Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's a pleasure to follow the member for Page's contribution and I also note the contributions from the shadow Treasurer and the leader of the Nationals earlier in this debate. We were just upstairs in the Federation Chamber talking about the appropriation bills and reflecting on the vast difference there is between what this government says and what it actually does. I say frequently to people, 'Don't listen to what they say, look at what they do, because nine times out of 10 they are two completely and utterly different things.

As the member from Page has quite rightly pointed out, this bill will not help reduce the cost of living. It will actually increase the cost of living for each and every Australian. We've moved a set of amendments to try and make this bill better. I doubt the government is going to support those amendments we will move, because we don't support this bill because we think it's fundamentally antibusiness. As you look at this bill it reaches into every aspect of our economy.

Most people probably don't realise that we already have some reporting requirements for large businesses in terms of scope 1 and 2 emissions, which are emissions that they've either directly generated or indirect emissions from the purchase of electricity or other inputs into the business. What we're talking about essentially in this bill now are scope 3 emissions, which are indirect greenhouse gas emissions that aren't included in the scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions but occur in the value chain of an entity including both upstream and downstream emissions including financed emissions.

Medium-sized business could be caught by this. There are three groups of entities. Group 1 entities have consolidated revenue of $500 million or more or consolidated group assets of a billion or higher, group 2 entities have consolidated revenue of $200 million or more or consolidated gross assets of $500 million or higher, while group 3 have consolidated revenue of $50 million or higher or consolidated gross assets of $25 million or higher. All of those entities are required to report or will be required to report the scope 3 emissions from all of their suppliers upstream and downstream.

What happens to a small manufacturing business in the electorate of Forde that supplies four or five of these companies? How do they account for the emissions that they generate? By the way, they don't have to do this currently. They're exempt from the current scope 1 and scope 2 emissions regime. So, they've got to bring in a set of consultants to go through their entire business and work out what their emissions are so they can start to report them. How do they account then to each of their suppliers what the emissions component of the goods that they supply them are?

I know that in this bill there's an estimated cost of $1.3 million per year for these large businesses that have to comply with these requirements and an overall estimated economic cost of some $2.3 billion dollars in regulatory impost for no productivity gain whatsoever—zero. We're already in an environment where productivity is declining. We're seeing a new set of regulations that's only going to make productivity worse because it is of no productive value to the country whatsoever, unless you're consultancy business that actually has to calculate these emissions for all of our small businesses across the country.

These are small businesses that don't have HR departments and don't have in-house accounting teams. They get up each and every day and open their doors, putting that families' livelihoods and futures on the line to employ Australians and produce goods that those opposite say they want produced in Australia under their Future Made in Australia goal. But, again, what are they doing? They're just putting another roadblock and another hurdle in the way of the small businesses in this country, which take the risks to innovate, grow and develop the ideas that will benefit this country into the future.

At the same time that they want to spend several billion dollars on their made in Australia fund they're actually making it less attractive for business to stay in Australia. The Assistant Treasurer, who's in the chamber at the moment and I'm sure will sum up after I've finished, made a comment in the Federation Chamber earlier, in consideration in detail, about where we want products to be manufactured. I can tell the House that I want products to be manufactured in this country by Australia so that they can afford to keep a roof over their heads, feed their families and build the wealth and creative capacity of this country. That's what I want to see, but as I look at this bill I don't see that happening, sadly.

I was talking to one of my local manufacturers, a textile manufacturer, quite recently. That manufacturer is actively discussing shutting down and moving overseas because it is just becoming too difficult to do business in Australia. What is one of the key inputs that is becoming so expensive for them? It is electricity and gas. Yet this government promised before the last election that they would reduce electricity and gas prices. They've done nothing of the sort. Rest assured, that business that I just mentioned will be caught in this legislation, which will make it even less attractive for it to stay here in Australia.

I can assure the House that the estimate of a $2.3 billion impact on our economy is so far short of the mark that it is beyond funny. I would suggest that that $2.3 billion cost has been calculated on those group 1, group 2 and group 3 businesses. I doubt very much that the government or Treasury has done the work to identify the economy-wide costs for every single business in our economy of having to comply with the regulation in this proposed legislation. This is on top of the myriad of other things that this government is doing to make life difficult for business. Whether you're a small manufacturer in my electorate of Forde or a farmer in the electorate of Riverina, you are going be impacted by this.

Nobody has really talked about or mentioned at this stage what is also potentially going to happen. We have seen it occur overseas or at least raised as a question overseas. What are the banks going to do with their finance facilities and businesses that are caught up in this? What reporting will businesses have to provide to their banks as part of their loan application process? What if they have an existing finance facility rollover or upgrade of their finance facilities? What about at review time? What additional information will they have to provide? If the bank doesn't like the questions that the business is providing—bear in mind that the banks are caught in this, potentially—what is the risk that the bank says, 'We don't want you as a customer anymore because we don't believe you're doing the right thing with reporting your emissions,' or, 'We don't think you are reporting them properly,' or, 'There is an increased risk to your business because of your emissions profile'? What happens in that case? Can they go to another bank and get their finance facility refinanced or not?

There are so many holes in this piece of legislation and so many risks being introduced into our economy as a result of this that it is beyond belief that those opposite can stand there, hand on heart, and say that they're a government that supports small business, as we saw the Minister for Small Business do this morning. Virtually each and every piece of legislation they bring into this place—and this is a classic example—says exactly the opposite. When 98 per cent of businesses in this country are small-to-medium businesses that employ more than 50 per cent of the Australian workforce, what is the economic impact of this piece of legislation? I would suggest that it is way more than $2.3 billion. Each and every Australian will pay the price for this. All of those sitting in the gallery, everybody that's watching this and everybody out there in the Australian community—everybody will pay the price for this.

As the member for Page quite rightly pointed out, the government is funding environmental activists, like the Environmental Defenders Office, to ensure that these regulations are complied with. We know their track record. We know what a court said about the Environmental Defenders Office recently, and I can say that it wasn't very flattering. It wasn't very flattering at all. To think that the government is empowering a group of people that want to shut down our economy or shut down particularly businesses they don't like because they don't fit within their zeitgeist, with the economic consequences for our country that that entails, is extraordinary. I thought they were supposed to be a government that govern for all Australians, not just their selected vested interests.

I am pleased that we as a coalition are opposing this bill, and we will make every effort to try and ensure that it doesn't pass this parliament, because of the cost-of-living consequences and the risk to business in an already difficult business environment where electricity costs have been going up and rent costs have been going up. If you think there's a rental crisis in the housing market, which there is, there is a rental crisis for many small businesses as well, with the inflation rates that they have been subject to by this government, which doesn't seem to know how to get inflation back down to any sensible level. It's now stuck at one of the highest levels around the world. This is only going to compound this. As these costs flow through the economy, businesses will put up their prices. If they can't put up their prices, they're going to let people go. Where we already have the situation where households with average mortgages in my electorate and across the country are $35,000 a year worse off as a result of this government's inaction, what are the broader economic consequences of this legislation? I think the government should take this and go away and rethink it, or actually put it in the bin, because it will be extraordinarily detrimental to our economy and will make the situation worse, not better. I'm pleased, as I said, that the coalition opposes this bill.

See this speech in context