Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to contribute to the debate on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022. This government cares about action on climate change, as any responsible modern day government should. Last year, we did what those opposite pondered about for so long and not only committed to our goal of net zero emissions by 2050 but we legislated it. These changes to the safeguard mechanism are the next step in this journey. An enhanced safeguard mechanism is a crucial building block for Australia's progression towards net zero.

What we are proposing is nothing radical and it's certainly nothing big business should be intimidated by. This bill will simply require Australia's largest industrial facilities to reduce their emissions gradually and predictably in line with our national targets. There are no demands for instant, significant changes risking the feasibility of the business but rather gradual, predictable, achievable changes that are beneficial for business and beneficial for emissions reduction.

This bill addresses one element of the reform: crediting. It aims to support and encourage industries to unlock emissions reductions where they are most efficient. Some businesses are even ahead of the pack and have low-cost opportunities to reduce their emissions available to them now. These businesses are ready to go and could reduce their emissions faster than required by the safeguard mechanism. We want to encourage this as much as we can. Businesses should go after the opportunities that are already available to them to reduce their emissions. To help encourage these businesses to do this, this bill enables these businesses to be issued with tradeable safeguard mechanism credits. But we also recognise that not all businesses have these opportunities for emissions reductions available to them just yet. These businesses with more limited options could buy these credits to help them meet their required emissions reductions.

This is also about making sure that Australian businesses are keeping up with their competitors in the international market. This bill will give the businesses encouragement to use the newest technology, including technology that will assist them in emissions reduction and that, in many cases, is already being utilised by their competitors in many parts of the world. It is a bit like weight loss: some of us have a goal to lose weight, and all our government is doing is providing an incentive and trying to help out along that journey. This bill lowers the cost of reducing emissions, it makes it more achievable and it helps increase the ambitions of businesses to do so. This is a scheme that is balanced. It is a scheme that is effective, equitable, efficient and, more importantly, very simple. This is a scheme that will assist businesses to grow and meet their targets of emissions reduction at the same time, without hindering their operations.

As a member who represents an electorate home to 10 large emitters—which comes part and parcel when your electorate is in the heart of the mining industry in New South Wales—I must address this one very important point. We hear a lot of chatter from those opposite about what this bill might mean for the mining industry. But that's all it is: chatter. Let me assure you, Deputy Speaker Goodenough, and let me assure this House and the mining communities in my electorate, that I will never stand in this place and support anything that poses harm to the mining industry or its workforce. I was a miner. My mates are miners, and much of my electorate is made up of mining communities. Let me make one thing clear: I support the mining industry and, more importantly, I support the miners in it. I want their jobs to continue, providing them with secure employment for decades to come. As long as there is a market that still demands coal, I want the last piece of coal burnt on this planet to be from the Hunter, as it's the cleanest coal in the world.

Contrary to the chatter coming from those opposite, this bill is about supporting the mining industry. It is about supporting mines in my electorate to continue their operations nonstop, in a way which does less harm to the environment. This legislation is about supporting mines to meet their own net zero goals, which they all have, by 2050. These are goals they set on their own accord, goals no government forced them into making. Before the desperate voices from the 'no-alition' interject, I'd like to mention that I've spoken to all the major mine owners in my electorate, and they don't feel threatened by this legislation; they just want to know the details of it, which will be coming out in the near future. If the companies themselves don't feel like this bill will negatively impact on them, don't listen when those in the 'no-alition' begin to yell and shout with their scare campaigns, trying to convince voters that this bill will be bad for mining.

By introducing this bill, we are in no way saying or indicating that the way mining operations are conducted now is bad. Mining has given us our modern world, which we all of us enjoy. Every single person in this country should be grateful for mining, and it will continue to play a vital role in the coming decades. This is about acknowledging that we can conduct mining better and about encouraging this to happen. These reforms have been supported and even called for by peak bodies like the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has stated that business has been very clear in its support for reforms to the safeguard mechanism. This is the best way to secure the planning, investment and innovation that will underpin the decarbonisation of our economy without sacrificing reliability or affordability. It seems as though the only ones opposing it are those in the 'no-alition'. But, of course, we can't forget that this was actually first proposed by the former government. Yes, that's right—they're the same bunch of people who now seek to oppose it. It was initially a recommendation of the 2020 expert panel, which the then government accepted. When announcing the safeguard mechanism in August 2021, the member for Hume, then minister for energy and emissions reduction, said:

The Morrison government knows the best way to reduce emissions across the economy is to drive innovation and technology, and we are doing this without imposing new costs that would hurt businesses and communities, or destroying jobs.

But now, in a shocking plot twist, the honourable member has turned against his own policy. I have trouble making up my mind on things from time to time, mostly when I am looking at the menu of a burger shop—it is quite hard—but this is really quite ridiculous from the member for Hume. Does he support the safeguard mechanism that he first introduced or does he not? This is their own legislation that those opposite now are voting against. Sometimes I really wonder how those opposite manage to stand up without having a backbone. So if you are in my electorate in the Hunter and you hear someone from the opposition saying anything negative about this legislation, remember this one thing: don't listen to the hypocrites whose values change depending on what is most likely to win them votes.

To finish, I have to give special mention to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, who has been a huge support for me and the Hunter electorate. The minister has been there for me to speak to whenever I have needed assistance with this legislation. Any time a stakeholder in the mining sector has come to me with a voice of concern or has had a question regarding this proposed change to the safeguard mechanism, the minister has been available for me to go to straightaway. He has listened to the concerns and views of me and the mining industry in the Hunter. I know that he is committed to ensuring that this legislation will not harm the workforce in the mining industry in the Hunter Valley. For this, I thank the minister. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context