Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009 is not of itself controversial. It builds on that which was put in place by the previous coalition government and, in particular, by the now Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth. The bill fits within a broader pattern of action on climate change. It essentially deals with a further amendment to the process of ensuring that there is adequate reporting of greenhouse emissions. But it comes within the context of four major recent disappointments at the way in which the government has chosen to handle the issue of advancing the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

I begin by noting the context in which this bill is being debated whilst noting that the bill itself is not controversial and not the subject of disagreement—although it could be the subject of improvement from the opposition. The first of the recent disappointments is the axing of the solar rebate with notice effective on the day on which it was terminated. The public, the industry and the suppliers were not informed in advance that two weeks ago the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts was to draw the axe down upon the solar rebate program. That spelt enormous difficulty for suppliers and retailers. It spelt great disappointment for mums, dads, retirees and other people who were expecting to put solar panels on their roofs through the process of the solar panel rebate. That was blow No. 1. It was unanticipated, unexpected, without notice and it cut away at the very notion of certainty which sits at the heart of this bill.

The second of the disappointments is what we saw only yesterday: the Renewable Remote Power Generation program—you could summarise it as the remote solar program—was terminated. It was terminated by email at 8.33 am, as I have been advised by those businesses that received the email, effective as of 8.30 am. I have had businesses report to me that they had programs worth tens of thousands of dollars that they were expecting to conclude through contract in the coming weeks. I have had one business report to me that the effect of this decision will be the loss of $1 million a month in terms of business for a South Australian firm. I have spoken with individuals who had been planning to ensure that, because they live in remote, off-grid areas, they would have access over the coming days or weeks to renewable energy as a result of this program, which was introduced by the previous, coalition government. Again, it was axed; again, it was unanticipated; again, there was no notice—not eight hours this time, though, but minus three minutes. The notice was given after the program had been terminated. That is not the way to treat a small-business people—men and women who have invested, who have expected certainty, who had come to believe that they should be able to rely upon the government of the day in Australia to be good to its word. This bill is about certainty, but those two examples spell a lack of certainty.

The third recent contextual element that I want to present in terms of the breaking down of certainty is a very simple one: in relation to the renewable energy target, we have clearly indicated that we support the concept of the 20 per cent target, we have indicated that we wanted to take this legislation forward, and what we saw first is that this legislation was delayed for a year. It has still not been debated in this House, two days before the House is due to break for the winter session. What we see as well is that, at the last minute, this bill was coupled to the emissions trading scheme. It did not have to be thus. That was not indicated previously. There was a common test, but that could easily have been dealt with through separate parallel regulations and the government knows this.

I am advised that the initial coupling of these two bills was an inadvertent drafting error. I am advised that the government considered decoupling but that the Prime Minister’s office thought that it might be valuable in a political sense to maintain the link and therefore place uncertainty around their own legislation and therefore place uncertainty around the pipeline of renewable energy investment in Australia. That is a venal act—something which is not desirable, which should not occur and which broke the opportunity to have fast, early passage of legislation with bipartisan support. That is a great shame. We still support the renewable energy target of 20 per cent. We will deal with the legislation on its merits. I will deal with those items in more detail when we come to face that bill later this week. However, those three items have all shown the way in which this government have caused severe and significant uncertainty for people who have a focus on reducing emissions, reducing greenhouse gases and working in the renewable energy space.

The fourth of the contextual elements is the emissions trading scheme. The government has deliberately delayed the regulations. We have seen only a couple. We have seen a handful of regulations, yet we know that there are close to three figures worth of regulations affecting industries which need to be tabled and which we need to see. These are fundamental if we are to provide the certainty which this bill seeks to provide. That represents the context.

I want to make a couple of points about the core bill itself. The history of the bill is this. The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 was an initiative of the now Leader of the Opposition. It established a national framework for reporting greenhouse gas emissions for certain abatement actions as well as energy consumption and production by corporations. The act also provided for public disclosure of company-level greenhouse gas emissions and energy production and use, and it also aimed at streamlining national greenhouse and energy reporting and ensuring that a system was developed with least cost and least administrative burden. All of those things together were a good step forward.

Against that background what we see is that this bill essentially updates the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. It seeks to improve the original act and better reflect its original policy intentions to establish an audit framework under the act so as to respond to industry feedback. That is a good thing. We have no problems with that. We see that it is unlikely that this bill will make any change at all in terms of industry burden. It is my strong, clear and precise hope that it will lessen any burden that industry faces in its reporting.

Against that background I want to make three comments specifically about the bill itself. The first is that the government has been brief in terms of the fact that only 20 days had been allocated to stakeholders to give feedback on the consultation paper regarding this issue. That is a challenge for people who are short of time in the public space. They needed time, they needed additional space. Industry has nevertheless adapted.

The second thing is that we see amendments which have been tabled by the government. We have been given notice of them today. We have examined them carefully. We note that they are intended to ensure that corporations can transfer responsibility for reporting between entities under the same organisation. However it is extraordinary that the government tables these with only a few hours notice.

We will not oppose that amendment in this House. We have examined it. We have reviewed it carefully, but we will give it a double scrutiny in the Senate. If you want to act cooperatively, if you want to work in a way which actually promotes the business of the parliament, to provide a bare couple of hours for an amendment is not the way to so act.

The third thing that I want to say is this: there is one element which has not yet been addressed to the best of our understanding, and that is concerns over the definition of ‘operational control’ in relation to mining. We will examine what the government is proposing in its amendment and, if it appears that that does not deal adequately with the mining industry’s needs, then we will move an amendment to ensure that there is certainty and flexibility for the mining industry with regards to the relationship between mine owners and contract miners. We have a clear belief, after consultation with the mining sector, with the contracting sector and with broader Australian industry, that there does need to be clarity and flexibility for the mining industry by defining with certainty the operational control responsibility for purposes of reporting. So I give notice that the coalition will move an amendment in the Senate, if it is not otherwise satisfied, that there will be greater certainty for miners, mine owners and mine contractors through a better definition which gives a default position that mine owners will henceforth have responsibility in the absence of a contractual agreement for reporting greenhouse emissions.

So on that basis I note that the coalition introduced the original legislation. The way in which this legislation fits within a broader context is to note that the solar rebate was abolished with no notice and no certainty to industry. The Renewable Remote Power Generation program—or the remote solar program, in shorthand—was abolished only yesterday, retrospectively, by three minutes. Nobody had any notice. The renewable energy target could so easily have been passed this week if the government had sought in any way to work with us and not play games with the future of the renewable industry.

Finally, I note that this comes in the context of serious concerns about the emissions trading scheme and the broader debate going on at present. There are real and practical things which can be done to reduce emissions and they take the form of solar power and wind, and of reductions in all sorts of different ways in which we generate emissions. These could be dealt with through things such as a genuine renewable energy approach with bipartisan support if the government chooses to work in a bipartisan way. So having said all of that, we are not opposed to this bill. We are comfortable with the direction of it and I give notice of the steps that we will take in the Senate.

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight I rise to support the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009. The proposed amendments in this bill seek to clarify the requirements and regulations contained in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 and to better reflect its original policy intent. The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009 will also make minor changes to clarify definitions, improve its administration and strengthen the audit framework established by the act.

The act established a single national framework for reporting greenhouse gas emissions, abatement actions, energy consumption and production by corporations. The act included the mandatory registration of controlling corporations whose corporate groups produce energy or consume energy at or above specified quantities over a financial year. It was made mandatory for such corporations to register with the national system and outlined requirements for registered corporations to keep records and to provide reports.

The act also outlined the requirements concerning the security and disclosure of information, enforcement and administration arrangements. Further, it included the establishment of the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer and other arrangements such as compliance monitoring. To ensure the highest integrity of such data, which may be meaningfully assessed, the proposed amendments seek a clarification of key operational terms relating to greenhouse and energy audits conducted under this act. The need for such an act, as you know and I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, is the evidence that the earth’s climate is changing. In fact the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1990—

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and I notice the Minister for Health and Ageing is supporting what I am saying here tonight, and I appreciate that. There can be absolutely no doubt that climate change is one of the most significant challenges facing Australia and our government, and indeed the world, in the 21st century, and I am pleased to restate this evening that the Rudd government is committed to responding to those challenges.

Government action on climate change must be multifaceted. This approach includes investing in green infrastructure such as wind, solar and geothermal energy, promoting innovation to develop low-pollution technology and supporting businesses and households to improve their energy efficiency. The implementation of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is another important measure to address this great environmental challenge. The scheme, which puts a cost on carbon pollution and encourages major polluting corporations to lower their emissions, is at the core of our plan to limit the potentially detrimental effects of climate change.

Overwhelmingly, scientists throughout the world agree that our climate is changing and that human activity is the major cause of this. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported that warming of the climate system is unequivocal. The report goes on to say:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations;

In the face of the overwhelming consensus among scientists, it astounds me that many members of the opposition continue to doubt that climate change even exists. The decision by the coalition to delay the passage of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation merely reflects the climate change scepticism that is rampant among the opposition benches. When the member for Wentworth, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, became the Leader of the Opposition last year, I was of the view that the Liberal Party finally had a leader who would fully support government action on climate change. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Tragically, the climate sceptics continue to control the Liberal Party.

In light of the opposition’s intention to delay action, I think it is timely to consider some of the likely impacts if the challenge posed by climate change is left unaddressed. Following the devastating bushfires in Victoria and the floods in Queensland and northern New South Wales earlier this year, the respected scientist and former Australian of the Year, Professor Tim Flannery, wrote an article in the Fairfax press about the continuing and growing risk of climate change. In that article, Professor Flannery called for urgent action to reduce emissions to prevent an even worse situation in the future. Moreover, there is general consensus that climate change will turn the Murray-Darling Basin barren. Critically, the basin serves over 40 per cent of all Australian farms and produces approximately one-third of Australia’s food supply. Imagine the most recent drought many times worse. The financial and personal hardships faced by farmers and their families will be exacerbated, coupled with soaring food prices and increasing constraints on economic growth. This is the situation we face if we fail to act now.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also warned in 2007 that, unless urgent action were taken, the world would have a less than 10 per cent chance of avoiding a two-degree increase in global temperatures within the next 10 years. Moreover, rising temperatures may lead to the further melting of Antarctic ice sheets, causing sea levels to rise. The consequences of this would be disastrous. The immediate effects would be the flooding of ports, the collapse of trade and the severing of communications such as road and rail links on the New South Wales coast and even at Sydney Airport. There would also be hundreds of millions of refugees looking for new homes as low-lying areas are flooded around the world. Put simply, the potential effects of climate change are devastating and warrant urgent action. Unfortunately, for almost 12 years the former Howard government neglected the challenge posed by climate change. The delay and inaction that characterised the Howard government’s response means that the need to act now is far more important and urgent. We can no longer afford to do nothing—the risks of inaction are too great.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, action on climate change requires a multifaceted response. Good public policy addresses long-term issues whilst recognising the needs of the present. The emission reduction targets of between five and 25 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020 included in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme reveal that the Rudd government has addressed this dual challenge. Our commitment to reduce our carbon pollution demonstrates that we are ready and willing to tackle the long-term threat of climate change. I particularly welcomed the announcement last month by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Water that the government would increase its emissions reduction target range from five per cent to 15 per cent to five per cent to 25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. Many constituents in my electorate of Lowe expressed concerns that the 15 per cent target was an insufficient response to the environmental challenges we face. The minister has responded to these concerns and I applaud her decision to increase the target.

It is simply incorrect to argue, as some opposition members have, that environmental policies are bad for our economy. On the contrary, environmental policies, such as the government’s emissions trading scheme, carry a major economic benefit. The current slowdown in economic output both globally and domestically provides Australia with the perfect opportunity to develop a green economy. We need to combine our response to the current economic crisis with policies that enhance our ecological sustainability. We cannot rely on high-polluting and environmentally destructive industries to take Australia out of the economic downturn. To do so would simply mean that the current economic crisis is followed by an environmental crisis.

In 2008 the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Conservation Foundation issued a report illustrating the potential growth of green-collar jobs. The report identifies six key markets—namely, renewable energy, energy efficiency, sustainable water systems, biomaterials, green buildings and waste and recycling—and states:

With the right policy settings, six market sectors currently valued at $US15.5 billion and employing 112,000 people could grow by 2030 to a value of $243 billion and 847,000 jobs.

The report emphasises that this can only be achieved ‘with the right policy settings’. The Rudd government has committed over $13.5 billion to programs that will invest in low-pollution jobs and increase demand for low-pollution goods and services. For example, the $1.3 billon Green Car Innovation Fund will support the development and manufacturing of low-emission and fuel efficient cars in Australia. The most recent budget invested $4.5 billion in the Clean Energy Initiative. This includes $2 billion over nine years for carbon capture and storage demonstration projects and $1.5 billion over six years for up to four large-scale solar electricity generation projects. This initiative is supported by the Renewable Energy Fund and the Energy Innovation Fund. Australia’s innovative capacity has always been one of our greatest assets and we must deploy this asset in the fight against climate change.

These funds will support Australian businesses to restructure their production processes to become more energy-efficient and to reduce their carbon emissions. These initiatives, which promote the development of low-carbon technology, complement the government’s emissions trading scheme. Earlier this year, the government allocated $3.9 billion to the Energy Efficient Homes program to install ceiling insulation in up to 2.9 million homes and solar water systems in over 300,000 homes—

Debate interrupted.