Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022. For too long too much time has been devoted in this country and in this place to fighting the climate wars. It's been on full display today by those opposite. The political infighting has seen Australia not just stand still but go backwards in taking action on climate change, and we've missed the economic and job opportunities that come from real action on climate change.

When I was first elected in 2007 I wanted to take action on climate change, like so many of those people who were my friends who got elected in 2007. We well remember in December 2009 the Greens torpedoing the Rudd government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the mindless negativity and relentless attack on the Gillard government carbon price from Tony Abbott. As prime minister, he changed it and got rid of it, and as opposition leader he relentlessly attacked it. In the coalition's subsequent lost decade, they tore themselves apart on policy after policy—22 failed energy policies. The National Energy Guarantee couldn't even last 24 hours. It didn't even last from question time to the time the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, talked about it in his caucus room. Our nation has seen prime ministers and leaders come and go over these issues. We've heard leading experts like Professor Ross Garnaut, along with eminent public servants like Ken Henry and Martin Parkinson, lament the climate denialism and the missed opportunities. Australia's progress on climate change didn't just lie stagnant under the coalition; it went backwards. Under the coalition not only was there a lack of domestic investment; everything was undermined, including our international reputation.

Today we've seen the coalition's failure on full display. We've had chunks of the National Party over there still lurking back and lamenting that Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen is not the Premier of my state of Queensland. They are in complete denial on climate change. We've heard speaker after speaker from the National Party from my home state of Queensland. But there have been Liberals here—I call them Liberals; they're really conservatives—who think that, if climate change is real, we should do nothing; we shouldn't pass this legislation. 'If we do something, we shouldn't pass this bill,' is the other argument they run, and 'If we do this, it won't make any difference at all.' On the other hand, they say, 'If we do this, it will cost too much.' The previous speaker was saying both. He couldn't work out which one he wanted to do. He is better than that, frankly. We have a lot of respect for him on this side of the chamber, but he is better than running that circuitous, false argument that he did today.

Overseas, other countries are looking at what we've done. They're looking at carbon tariffs. They're looking at the former government's stubbornness, truculence and obstinacy about taking action on climate change. They are looking at the fact that this government, the Albanese Labor government, wants to take action on climate change. If we take no action on climate change, we risk carbon tariffs from those in Europe and elsewhere. Other countries are discussing that. We're risking that by doing nothing. At the last federal election, we saw the people of Australia give a clear message. They'd had enough of the division. They'd had enough of the dysfunction. They voted for a party and individuals who wanted to take action on climate change.

Some of those opposite, from their contributions today, seem to think that somehow they were put on the other side of the chamber accidentally, inadvertently, that the people of Australia made a mistake, and they're really the natural party of government. But they don't show that they're the natural party of government, because they don't show responsibility and listen to the business community, the conservation groups, the unions and other people who want to take action on climate change. They fought amongst themselves and couldn't work out that the people of Australia wanted to do something and take action on climate change because they've experienced floods, fires and all manner of natural disasters, in just about every state and territory.

Those opposite couldn't, in nine to 10 years, bring themselves to come up with a policy to take action on climate change. Who can forget direct action? The member for Monash should remember that we wouldn't support direct action, because it was a failure. So they brought in the safeguard mechanism—they brought it in—and today they've spent the whole day trashing their own policy, and they intend to vote against it when this comes to a vote. It's their own policy. So many of those opposite were sitting there, from 2014 onwards, supporting the safeguard mechanism. The trouble was they didn't give it teeth. They weren't taking any action.

In my home city, we've been hit hard by floods—three major floods during my time as the federal MP, in 2011, 2013 and 2022. In my electorate we know that climate change is real. We've experienced climate extremes—droughts, heatwaves, floods. The people in my electorate, whether they're farmers in the Somerset region, business owners in Ipswich or young people in Springfield and Ripley, know that climate change is real.

This bill builds on what we need to do, what the Labor policy was. Renewable energy alone can't reduce our emissions enough. We need to do more. We won't reduce our emissions unless our top 215 industrial emitters, who are projected to overtake electricity generators as Australia's leading source of emissions, reduce them. Emissions from these 215 facilities account for over 28 per cent—close to 30 per cent—of the nation's total emissions. The safeguard mechanism, devised by those opposite, applies to designated large facilities—those facilities who produce more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year.

Before the last election, we put on the table what we were going to do—the Powering Australia plan. We committed to reducing national emissions to 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. We've legislated those changes. As a key part of that, we adopted the Business Council of Australia's recommendation for facilities already covered by the previous coalition government's safeguard mechanism that emissions be reduced gradually and predictably over time to support international competitiveness and economic growth. It's consistent with industry's own commitment to net zero by 2050.

The bill gives effect to that commitment by delivering an enhanced safeguard mechanism. Combined with subordinate legislation, it sets out a baseline, safeguard rules and Australian carbon credit units—ACCUs. This followed an independent review by Professor Chubb—the Chubb review—to ensure that the carbon credit framework was credible, had coherency and had integrity. The largest emitters will make a proportionate contribution to the 2030 target by reducing the baseline by 4.9 per cent annually from 2024 to 2030. The safeguard mechanism places a limit on the greenhouse gases the largest emitters can emit by assigning each one with a baseline. Each year, the largest emitters need to prove their annual emissions are below the baseline. They have to report to the Clean Energy Regulator. Each facility which emits more greenhouse gases than the baseline must take action to offset the excess emissions by buying and surrendering ACCUs. If facilities produce fewer emissions than their baseline, they are rewarded with safeguard mechanism credits equivalent to one tonne of emissions. These SMCs can be sold or traded to other parties over the baseline to reduce their net emissions. These SMCs are not offsets; they can be banked and they can be used. That's how it operates.

The next stage of what we're doing is to release the draft design of our reforms that will be implemented by regulation. This follows the comprehensive consultation paper and the consideration of more than 200 submissions. Those opposite have just ruled themselves out on this issue. Of course, the safeguard mechanism is not new; the former government brought it in. Really, it's a tacit acceptance that the direct action policy and the Emissions Reduction Fund of those opposite, when they were in government, was a failure. It was never going to meet our emissions targets. Those opposite, in 2020 and 2021, went on to announce a plan to credit safeguard facilities below their baseline, but they never delivered it; we are delivering it. Incredibly, they now oppose it and make speech after speech trying to run this half-baked scare campaign based on some old, tired talking points the member for Monash was raving about just before in the chamber. The chutzpah, the hypocrisy, is simply breathtaking.

The problem is the coalition's policy was so poorly designed that those facilities were allowed to increase their emissions, which is why industry and experts are calling for reform. The coalition has entirely dealt themselves out of any debate here. We've got a situation where the Business Council of Australia, ACCI, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the National Farmers Federation—every group that you would think those opposite might actually listen to, they're not listening to. These reforms are critical, and the business community will have the certainty they've been crying out for. It's been carefully designed to cut pollution in our biggest industrial emitters, minimising costs and allowing industry the flexibility to choose the least-cost abatement opportunities. It's equivalent to taking two-thirds of Australia's cars off the road between now and 2030. It's ambitious, but it's a sensible, prudent and business-friendly option.

Any delay is going to make it harder to hit our target. The fact is that if our reforms are passed there'll be a scheme to bring down emissions from the biggest emitters. If it's not passed, there will be no such scheme and emissions will continue to rise. It's so disappointing that those opposite can't listen to the business community and have decided to oppose this bill, as they did with the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill and with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme all those years ago.

While it's a disgrace that those opposite have failed to support this, I expected better from the Greens political party; I really did. The Greens come into this place and criticise us constantly about it but don't tell the public that they're actually in a form of negotiation with us. Do the Greens really expect that their supporters—the ones that doorknock for them, hand out how-to-vote cards or vote for them—will be happy if they sit with those opposite and do not take action on climate change, after they torpedoed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme? It would be an act of folly for the Greens to oppose taking action on climate change twice. When push comes to shove, they would have opposed taking action on climate change twice. Their arguments for wanting to do so would lack all form of credibility. There's an old biblical saying: 'It's not the hearers of the word but the doers who are righteous.' They're not doers, the Greens, if they oppose the legislation. They're just the hearers of the word; they are not the doers.

I call on the Greens political party to do the right thing and vote for this legislation. I'm proud to be on this side of the chamber. We want to take action on climate change. I say to the Greens political party: back this safeguard mechanism. This is a legislated path to taking action on climate change. Do not make the same mistake you made before. Our EU partners, and so many other countries, are implementing carbon boarder adjustment mechanism, or carbon tariffs. That would impact our business community and it would impact jobs.

As the Minister For Climate Change and Energy has pointed out, it would be irresponsible to place bans on traditional energy supply like coal and gas, so the Greens are really out of step. I would encourage them to listen to the voice of the Mining and Energy Union and the Australia Workers Union, who have urged the Greens to play a part in this legislation, to support this type of work. They should listen to the unions in relation to this issue, and those opposite should listen to the business community. We need to make a massive transformation in this country to a renewable energy economy. We need to make sure we take action on climate change.

I want to thank the government for this legislation. It will make an appreciable difference to farmers, to consumers, to business opportunities and to those in the suburban parts of my electorate. We need to take action on climate change, and those constituents who have put me here for six terms believe it and know it.

See this speech in context