 1987 was a great year. I won't make reference to anything else that was conceived and brought into this world in 1987, but I'll leave it there!

That work has been complemented by the actions of each of Australia's federal governments since that time. The Abbott government—I make note that they are unveiling former prime minister Tony Abbott's portrait downstairs shortly—decided in 2014 that it would be valuable to formally review the operations of these three acts and the accompanying Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Program, or the OPSGG. That review process, as well as some further suggestions more recently from industry and consumers, has led to much of the content that we see in the bills before us today.

We on this side find it quite humorous that the minister in her second reading speech and media release decided not to acknowledge any of the work undertaken on this review and this legislation by people on this side of the political aisle. Sadly, there has been no acknowledgement of any of the work undertaken by the former coalition government in the development of these important bills. Instead, the minister has tried to pass off these bills as her own achievement, born of the Labor Party's superior virtue—bills that have been magically brought forward out of the Labor government's wellspring of moral goodness.

Given that the level of ozone-depleting substances in the mid-latitude stratosphere has fallen back to 1980s levels, I encourage the minister to, perhaps, return to that 1980s spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation that enabled so many important reforms, including our participation in the Montreal Protocol. The bill contains sensible changes based on the conclusions of that review, which was started back in 2014, as well as on comprehensive consultation with stakeholders by the former government. There've been many varied stakeholders who've had an input into this process. I'll name just a few of them: the Air Conditioning and Mechanical Contractors Association of Australia; the Airconditioning and Refrigerant Equipment Manufacturers Association of Australia; Ausgrid; the Australian Aluminium Council; the Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heating; and the Australian Refrigeration Association. I could go on; that's just the A's. It's quite a long list. It includes all the major stakeholders and consumer groups. It's important to note the breadth of the previous government's consultation. Consulting widely, taking on good ideas and developing them into good policy is what makes strong legislation in this place. I think that contrasts strongly with the government's current IR bill, which is being debated in the Senate as we speak. Rushed legislation leads to poor outcomes, and good consultation leads to good results. This parliament should thank all these stakeholders for their constructive contribution to these changes.

It is also important to note the number of recommendations from the review process that were already legislated way back in 2017, which seems a lifetime ago now. These bills now address many of the remaining recommendations and they also reflect various further changes subsequently suggested by businesses and consumers following those legislated changes back in 2017. In the main, they give expression to a series of sensible administrative changes. The bills will ensure the even more efficient operation in the future of the three relevant ozone protection acts as well as the enhanced regulation, through the OPSGG program, of the regulation of the manufacture, import, export, use and disposal of ozone-depleting substances in Australia.

And I go back to the bill's objectives here. The closing the hole in the ozone layer bill is principally aimed at modernising the compliance and enforcement arrangements associated with the OPSGG program; it's inserting into law various OPSGG program obligations that are currently imposed only by license conditions; and it also provides greater clarity around licensing exemption requirements as well as increasing the time permitted for businesses to submit reports and pay levies. I know that was one of the key outcomes of the consultation on the key recommendations made by those stakeholders.

The bills also provide for the removal of caps on the levy rates for the OPSGG program, and the creation of a capacity for the manufacture levy rate to be more flexibly set and adjusted by legislation rather than just through legislation. And we've seen how long it takes to get legislation through this place. I believe this bill has been on and off the Notice Paper many, many times. My speech here is all dogeared given how many times I've pulled it in and out of my folder. The delegation of power to senior departmental officials of the minister to grant exemptions to levy payments and the abolition of the levy applied to the importation of ODS equipment is in recognition of the fact that it is now only possible to bring such equipment into Australia in circumstances where no alternative equipment is available. These are all highly commendable actions, and I commend the bills to the House.

See this speech in context