Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Kingsford Smith has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I start my contribution on this bill, may I simply say, as the first speaker after the member for Franklin, that in the last two days we have been privileged to hear two magnificent valedictory speeches, one from the member for Franklin and one from the member for Cook—two men of outstanding principle and values who have held true to their beliefs and values right through their terms. I wish both of them well as they leave this parliament. It has been a privilege to serve with both gentlemen.

Like many Australians, I am deeply concerned about climate change. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill 2007. Research undertaken by the world’s leading scientists, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has suggested that the earth is warming and that human activity is partly responsible. The planet’s temperature has already risen by around 0.7 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years and may rise between one and 6.4 degrees Celsius this century.

Already we are starting to feel the impact of climate change. It is no accident that 11 of the past 12 years have been the warmest since the 1850s, with 2000 being the warmest year on record. It is also no accident that most of our cities, major regional centres and country towns are now on severe water restrictions following a decade of below average rainfall. If action is not undertaken to address climate change, we are told that we run the very real risk of rising sea levels and severe changes in weather patterns. I also appreciate that not everyone shares the view of the IPCC, disputing the science and its conclusions. Some claim that the rise in temperatures is a result of fluctuations that naturally take place throughout the earth’s life cycle. The question that we need to answer is: what if we are wrong in this assessment? Governments have all resolved that action is needed urgently.

The bill is one part of the response required by governments. It would deliver an effective means to help combat climate change by laying a solid foundation for the deployment of a cap-and-trade emissions trading system. Australia’s emissions trading system will cover around 70 per cent of all sources of greenhouse gas emissions. This will be more comprehensive than the state based systems, which cover about 45 per cent, and it will produce better results than any of the systems currently operating in Europe. This legislation is a clear demonstration of the federal government’s commitment to take the threat of climate change seriously.

An emissions trading system underpinned by this legislation would build upon more than a decade of hard work to cut greenhouse gas emissions. At a national level, the federal government has invested in infrastructure and research in areas such as clean coal and solar power, as well as urgent investments in water preservation and conservation. Too often, not enough credit has been given by its critics to the various initiatives that this government has introduced during its 11½ years in office. We have seen initiatives that go beyond what any previous government had even imagined possible in the area of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. For example, $500 million is being made available to help pioneer low-emissions technology such as clean coal, and $100 million has been made available for renewable energy development initiatives. We have $75 million for five solar cities, and yet you would be hard pressed to find anyone who even knows that those cities are being constructed as solar cities. We have the much-discussed $10 billion to restore the health of the Murray-Darling river system. We have also had $2.2 billion put into the Australian water fund to improve the management and use of water resources. These in themselves are only part of the response by this government and they are very significant statements of the government’s seriousness on this issue.

Meeting the challenge of climate change and emissions reductions in our homes is something that the federal government has also invested in, recognising that each Australian wants to make a difference to the world we live in. Whether it is in our own homes or in our communities, all of us want to directly contribute to effectively managing climate change issues. While such individual action makes a small contribution, it is a powerful statement of what we truly value: our environment. Of course, the cumulative effect of such individual action does make a significant contribution to our environmental management, and the federal government has encouraged such individual and community action through programs such as rebates to help homes and community groups install solar panels and hot water systems.

The Prime Minister recently announced $50,000 rebates for schools to invest in water-saving technology and solar panels. This initiative has been welcomed by all the schools in my electorate as a way of making their contribution to the environment and as an educational tool for young kids going through the schools. The Australian Greenhouse Office, which was established to coordinate ways to reduce emissions, was the first of its kind in the world. Also, in the last budget, the Treasurer announced $200 million to help fund the protection of the world’s rainforests—the lungs of the earth—through a reafforestation program in developing nations. These are good local initiatives on top of the big national initiatives. They certainly signify the seriousness with which this government takes the issue of greenhouse gases, climate change and the setting in place of an emissions trading system.

Almost 20 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions are from clearing the world’s forests. If the world were to halve the rate of global deforestation, it could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by three billion tonnes a year, which is more than five times Australia’s total annual emissions and about 10 times the emissions reductions that will be achieved during the first commitment period of the Kyoto protocol.

The federal government has invested over $3.4 billion in finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Thanks to these practical initiatives, Australia is well on track to meet its Kyoto target, in contrast to Kyoto signatories such as the United Kingdom, France, Canada and even Japan. In 2005, Australia emitted 559 million tonnes of CO_2. This figure is 102 per cent above the 1990 figure, and our Kyoto target is 108 per cent above the 1990 figure. It means that growth in greenhouse gas emissions was two per cent despite growth of 61 per cent in the economy. So we have the economy booming ahead—particularly the energy resource area—with 61 per cent growth and we have seen emissions levels from Australia increasing by two per cent. Australia is pulling its weight in this area; it is not lagging behind.

The ALP’s response on climate change is best summed up as extreme and unbalanced, and it ignores the intricate economic circumstances of our country. Unlike the scientific approach taken by those more actively involved in the climate change debate, the Labor Party have approached this issue with an almost religious zealotry in an attempt to turn the debate away from scientific fact into a more divisive believers versus nonbelievers scenario. The ALP’s shallow approach to climate change is best summed up in their often used catchcry ‘Sign Kyoto’—a simple message that is designed to fool Australians into thinking that the government does not take climate change seriously.

Far from being at the forefront of this important debate about the world’s future, the Labor Party and the opposition leader would jeopardise Australia’s role in creating an agreement beyond Kyoto and 2012, which was agreed to at APEC through the Sydney declaration, which was signed off by 21 leaders in the Asia-Pacific region. In fact, the ALP’s hypocrisy on this can be summed up by the inaction of the Leader of the Opposition last week in his now famous meeting with the President of the United States, George Bush. For all the rhetoric of those on the other side about signing Kyoto, when the opportunity was presented to the Leader of the Opposition to raise the issue of Kyoto and climate change with the President of the United States, what happened? He squibbed it. He squibbed the opportunity to push the claim that Kyoto should remain the flagship for international action—because deep down those on the other side know that the world has moved on beyond Kyoto. If Labor were really serious about climate change, they would check the facts on the Kyoto agreement and, rather than harping back to the catchcry of ‘Sign Kyoto’, they would realise that we are now into the next phase of international action.

The Kyoto protocol does not provide a comprehensive or environmentally effective long-term response to climate change. Of the 175 countries that ratified the protocol, only 35 signed up to greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. None of those is a developing country and many of them are failing to meet the targets that have been set, including the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan. Significantly, the protocol does not provide a clear pathway for action by developing countries, some of whom have much higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions than developed countries, such as Australia. Without commitments by all major emitters, the Kyoto protocol will be largely ineffective, as it will only deliver about a one per cent reduction in the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. To put it another way, global greenhouse gas emissions are still expected to increase by 40 per cent on 1990 levels by 2012 under the protocol compared to an increase of 41 per cent without it. So, apart from all that effort and all that bluster, all we are seeing is a one per cent growth from actually doing nothing.

It is often said that the 21st century is the Asia century. If that is the case, why have an emissions trading scheme, an international climate action change program, which does not include some of the world’s largest polluters? We want them included not so that there can be punitive measures but simply to entice them to be part of the international response so that they too can play their part—because emissions, as they move around the globe, do not know borders; there are no boundaries.

For example, one of these Asian giants is China. China currently contributes 14.7 per cent of our global greenhouse gas emissions. Australia’s contribution stands at 1.4 per cent—and, while it is a significant 1.4 per cent, it is minuscule by comparison. On current trends, China’s contribution is set to rise to 22.9 per cent by 2050. Currently, China is the second biggest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, and it will overtake the No. 1 emitter, the United States, by 2050. It is therefore vital that all greenhouse-gas-emitting countries work together to achieve an effective international response to address climate change. The USA accounts for 23.8 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, followed by the EU with 14.3 and China, as I mentioned, with its 14.7 per cent.

Given these figures, it is extremely encouraging to see China working in cooperation with Australian scientists and engineers to develop a clean coal plant. It is also encouraging to see the large resource companies, such as BP Australia, investing in major solar photovoltaic production plants in China. By sharing Australian know-how and working in partnership with our neighbours, Australia can help to drastically reduce global greenhouse emissions. These are practical actions that this country is taking with our partners overseas.

It is for that reason that I so strongly support our involvement in the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, towards which Australia has committed $100 million. The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate brings together key countries—such as China, India, Korea, Japan and the United States—to explore ways to develop, deploy and transfer cleaner, more efficient technologies to help cut global greenhouse gas emissions. The importance of this partnership is clear, when you consider that these six partners account for almost half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The recent APEC summit in Sydney demonstrated that Australia can draw together the leaders of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters and forge a consensus on tackling climate change. One of the important agreements to come out of the APEC meeting was the agreement of all nations to help build a post-2012 international climate change agreement. Those on the other side have been critical of this agreement because it states aspirational targets. Far from them criticising, I urge those on the other side to embrace the action that took place in Sydney last week. I certainly urge them to support the government’s efforts in setting up this partnership and to work within it.

The framework for any new agreement would strengthen and deepen the current arrangements leading to reduced global emissions. This is necessary to get a global framework underway for the post-Kyoto period. It is in line with other APEC commitments, which include working towards achieving an APEC-wide reduction in energy intensity of at least 25 per cent by 2030, using 2005 as the base year, and working to increase forest cover in the APEC region by at least 20 million hectares by 2020—a goal which, if achieved, would store some 1.4 billion tonnes of carbon, which is the equivalent of around 11 per cent of annual global emissions, based on 2004 figures. That is a significant contribution which certainly should be embraced. Another commitment is to establish an Asia-Pacific network for energy technology to strengthen collaboration on energy research in the region in such areas as clean fossil energy and renewable energy.

Following more than a decade of hard work, Australia has achieved a great deal to help cut greenhouse gas emissions, both at home and internationally. Indeed, I believe Australia is leading the world when it comes to tackling climate change. Irrespective of what the critics out there may say and what the various action groups that have been established around the country may say, the fact is indisputable: this country has led the way, is making a significant contribution and is not shirking its responsibility.

Australians are renowned for their innovation and their ability to work together to overcome difficult challenges. This has certainly been the case when it comes to the challenge of climate change. The people in my electorate of Deakin are no exception. I would like to praise the many community groups, sporting clubs and schools within Deakin who made a contribution to reducing their environmental footprint. Much of this has happened under the various grants and schemes set up by this government, particularly the very popular Community Water Grants scheme. I would like to commend those groups and members of local groups, whether it be those down at Wurundjeri Walk, Blackburn Lake, the Creeklands area, Antonio Park, Loughie’s Bushland or over at Cheong Park. All of these and many more groups like them have dedicated themselves to care for our precious natural local environment. By working together as a community, we in Deakin have achieved a lot, and I look forward to working with those groups to achieve even more.

One such project which we have worked on for the last three years has been the preservation of bushland around the Blackburn Lake area, infamously known in Deakin now as 1 Lake Road, Blackburn—and the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources certainly knows about that piece of land. It is set adjacent to the environmentally significant Blackburn Lake Sanctuary. When it became clear that the state government’s lax planning laws would fail to protect this important piece of open space from developers, the federal government stepped in with $1.8 million in federal funding to protect it. Now that the open space at 1 Lake Road has been preserved, I am working with members of the local community to investigate the possibility of establishing a sustainable living centre within that Blackburn Lake precinct—a centre where the community, school groups and residents can go to find examples of the latest and best ways to make their contribution to environmental sustainability and the protection of our environment.

It is a visionary project that seeks to showcase biodiversity and conservation whilst acting as a centre of excellence in the development and demonstration of environmentally sustainable technologies. On behalf of the local community, I would like to congratulate everyone who has been involved in this project—in particular, the tireless and passionate John Bergin, from the Blackburn area.

By working together, at both the local community and national levels, Australia has managed to significantly reduce its impact on climate change. However, with Australia only accounting for 1.4 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, the greatest opportunity for reducing the emissions is through cooperation with other nations. As a keen bushwalker who has climbed the magnificent Cradle Mountain in Tasmania and fully walked the Kokoda Track in Papua New Guinea, I have a deep love and respect for the environment and, like most Australians, I realise that there is still much more to be done when it comes to climate change. As a local representative and a member of the federal parliament, I will continue to work hard at local, national and international levels to foster a cleaner and safer environment so that future generations have a better environment to live in.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say from the outset that I certainly will be supporting the amendment moved by the member for Kingsford Smith, but I will return to that a little later. The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill 2007 establishes a single national framework for reporting greenhouse gas emissions, emissions reduction actions and energy consumption and production of corporations from July 2008. As I understand it—and I have no reason to doubt this—this is an absolutely essential precursor to establishing an emissions trading system. By the 2010-11 financial year, the reporting framework will apply to approximately 700 companies that emit more than 50 kilotonnes of greenhouse gases. However, the fact remains that this particular bill is being rushed through this parliament so that this government can claim that it has passed primary legislation to enable the establishment of an emissions trading scheme.

I concede that the bill is necessary. It certainly underpins the introduction of a national emissions trading mechanism. However, the bill’s has major shortcomings. Firstly, there is the provision of excessive reporting powers to the Commonwealth, which could be used, quite frankly, to usurp and marginalise some of the existing state laws and programs dealing with similar matters. Secondly, the timetables are so constrained—and they are certainly constrained from Labor’s point of view—that, under the way the bill is drafted currently, they would not be able to allow an emissions trading scheme to be introduced by 2010, which, I remind the House, is Labor’s policy.

All members of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts that sat to consider this bill when it was referred to them have recommended significant amendments to this piece of legislation, particularly in relation to the excessive reporting powers as drafted therein. Labor recognises the urgent need for progress on emissions trading, but it does not excuse the poor process or a lack of genuine consultation not only with industry or environmental groups but also with the community at large.

The bill, which was introduced in this place in August of this year, includes the following elements: mandatory registration and controlling corporations with a national scheme; the requirement of registered corporations to keep records and provide reports; requirements concerning the security and disclosure of information under the scheme; compliance and enforcement of arrangements; administrative arrangements, including the establishment of a position of a greenhouse and energy data officer; and compliance monitoring arrangements. I have no issue with those. I think they are matters that are required as natural precursors to establishing a mechanism upon which to base a national trading scheme.

This bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, and that committee convened on 3 September of this year—not all that long ago, you would say. At that stage the committee heard evidence from a range of groups. One of the consistent areas of complaint throughout the evidence that was taken by that committee was the fact that there was little if any consultation with key stakeholders within the environmental area, within industry and within the community. Regardless of who they were, whether they were expert witnesses, state governments, industry groups or environmental groups, all agreed that, while the objectives of this legislation are sound and are necessary to underpin a proper emissions trading scheme, this bill as it is drafted—as it is poorly drafted—is riddled with problems.

The inquiry heard that the bill would deliver unintended consequences, such as a significant rise in compliance costs; would produce a fractured system, which may not include as a consequence all the major emitters; would undermine state laws on climate change; and could conceivably cut across other state laws which, while not directly or primarily connected to greenhouse emissions, would nevertheless be involved in emissions and pollution control issues. The Investor Group on Climate Change—not an insignificant group—were of the opinion that the time frames for introducing a practical emissions trading system are far too slow. They were calling for better quality in the drafting of this piece of legislation in order to deliver a trading mechanism sooner. I will come back to the issue of the investor groups.

Whilst everyone is talking freely these days about aspirational targets, one of the main things that industry want is certainty. Industry want to know how they are going to raise capital to invest in a number of these technologies which will deliver greenhouse abatement benefits. To do that they need to have certainty in relation to raising funds, whether publicly or privately, and that is why industry say that they are on the outside and are what some might see as needing to be dragged into this tent. The people who I deal with in the industry, quite frankly, are looking for leadership. They are looking for government leadership when it comes to proper attention to greenhouse gas emission. Industry are not our problem at the moment; a lack of direction from this government is.

As a consequence of its drafting, the bill sets in place a number of issues. According to the evidence of those who participated in the inquiry, for those in the business community who are looking for an investment opportunity it sets in place a slowness for Australia to actually take action on climate change. It is all very well to have an issue brought to the parliament at this stage of the electoral cycle—at a time when the government is trying to demonstrate some credentials, after 11 years, in relation to environmental concerns, particularly the emission of greenhouse gases. But this hastily cobbled together piece of legislation, which is, as I said, a precursor to the development of a national trading scheme, has been put together with no consultation. And the Senate inquiry, having heard evidence from those who appeared only very recently, on 3 September, had to deal with the consequence of this very hasty attempt by the government to try to establish some meagre environmental concern.

I indicated that there would potentially also be issues in relation to the application of this bill to existing state law. That is a real and present danger as a consequence of the drafting of this legislation, particularly in terms of New South Wales. Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, you are probably familiar with the greenhouse gas reduction scheme that operates there. In a previous life I had much to do with the New South Wales greenhouse abatement certificates issued to commercialised projects and, indeed, with those issued to commercialised projects in Queensland, of all places, as a consequence of the New South Wales system of gas abatement certificates. It is important that the stakeholders in this legislation also include those states which are, by default, running their own de facto mechanisms in this respect. If anything, from what we can see, this legislation is simply moving to usurp those mechanisms which are available in many states presently.

The Labor members on the committee that dealt with this matter on 3 September all supported the urgent implementation of the comprehensive mandatory greenhouse emissions energy reporting scheme. That is not something that is going to be contested. It is something that must be achieved. Unfortunately, the time constraints imposed by the bill make it difficult to think that this bill as it is currently structured could actually lead to the development of an emissions trading scheme by 2010.

In the absence of federal leadership on climate change, state and territory governments have been taking steps—disparate as they may be across the nation—to address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. As a consequence, Labor members on the committee had the view that clause 5 should be amended to rein in the proposed overly broad Commonwealth powers, which can extend over state laws. Labor members also want to amend clauses 27(1) and 27(2)(c) so that it is necessary to provide reporting information to state governments. I do not think it should be the objective of government to simply impose some exclusivity when it comes to addressing greenhouse gas emissions when there are clearly measures at a state level which are making inroads. We should be looking for a degree of harmonisation, but certainly keeping those states which are applying themselves well in this area in the loop. Rather than reducing uncertainty, this legislation, as I read it, has the potential to deliver unintended consequences, such as legal ambiguities, which will increase the compliance burden of this scheme.

There is no doubt that the sooner we act on emissions trading the longer the economy will have to adjust to the market signals and the better placed we will all be to prosper under the growing international approach to carbon markets. That is just an economic fact of life. I mentioned earlier the timely nature of this bill—and probably put it somewhat facetiously—with the bill coming in at this point in the electoral cycle. The fact remains that in the 11 budgets delivered by this government there has not once been a mention of ‘climate change’. In the whole 11 years of this government—this government which wants to contend that the single biggest thing that occurred at APEC recently was the statement in relation to aspirational targets and the fulfilment of the government’s objective in that respect—not once has it listed climate change in its budgets as a line item.

Yesterday in the matter of public importance debate the member for Kingsford Smith, whose amendment I am supporting, read the following statement:

Climate change is a serious issue. It is a global problem and the solution will also have to be global. The cost of adjustment must be distributed fairly evenly among developing economies as well as developed ones. We have a comprehensive national response to limit our greenhouse gas emissions.

That statement was made on 28 August 1996 by the current Prime Minister. Climate change has dominated real politics now for some time, yet the language of the Howard government remains the same as that enunciated back on 28 August 1996.

Recently there was a contention by some in this place that climate change really was not an issue of concern. You may remember, Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, a report of the Inquiry of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation into geosequestration. I am a member of that committee and enjoy my participation on it. The committee gains a very real insight into the issues referred to it, particularly by having access to some of the best scientific and academic resources available in dealing with the various subjects referred to it. The minister had referred to the committee for inquiry the science of geosequestration. This is effectively the science of carbon capture and storage of CO₂ as a consequence of energy production. The committee looked at the science of capturing that CO₂, putting it into liquid form and storing it in the earth. This is something that the government, to its credit, is investing in as a real and viable technology in addressing the issues of CO₂ emissions, particularly in relation to power generation.

As I said, I am a member of that committee. This particular inquiry took around 13 months, during which we heard evidence from a range of highly credible witnesses, including representatives from industry, academia and CSIRO. Throughout the committee’s deliberations there were those who certainly had concerns in relation to the efforts of government or alternately wanted to have their position on this technology recorded—enough on the history of that. The point of the matter is that the majority of the government’s elected members on the committee produced a minority report. The member for Tangney, the member for Lindsay, the member for Hughes and the member for Solomon all combined to write a dissenting report, which, as I understand it—and I have only been here a short time—is a pretty rare occurrence. The government has six members on the committee, so the majority of government members on the committee all combined to write a minority report.

The basis of their dissenting report was that they wanted to record their view that they do not believe in climate change. They are climate change deniers. These four members of the committee produced a report denying the fact that climate change has been caused in any way by greenhouse gas emissions and saying that the jury is out as to whether greenhouse gas emissions have been contributed to by man. This dissenting report said:

Another problem with the view that it is anthropogenic greenhouse gases that have caused warming is that warming has also been observed on Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Pluto, Neptune and others.

This dissenting report wanted to question whether there is any reputable science underpinning the notion of greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change and wanted to cite what is occurring on other planets and moons. If they are the majority of people that this coalition government put on their committee to look at the consequence of carbon capture and storage, how many other people— (Time expired)

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on this very important bill, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill 2007, in the parliament today in my capacity as the federal member for Ryan—a beautiful part of the western suburbs in Brisbane. I have the great honour of representing the people of that electorate and those suburbs and I will continue to do that with much energy and much enthusiasm. I look forward to working with them in the weeks ahead and discussing some of the very important issues that concern them.

Among those important issues, of course, are the state of our environment and climate change. There is no doubt that climate change is an issue that has captivated the minds of Australians and indeed people around the world. I will state on the record that I have great anxiety about the impact of climate change. It is important that the government does all it can to address the potential impact of climate change on our environment. I know that climate change is something that very deeply concerns the people in my electorate of Ryan. The University of Queensland is in my electorate, and there are many people in my electorate with lots of qualifications and experience in this area. They have given me the benefit of their thoughts and experiences on this issue. There are also many schools in my electorate, and they are well represented by young Australians who think seriously about the future. As a very good local member—I like to think I am, having been re-elected and having increased my majority at the last election—it is very important for me to listen to their concerns. I hosted a school here in the parliament only a few days ago, and very serious policy issues were raised by students about what the government is doing on not just climate change but a whole range of important issues.

But being concerned about problems is not enough. Being concerned about this specific issue of climate change alone is not enough. We need solutions, but we need solutions that are genuine, practical and can work. The Ryan electorate tell me as their local member that what is in the best interests of them as individuals, their families and future generations of Australians as well as the rest of the world is solutions that can work. At the end of the day, this is a global problem and a challenge for not only Australia as one member of the international community but also the rest of the world, and we must all come together as nations of the world to address this problem. That is the only way that a meaningful and substantial impact will be made on this problem. In Australia, we could take initiatives overnight that would mean that we do not have any emissions at all. The global impact of that would be very minimal indeed. That is not to say that we should not do our bit, because, as part of a philosophical approach to problems, we as a country and as individuals must do our bit The Howard government is working very hard in a very practical way to make an impact. I want to address that through talking about this bill.

I thought I might initially in my remarks to the parliament give some examples of emissions from individuals and put some figures to that conduct because I thought it might give some flavour to the challenge we face. For example, every year the average Australian in driving their vehicle produces 3.78 tonnes of CO₂ emissions. For those of us who have the privilege of taking flights on aeroplanes and have travelled from Australia to Europe, that flight produced the same amount of CO₂ as a vehicle emits in two years. One year of lighting for the average sized home in our country produces some 400 kilos of CO₂ emissions.

For those of us who like Aussie beef—and I certainly count myself as one who very much likes to dine on Australian beef, and I would suggest that many in this parliament also enjoy a good steak—one kilo of beef cooked and ready to eat produces 3.7 kilos of CO₂ emissions. One kilo of prawns produces eight kilos of CO₂ emissions. I know that prawns are very popular amongst Australians, and those who come from Queensland enjoy prawns very much indeed. One bottle of champagne produces 1.7 kilos of CO₂ emissions as well.

So what can we do in Australia? Should we not eat any prawns or beef at all? Should we stop drinking? I am sure that many of those who sit opposite enjoy a fine glass of champagne. The hardcore greens, extremists and radicals in our society and in political parties might call for such absurd action as banning all dining on prawns and beef. I am sure that some even think that we should not even hop on aeroplanes. That is the extreme view of the world that some would take—but that would be going back to the Dark Ages. We are not going to destroy our coal industry. We are not going to eat only vegetables. We have to be realistic about what we can do. We have to be practical and pragmatic.

I am certainly very critical of the Leader of the Greens, Senator Bob Brown, who, as many will know, flagged the idea of destroying our $25 billion coal industry pretty much overnight by closing it down. Of course, that would render obsolete some 30,000 jobs. I would like to think that the wiser heads in the Labor Party do not support that kind of very hardcore dark-green philosophy—which is the way I would label it. We need to be smart in how we approach this problem. The effect of climate change is potentially very damaging to our world, so we have to come together in a very strategic fashion to address this problem not only locally but also globally. But we are not in the business of saying, ‘Damn our economy. Damn jobs. Damn the economic security of Australians who work in industries which are critical to the economic prosperity of our country.’ We are not in the business of accepting environmental vandalism and environmental extremism. All those who claim that that could be a solution really should hang their heads in shame.

The Howard government offers a number of very practical solutions. One that I am very supportive of is the $1,000 rebate for solar hot water systems. We have also heard about the replacement of inefficient light bulbs with energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs and the offer of $50,000 green vouchers to schools to improve their energy efficiency. I want to pay tribute to my wife here because, long before it became fashionable, she changed all the light bulbs in our home. So, as a good husband, I want to pay tribute to the boss in the house. She made sure that, in our small way, we made our contribution on this very important issue.

I want to talk a little about the green vouchers for schools. The Australian government has offered some $50,000 for every school in the country to install hot water systems and rainwater tanks to improve energy and water efficiency. All Australian primary and secondary schools are eligible for this funding. Rainwater tanks above 10,000 litres capacity and solar hot water systems, along with their associated infrastructure and fittings, can be purchased with this grant. This will cost the Australian taxpayer some $336-plus million. It is something which I will encourage all the schools in the Ryan electorate to take up.

I have already approached school principals to let them know about this. Some have been very receptive and very enthusiastic. At those who have been less than enthusiastic, I express my astonishment. I express my dismay that some principals would try to remain at arm’s length from my overtures in promoting this wonderful Australian government policy which really does make a difference. I say to those principals: ‘Get off your backsides and promote this policy amongst the P&Cs and amongst the school community, because this is good for the schools, good for the kids in terms of their education and of course will make a real impact. Take the politics out of it. This is something that is making a difference. Put your politics aside.’ The fact is that I, as a federal member, will make phone calls to schools to draw this green voucher to their attention. It is important that this voucher is acknowledged as one tool in the toolkit for addressing climate change. I regret very much that time is getting away from me. I will return to the very important broader topic of this bill, rather than focusing only on this very good initiative of green vouchers for schools.

The Australian government has invested $26.1 million to establish a new greenhouse and energy reporting system under this bill. For the first time this will create a national reporting scheme for business and industry. Under the current arrangements, hundreds of Australian corporations must issue multiple reports, using the same data, to each state and territory in which they operate. Needless to say, this is an inefficient and wasteful arrangement, given that each state and territory has different legislation and different reports must be produced. This bill supersedes the patchwork of separate state and territory reporting arrangements, cutting red tape and drastically reducing the costs of duplication, which are estimated at some $1.7 million. It establishes a single national framework for reporting greenhouse emissions and abatement actions by businesses from 1 July 2008.

The reporting scheme will improve the data so that it covers over 70 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in those sectors covered by the analysis, compared with the current coverage of 61 per cent. This will streamline the reporting of data into one organisation which will use it as the basis for informing the Australian emissions trading system. The new statutory position of a greenhouse and energy data officer will be created under this bill to oversee and administer the scheme. The robust reported data will allow informed decisions to be made on the Australian emissions trading scheme, rather than the uninformed blanket carbon targets set by the opposition, which are really pie-in-the-sky targets and bear no relation to reality at all. So this robust reporting data that will allow informed decision making is very important.

The bill makes it mandatory for businesses which exceed the appropriate thresholds to annually report their greenhouse gas emissions and energy use. The thresholds for the scheme have been set at a level which will capture a significant proportion of Australia’s emissions. However, at the same time the bill remains small business friendly, as no report is necessary for those businesses which do not exceed the thresholds. The thresholds at which companies will be obliged to register and report will be phased in over three years from 2008, which will allow businesses which currently do not report under the existing patchwork scheme to prepare for the new, nationally consistent scheme. In order to ensure that a national reporting system can obtain information from the state and territory governments, the bill establishes data security and confidentiality protection arrangements.

This bill, as I have already indicated, is the foundation for the Australian emissions trading scheme, which will be a very comprehensive scheme that I think we can be very proud of. This world-leading scheme includes all large emitters, industrial energy and mining emissions and transport and other fuels emissions, which covers some 70 to 75 per cent of Australia’s total emissions.

The trading scheme is a key initiative of the Australian government to combat climate change in a very practical but still pro-business, pro-investment and pro-growth manner. The trading scheme will, of course, rely on confidence in the market. This bill provides the basis of that confidence via its rigorous compliance and enforcement arrangements. The creation of the Australian emissions trading scheme will allow for the market to price carbon, allowing companies to take into account externalities. For instance, coal is currently a very cheap source of energy because the negative externalities—namely greenhouse gases—are not borne by the producer. If the market sets an appropriate price then the impetus for the coal industry to invest in new clean coal technology will be there all the more. It will make clean and renewable technology more competitive, as the start-up costs are usually higher, although there are very few externalities. The Australian emissions trading scheme will also take into account offsets: certified emissions abatement from activities outside the trading scheme, such as reforestation in Australia or in other nations.

On the setting of carbon prices, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth report makes it clear that climate change is a very serious problem; however, our challenge is to manage this serious global challenge with as few economic consequences as possible. That is the clear distinction between the two sides of politics in this country. We think we can make a major impact without damaging our economy—without damaging jobs or industries that clearly provide economic sustenance to the people of Australia. I think we are going about this in a realistic fashion, whereas the opposition are just trying to be idealistic. Of course, they are in opposition, so they can make comments and throw out statements without any consequence whatsoever, but I think that once one is in government one realises that one cannot be so irresponsible.

One of the suggestions is to price carbon and other greenhouse emissions, which is what the Australian government’s trading scheme seeks to do. By allowing the market to price greenhouse gas emissions, as opposed to government taxes, it will allow flexibility in the market for quicker reductions in emissions. Those businesses or industries which are better able to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions can sell their permits to firms or industries, such as the coal industry—which we must acknowledge will take longer to adjust—without any detrimental impact on both the industry and the overall economy.

I would like to remark on a couple of points concerning my electorate, Ryan, that are relevant to the renewable energy industry—a $5 billion industry in Australia that is clearly going to grow in the years ahead. I want to pay tribute to a handful of Ryan constituents who are making an impact in their own way. Mr Murray Craig of Solar Centre in the Ryan electorate very generously donated a solar hot water panel, valued at some $3,500, to the Jamboree school fete that was held several weeks ago. I was pleased to be able to make the presentation to another Ryan resident who had the good fortune of winning that solar panel. I want to pay tribute to Mr Craig’s spirit of community in the Ryan electorate and his support of the school. Being a resident of the Ryan electorate, he gave the school a solar panel from his business. I am sure that solar panel was well received by the winner and the school appreciated the purchase of the tickets for the prize.

I had the privilege of launching a small business called BFA Solar, established by Dane Muldoon and his father, John Muldoon. They set up this business to become part of the solution, in a sense, by offering solar. It is another business that, I guess, is a competitor to Murray Craig of Solar Centre, but BFA Solar are also going gang busters with their solar product.

I regret very much that time is getting away from me. I just want to finish up on the point about this being a global issue. We in Australia emit some 1.8 per cent of emissions. I think it is important to keep this in perspective. I know that a lot of people get very excited about this issue and that they think that if we end all our emissions we will save the world. Let us just note the contribution of the big nations of the world. A powerful country such as the United States makes a contribution to emissions of 24 per cent, followed by China, with some 14 per cent. Both countries are, of course, members of APEC. India is not a member of APEC, but its contribution to global emissions is some 4.2 per cent. Russia’s contribution is even more, at 6½ per cent. Developing countries will account for almost 70 per cent of carbon by 2050 and we must come to a result that is global in nature.

In Australia, it would be wonderful if we could press a button or flick a switch overnight and all our emissions would disappear without compromising our economy and our prosperity. I remind the good people of Ryan who have very kindly approached me that we are one player in the world. It requires all players to come together. Of course, better technology will be a big part of the solution. I am a strong supporter of solar technology and all the options, including wind and biomass. I am a big supporter of nuclear as well. I praise the British government and the new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, for putting nuclear on the table. We cannot just bury our heads like ostriches and automatically take away one tool in the kit. I commend this bill very strongly to the parliament. (Time expired)

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened with interest to the member for Ryan, who is a very articulate spokesperson for the people of Ryan, as we have heard in many question times. I would take issue with him on a couple of things: firstly, the nuclear power station issue, which I will talk about a little bit later. He spent some time talking about jobs and consistency in relation to the various messages that are sent and right at the end of his speech he said that he was a supporter of biomass. I am as well and I have spoken to him privately about this matter on a number of occasions. But this is about sending messages—this legislation is part of that process—on trying to develop a trading framework, on climate change and on global warming. It is also about creating preconditions where policy can be developed.

In relation to biomass and biofuels in particular, we have a message that is being sent completely in the wrong direction. As of 2011, producers of biofuels in Australia will be taxed. This means taxing a fuel source which is renewable and has some impact on fine particle emissions from our cars. There is still some debate about greenhouse gas emissions in relation to biofuels, but there are a lot of positives in the use of biomass to produce fuels. It is renewable, to start with, and a non-carbon source.

The message the government is sending through the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill 2007 is a good one. It is trying to encourage and establish a framework for the future. I do not think anybody will argue about that. But the government wonders why people do not get the message. It is because there are these other messages being sent at the same time. As I said, from 2011 through to 2015, biofuels will be used as a source of revenue. I would have thought that, if we were trying to encourage renewable fuels, reduce emissions, have an impact on greenhouse gas, do something about global warming, do something about the health of people in our major cities et cetera, we would not be using the solution as a tax source. Normally you use taxation in an environment area as a deterrent to using something.

We have heard the member for Ryan and others saying, ‘This is a good idea; we’re putting in place these things to encourage people down the right path.’ I congratulate his wife for trying to keep him in the dark by changing all the light bulbs. That is a good thing—or I hope it is.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Johnson interjecting

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let there be light! Tamworth, as you would recognise, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, was the first community to get electric lights. It celebrated 100 years of electric lights the other day. I know you will be pleased to know that. But if you are serious about climate change and some of the environmental areas that we talk about in this place, the message has to be consistent. You cannot say: ‘Biofuels? We’ll treat them the same as petrol and diesel because we’ve got problems with those and they are a very good source of taxation. We get about $14 billion a year from them—we can’t really afford the revenue loss. So now we’ve gone through this little aspirational target arrangement in terms of biofuels. When we come out the other end of that, we’ll whack the tax back on.’ That sends a negative message. I would encourage the member for Ryan and other members of the government to have a close look at that, because there has to be a consistent message.

I think policy is about messages and penalties. This legislation is partly about penalties for people who do not concur with the policy message, but there are all these other signals out there as well. There is also the lack of research that has gone into solar, wind, tidal and geothermal areas. The government has gone straight to nuclear as a solution. I strongly disagree with that and so do the constituents of my electorate of New England. We recently did a survey, to which 3,000 people responded, and found that 67 per cent were opposed to nuclear power plants anywhere in Australia. I did not ask the question as to whether they wanted one next door to them; I guess that would have escalated the number. I think that probably encapsulates the feelings of most people. Of those who were concerned, even those who were supportive of nuclear energy being used, many said that they wanted other options explored first and talked about research into geothermal.

We are doing very little as a nation to encourage that natural source of heat and generation of energy. I know there are problems, but problems are made to be overcome. We are talking about 20 years before we move to nuclear, so there will be problems getting there—if we ever get there. I know there are problems with solar and wind and baseload energy sources. But problems are made to be solved. That is why you have research and encourage people to get in there and work out the solutions.

I listened with interest to the member for Ryan discussing people in his electorate who have solar energy business. I congratulate them. They are mostly at the small business end—people who are innovative. They receive some assistance from the government, with various grants here and there, but we have to encourage them to really want to get out there. Just at the weekend, in Armidale, I was asked to open an energy-neutral display home under the auspices of a family company called New England Solar Power, which is similar to those the member for Ryan talked about.

The home is energy neutral. It has solar power, solar heating and all the other design and architectural features utilise natural heat et cetera. Obviously, there are solar panels on the roof and a whole range of other things, but there is one very interesting thing that this family—I will name them, Rob and Sally Taber and their daughter, Fiona—have developed. Their daughter has been an inspiration in driving this initiative. She is almost paranoid about getting the solution right. These are the sorts of people we really need and we should be assisting them. One of the real innovations in this particular home was the way in which they designed a solar heating system with a very low energy usage pump to push hot air through the home. People were just amazed when they walked into a particular room where the heat was coming through. It was not a particularly hot day in Armidale—Armidale is not a particularly hot town—but the reactions that people had were amazing. The Tabers did receive some federal government assistance and they were very appreciative of that, but I think we have to be out there encouraging those sorts of people.

There is talk at the moment of a new power station in New South Wales. I am not opposed to the coal industry; I have a coalmine next door to me. It is a very good coalmine and I appreciate the employment opportunities it generates for people, but I think there are some real questions that need to be answered in relation to the $8 billion being spent on a new power station in New South Wales. If we are moving towards some of the things that the member for Ryan was talking about and the New England solar people are talking about—transferring energy usage and becoming more efficient in what we are doing—we may not need the sort of baseload power that would come from a new $8 billion coal power station in New South Wales. They are the sorts of things that I think we need to have a close look at.

The carbon debate is one that I think most people are still coming to grips with, and this legislation establishes a bit of a framework for the starting point. I was very disappointed—and I raised this with the Prime Minister in question time and did not receive an adequate answer—that the farm sector was not included in the carbon task force, because I think there are a number of areas where agriculture can play a valuable role. I know it is in its infancy, I know there are difficulties in measuring carbon in soil and I know that, if you are going to establish a trading framework, you need something tangible to trade with et cetera, but there are people in Australia who are getting right on top of these particular issues now.

At the University of New England, for instance, Dr Christine Jones has done an enormous amount of work on pasture improvement and the use of improved pastures and improved soil management by way of humus and organic matter accumulation being a natural carbon sink. I have been involved personally for many years with what is called no-till farming, where, instead of ploughing the land or burning the residue, the residue is left on top of the soil. Over a period of time, not only do you get structural and textural benefits for the soil and benefits in the moisture infiltration rate through natural channels et cetera in the soil, you also accumulate a greater degree of humus and organic matter. I know the nay-sayers will say, ‘Not all Australian soils are heavy in organic matter,’ and they are not. The deserts are not, so you cannot do it there. You are not going to have a natural carbon sink in the desert, but we do have a lot of very good soils and, if we encourage better soil management through incentives and incorporate the carbon debate in that management, we end up with a whole range of other benefits as well. Not only are the structural, textural and infiltration issues that I spoke about earlier addressed but erosion issues are also addressed. You end up with better soils, a more viable landmass, a more profitable farm sector and a whole range of positives. The farm sector was completely left out of the debate.

There is a lot of information around the world at the moment about the development of natural carbon sinks in the soil. We have been talking about it for years with regard to trees and encouraging people to plant trees. Why? One of the reasons is that you help stop the salinity problem, which is good, and you accumulate some airborne carbon in a natural sink. Our soils can do that as well through changes in land management, but we are doing nothing at a policy level to encourage those sorts of things. We will spend billions of dollars, and we have rolled money out to the states for water quality programs and salinity issues et cetera over the last 10 years, and very little return has been generated for better soil health and some of the other water and salinity issues that we often talk about. I encourage the government to start talking to some of these people.

I was in the United States last year and there are carbon trades taking place there now based on no-till technology. There are those who say that you cannot measure carbon in soils or the improvement in soils over a period of time and that therefore you do not have something to sell and it is very hard to price, and yet other parts of the world are finding ways and means to do it. No-one is suggesting this is going to be easy—the legislation we are debating today is not easy, and it is establishing a framework—but surely, if we are going to go through all these various companies and the big emitters et cetera, we should be looking at soil management and farm management as part of that process. There are varying degrees of scientific view as to how much of the carbon problem could be solved through some of these changes to our land management over time, not just the planting of trees.

The other issues that I would raise are in relation to the processes that are being put in place now to deal with decision making on major developments and the impacts that those major developments may or may not have on other environmental issues. The one that is popular at the moment is the Gunns pulp mill in Tasmania.

People in my electorate and in the neighbouring electorate have an issue with groundwater. Many people have heard me talk from time to time about the groundwater debate and I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, must be sick of hearing me talk about it. It is very important in our area because there are a series of groundwater systems that are interlinked and are linked to the surface water systems. Now we have the Commonwealth moving into the Murray-Darling Basin system and putting a plan together where they are going to gauge how these interlinked mechanisms work and then come up with a water budget, in a sense, and determine some allocations, perhaps by buying back licences et cetera. I think we are all aware of that debate that is going to take place.

Currently, in an area near Caroona, which is only about 20 kilometres from where I live, BHP are proposing a massive coalmine. It is a 500 million tonne potential operation—a big coalmine. I know the member for Paterson would recognise that that is a big coalmine. There are possible problems. I say ‘possible’ because I do not condemn coalmining. I think we have to move more quickly in tidying up some of the emissions, but I think we can do that if we do more research. The problem I have with this particular proposal is that it is a proposal to put a massive coalmine in an area that is surrounded by very high water bearing gravels. There are interlinked aquifers for probably 200 kilometres. I have been urging, from time to time, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources to put in place an independent survey—not of this particular mine but to use it as an example—of the potential impact of longwall coalmining in heavy water bearing gravels and what that does in terms of the hydrogeology and hydraulics of the system. If you put a trench across a vein—inadvertently or deliberately—what does that do in terms of the hydraulics of an interlinked system? I do not know the answer to that, and neither does anybody in the world. I would urge the minister to really have a serious look at this.

The reason I mentioned Gunns is that I think the processes are very similar. The proponents of both the Gunns and the BHP proposals have to go through a state based process. I think the Gunns process has verged on being corrupt. It is not a good process at all. The Chief Scientist is reviewing that now for the minister. I congratulate the minister for the environment for pulling this thing up. But make sure you have a good look at it and do not put the Chief Scientist in an invidious position where he has to approve it for political reasons when there is a whole range of procedural matters. Exactly the same issue is arising in the Caroona coal proposal. It is a state based process. The minister tells me from time to time, ‘It is a state based process.’ We know that, Minister, but we also know that under the various biodiversity legislative arrangements the Commonwealth does have some say, and that is what the minister has triggered in the Gunns situation, with the Chief Scientist coming into play.

So the Commonwealth can have a role, and in the Murray-Darling system it should have a role. It should have a much greater role in determining whether these sorts of things actually do go ahead. I am not suggesting they should not go ahead. I am not a rabid greenie. What I am saying is that there should be a process which people understand, which is transparent and which does not leave any lasting damage. If we are serious about climate change and all these other things, we have got to get serious about that particular procedural mechanism. Otherwise you have these state based processes in which people have very little confidence, and when you come to the Commonwealth proposing a broader framework people give up in disgust, do not trust the system or become very cynical.

In conclusion, I reiterate—and I would like to inform my electorate—that I would not be able to support the use of nuclear energy. I do not feel as though I could support something that could create waste problems thousands of years in front of us. It is all very well for people to say: ‘Central Australia is very safe. You can store it there.’ We do not know what can happen in 10,000 years time. Personally, I would rather accept 1½ or two degrees more in temperature than be a proponent of a waste management system that probably will not affect any of us but may well affect many generations to come.

Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill 2007. I indicate that I will be supporting the amendment moved by the member for Kingsford Smith. All the Howard government have had to offer this country on climate change is 11 years of delay, denial and inaction. They have refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol despite their then Minister for the Environment negotiating more favourable terms than any other country. They have failed to provide the certainty demanded by business, by not setting emission targets or a price on carbon. They have emasculated the mandatory renewable energy target. They have refused to model the economic impact on Australia of a failure to expediently reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And they have denied our manufacturing industry the opportunity to fully participate in the new global market for low-emission technologies.

The need for immediate action could not be any clearer. But it is hardly surprising that there has been none when this government is riddled with climate change sceptics and deniers. How can they possibly be a part of a solution that they do not really believe in? The Prime Minister himself is still a sceptic, despite some of his more recent election driven rhetoric. So are the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, the Minister for Finance and Administration and the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation. Indeed, the backbenchers opposite are full of climate change deniers. Despite 1,200 of the world’s leading climate scientists agreeing that temperatures will continue rising at an even faster rate in the 21st century, there are those opposite who think they know better. I remind the House that a majority of the government members of the recent Standing Committee on Science and Innovation geosequestration inquiry said that those who believe humans are contributing to climate change are fanatics. Of course one of those fanatics is their fellow Liberal, the chairman of the inquiry and member for Kooyong, who said:

The evidence is compelling and the link between greenhouse gas emissions and human activity and high temperatures is convincing.

The Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources like to portray their government as leading the world in climate change—but just who do they think they are kidding? We are the second highest emitters of greenhouse gases on a per capita basis after the United States. Under this government our emissions have grown at twice the global average, and we have a pathetic renewable energy target that will add less than one per cent to our national energy supply by 2020. ‘Australia cannot fight climate change when China is building a new coal-fired power station each week’—how often do we hear that excuse for inaction from this government? What we do not hear is that by 2020 one-fifth of China’s energy will come from renewable sources, such as wind, local hydropower stations and solar. China is already the fifth largest generator of wind power in the world, while Australia is ranked at a lowly 15th. China is also home to over 60 per cent of the total installed capacity of solar hot water, meeting the needs of over 29 million households. I will say something a little later about Labor’s plans for domestic water heating.

Instead of nurturing Australia’s renewable energy industry, this government remains a captive of the fossil fuel and nuclear energy lobbies. Its solution to climate change and global warming is almost totally reliant on unproven technologies, including the next generation of nuclear reactors and carbon sequestration. Neither of these will have any impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions for at least a decade. The much lauded Sydney APEC Leaders Declaration on Climate Change, Energy Security and Clean Development agreed to at last week’s meeting calls for improvements in greenhouse emissions efficiency of 25 per cent by 2030. However, by 2030 Australia’s economy is likely to be some 75 per cent larger than it is now. Even if we are emitting 25 per cent less greenhouse gas per unit of GDP by then, we will still be pouring more into the atmosphere than we are now—and the government calls this leading the world!

An effective framework for tackling climate change must include an emissions trading scheme. The weight of submissions from business to the Prime Minister’s own task force made him a reluctant convert to this view. ‘Kicking and screaming’ is a phrase that frequently comes to mind about the Prime Minister and climate change. It was only a year ago that he said ‘unilaterally embracing an emissions trading scheme will result in great damage to this country’. Yet now the Prime Minister claims to be implementing emissions trading in a methodical way. Let us have a look at the progress of this ‘methodical way’.

Ten years ago, in 1997, the former environment minister established an inquiry into emissions trading. In 1998 the Minister for Foreign Affairs backed emissions trading. In 1999 the Australian Greenhouse Office released four detailed discussion papers on emissions trading. In 2003 the Prime Minister rejected a cabinet submission from the Treasurer and the then environment minister to establish an emissions trading scheme. And then the government abandoned all the work of the Australian Greenhouse Office on emissions trading.

It is symptomatic of the government’s recalcitrant attitude to climate change that the bill we are debating today comes to the House four years after the Howard cabinet rejected a proposal for a national emissions trading scheme. It is also symptomatic of the government’s approach to legislation that what we have before us today is sloppy, rushed and riddled with problems. There was no consultation with state governments, industry bodies or environmental groups, and all of those stakeholders identified problems with the bill during the Senate committee’s inquiry. Reporting thresholds that are too high, time frames that are too slow and inconsistency with previous agreements between the states and the federal government are just some of the issues that were raised.

Labor has a longstanding commitment to implementing an emissions trading scheme as part of a comprehensive approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Mandatory reporting is a small but vital first step. There are much bigger issues on which the government continues to drag its heels. The Stern review for the UK government concluded that climate change is the biggest market failure the world has ever seen. While there have been criticisms of Sir Nicholas’s findings, few have challenged that opinion. But without an explicit price on carbon it will be almost impossible to address this market failure, and you cannot have a price on carbon without emissions targets. A constraint on emissions is needed to give a value to any carbon trading permits. The Prime Minister’s ideological disdain for targets shows that he just does not understand how ‘cap and trade’ market based schemes operate. How can he say he supports trading while opposing a target? He is clearly out of touch when it comes to emissions targets.

While he prevaricates, opportunities to create new sustainable technologies, industries and jobs are also passing us by. The bill before us should be the first step in providing greater certainty to emitters, manufacturers and consumers about the impact and opportunities of putting a price on carbon emissions. But, in its haste to be seen to be doing something after 11 years of inaction, the government has come up with a bill that is more likely to increase than it is to reduce uncertainty for those stakeholders.

Of course, emissions targets are not the only targets that the Prime Minister has an aversion to. The government has all but abandoned one of its few clean energy measures, the mandatory renewable energy target. Renewable energy targets are a critical part of climate change solutions all around the world, and just five months ago the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources claimed:

… the mandatory renewable energy target has been particularly successful.

California has a target, Europe has a target, even China has a target, but Australia is walking away from its renewable energy target. The government is letting MRET fade away, despite the target being responsible for generating enough renewable electricity to meet the electricity needs of four million people by 2010. The government is failing on renewable energy just when it is most needed.

This is bad news not just for the environment but also for Australian jobs. The government’s abandonment of the mandatory renewable energy target cost 130 jobs in south-west Victoria last month, when Vestas announced the closure of its wind blades factory in Portland. Two years ago, the member for Wannon promised to ‘create a centre of renewable energy in the region’, but his own government’s policies are causing the renewable energy industry to shut up shop.

The global renewable energy market is expected to reach $US750 billion a year by 2016, and our local industry has an excellent track record in creating jobs in regional Australia. But the Howard government’s complete failure to embrace climate change, its failure to set a price for carbon, its abandonment of the MRET and its continuing refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol mean that Australian jobs and investment are heading overseas. Renewable energy companies are voting with their feet. For example, in August 2006 Vestas Nacelles announced it would close its wind turbine assembly plant in northern Tasmania, costing 100 jobs. In February 2007, Pacific Hydro announced it was investing $500 million in Brazil because Australian renewable energy projects had been stalled by the government’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol. In March 2007, the Australian company Global Renewables announced a $5 billion deal in the UK to cut greenhouse pollution. They had to go to Britain to realise their ambitions. And, as I said, last month Vestas announced that its Portland factory would close in December 2007 because ‘further investment cannot be viable in current market conditions’. The government’s retreat on mandatory renewable energy targets is another clear example that its attempt to catch up on a decade of climate change inaction is only so much greenwash. A Labor government will revitalise Australia’s renewable energy industry. It will substantially increase the mandatory renewable energy target and drive a clean energy revolution.

Nowhere is the deployment of renewable energy more important than in our cities, where most Australians live, yet a landmark report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage entitled Sustainable cities is still sitting on the desk of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources two years after its release. As a member of that committee, the member for Wentworth was an enthusiastic contributor, but as minister he has failed to respond to the report despite his department saying seven months ago that a reply had been prepared and was awaiting his approval. This is a highly significant report that has bipartisan support. When the committee tabled its report in September 2005, it called for concerted national action and for the Australian government to assume a leadership role after this emerged as a common theme in the 196 submissions that were received.

The inquiry, which was chaired by the member for Moore, recommended measures to set Australia’s cities on a sustainable path in relation to the environment, social cohesion and economic productivity. The report’s recommendations on energy, for example, include doubling the Australian government’s photovoltaic rebate to further encourage the uptake of photovoltaic systems; further developing the Australian government’s commitment to energy sustainability, particularly by increasing the use of renewable energy; through the National Framework for Energy Efficiency, examining the economic and environmental benefits of decentralised energy delivery to encourage investment in this area; and investigation of the US and German initiatives in solar energy generation and purchase and, where appropriate, implementation or emulation of them. But we have seen no concerted action or leadership from this government on these or other key recommendations including the establishment of an independent Australian sustainability commission, benchmarking transport infrastructure planning decisions against a recommended Australian sustainability charter and a review of the current fringe benefits tax concessions for motor car use.

Many Australians are keen to do their bit to help the environment. Australian households led the world in recycling domestic rubbish and now they want help to reduce their greenhouse emissions. Hot water heaters produce 28 per cent of an average home’s greenhouse gas emissions and some electric systems produce more than three times the greenhouse pollution of solar systems, heat pump systems and high-efficiency gas systems. The criticism from the government about Labor’s plan to help families switch to more energy efficient hot water systems is just another example of how out of touch they are over climate change. The Prime Minister and the environment minister cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they are all for addressing climate change and then criticise a plan that helps Australians to make their homes more energy efficient. Solar hot water systems have much lower running costs and, with the subsidies, low interest loans and the $1,000 solar hot water rebate, they will quickly pay for themselves under a Labor government.

Labor will retain the Commonwealth’s solar hot water rebate and boost it with a $300 million solar, green energy and water renovations plan. This plan will offer low interest loans to help Australian families reap the benefits of more energy efficient homes and they will be in addition to various state and local government subsidies that are also available. Labor will work with state and territory governments and industry to implement improved greenhouse and energy minimum standards for hot water heaters, while ensuring that low-income earners are not disadvantaged. These measures are calculated to save Australia more than 7.5 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year from 2012—that is the equivalent of taking more than 1.7 million cars off the road—and they will save households about $300 a year on the average electricity bill. Australian families want to make a difference and save costs by making their homes more energy efficient. Only a Labor government will help them do that.

The government’s inaction on climate change is also passing up other economic opportunities for Australian business, such as the car industry. This side of the House firmly believes that Australians should have the opportunity to buy Australian made green cars. Labor’s $500 million green car innovation fund would generate $2 billion in investment to secure jobs in the automotive industry and tackle climate change by manufacturing low emissions vehicles in Australia. Australia simply cannot afford any more short-term fixes in its car industry. This is about creating a long-term plan for the future of the car industry. The green car innovation fund will boost industry research on fuel efficiency and vehicle manufacturing to slash carbon emissions, promote the development of low emission vehicles—including hybrid, flexible fuel and low emissions diesel vehicles—and ensure that Australia plays a leading role in the global development of green car technology. To encourage our domestic car manufacturers, we have also pledged to purchase environmentally friendly vehicles such as hybrid cars for the Commonwealth’s fleet, if they are produced in Australia. Australia currently does not manufacture hybrid, flexible fuel or low emissions diesel vehicles, but their importation is increasing rapidly as Australians demand greater fuel efficiency in their motor vehicles. Motor vehicles contribute 13 per cent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Low emissions vehicles, produced overseas, generate less than half the emissions of a standard Australian manufactured vehicle.

The green car innovation fund is just one part of federal Labor’s comprehensive approach to dealing with climate change, which also includes ratifying the Kyoto protocol, cutting Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, setting up a national emissions trading scheme, setting up a $500 million national clean coal fund and substantially increasing the mandatory renewable energy target. I invite anyone to compare this to the record of the Howard government on climate change, which is amongst the worst in the developed world. A Labor government will bring a fresh, new approach to climate change—an approach that will end more than a decade of inaction and take Australia back into the mainstream of the international community to address perhaps the greatest challenge facing the world today. I will be supporting the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Kingsford Smith.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill 2007. As has been outlined in earlier debate, the purpose of this bill is to establish a national framework for reporting greenhouse gas emissions, certain abatement actions and energy used in production by corporations from the 2008-09 year. It gives us an opportunity to speak about matters to do with climate change, to acknowledge importantly that this is a major issue not only for our nation but for the whole globe and to recognise the mounting proof of human induced climate change and, therefore, the need for us to take this seriously and to take measures that change human behaviour.

In speaking to the bill, I indicate my support for the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Kingsford Smith, the shadow minister for the environment. I wish to highlight the part of that important amendment where it states:

... whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1)

notes that:

(a)

the Bill was hastily drafted without any genuine consultation with stakeholders, including state governments, industry groups and environment groups;

(b)

the Bill was hastily drafted and introduced so as to prevent due public and parliamentary scrutiny ...

If one were to characterise the way in which decisions have been made by this government over its decade-plus in office and compare it with the way decisions were made during the Hawke-Keating years, there is one very stark difference. That is that, over the last decade or so, there has been a complete lack of genuine consultation and an attitude by the Howard government over these years of: ‘Don’t you worry; we know what the answers really are. We’ll tell you the direction. We don’t need anybody advising us. We don’t need anybody giving indications of what really is required.’

In contrast, during the Hawke-Keating years, changes were made in many areas—this was most definitely the case with major changes made to our economy—by the government sitting down with parties that had an interest. Most definitely, we saw a tripartite approach taken to most problems. Because it was a Labor government, of course it sat down with the organised trade union movement; it sat down with people representing the interests of workers. But the significant third leg of that tripartite approach was the government’s sitting down with business, with employers. With community affairs, we saw the Hawke-Keating government take on board the interests of bodies like ACOSS and other non-government organisations that worked in that field. On environmental matters, it sat down with bodies such as the ACF and would try to come up with things that had the imprimatur not only of government but also of the community at large. However, this is an opportunity lost. This piece of legislation is an example of the government deciding that they know what is best.

The other aspect where there is a real need for genuine cooperation and collaboration is the way in which the Australian government, the federal government, the Commonwealth government—name it what you like—sits down and works through issues with the state governments. There has been a complete failing, on the issues that are covered by this piece of legislation, concerning proper consultation—and this gives us, as a federation, great difficulties. But, if we look at business with regard to matters to do with climate change, it has to be said—I have said this before; it upsets me—that time and time again there is overwhelming proof that business is so far ahead of the Howard government that it is not funny. That should not be the case. I think it is terrific that business has understood this problem. It has understood that it presents us with great challenges, but it has also understood that it presents Australia with great opportunities. A conservative government of the type that the coalition represents itself as should have been able to find it easy to sit down with business interests and work on solutions to this problem, but it has even failed at that.

Earlier this week, we had the release of an Ai Group report entitled Environmental sustainability and industry, road to a sustainable future, which was produced in conjunction with Sustainability Victoria. On the release of the report, Heather Ridout, the Ai Group’s chief executive—not somebody I usually quote in this place—made a very telling point. She said:

Companies clearly need more information on how they can improve sustainable practices, they need a better understanding of an emissions trading scheme, and they need better incentives, particularly for small to medium firms ...

The report indicated that there was a dearth of knowledge—that businesses were crying out to see leadership from government on the simple aspect of information. This piece of legislation will commence the journey of providing us with hard facts about what is going on, which of course is a precursor step for putting in place a national emissions system. But, looking at the evidence that was put before the Senate committee that considered this piece of legislation, you will see that there was a lot of opinion that the way in which this piece of legislation had been framed was likely to slow the process down.

As an opposition, we do not want to be seen to be in the position of in any way slowing down the journey to putting in place a national emissions trading system that will require us having a metric to show what type of emissions are in place, the way in which those emissions can be abated and the way in which people can enter into the marketplace to make the sorts of trades that the scheme would require. But the government needs to understand that these are the items that are required. It is not about seeking headlines. It is not about saying, ‘Well, we’ve got our own ideas and we’ll tell you when we’re ready.’ Ratifying the Kyoto protocol is not about some magical thing that the signature will do; it is about what the protocol actually means—for instance, what it would mean for industry. If we were proper parties to this agreement, the types of mechanisms that would open up to Australian industry would be quite considerable—and they are ignored by this government. The simple fact of not ratifying the Kyoto protocol will put us outside the mechanism, which will continue in Bali in a few months time, and it is a considerable downfall of the government. We need to be involved in all international forums that are connected with this important protocol.

Debate interrupted.