Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009 has been introduced in order to enable the development of a third-party audit framework robust enough to support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. That is one of the key objects of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill. Around Australia and around the world there is a hunger to tackle climate change, a hunger to tackle global heating. It is the greatest moral challenge of our time. This bill is a very important building block in meeting that challenge.

The development of uniform standards for trading in the greenhouse gas emissions market represents one of the global community’s best opportunities for worldwide consistency and comparability. However, according to Deloittes, the industry is currently fraught with variations in rule making and has varying requirements as to the assurance provided by an independent audit. It would be useful, they say, to have a consistent approach to measurement and audit. Emissions reporting standards and the respective auditing standards for emissions related assurance statements are still rapidly evolving. Until such time as standardisation is reached, companies wishing to capitalise on this market opportunity are left with assurance providers that span the spectrum of capabilities. Some assurance providers may lack financial and technical know-how on emissions verifications, while others have little experience in the provision of independent attest services to financial markets. What is needed to move the industry forward are standardised emissions verifications derived from both the regulatory side as well as consistency and professional standards for auditing. That is one of the reasons that we need the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

The opposition and some in industry seem intent on blocking the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in the Senate. Where would we be then? We would be back in the Howard years, with the states setting up their own schemes. If the Australian parliament is incapable of tackling the carbon problem, it is entirely foreseeable and appropriate that the states will move to do so. In my view, that would be better than Australia going naked to the Copenhagen negotiations at the end of the year. But it is not the most desirable outcome for business. Business would be better served by national uniformity and by certainty. The coalition’s approach to this issue is not really helpful to business at all.

The markets should ultimately be a global solution to a global problem. Therefore, it is essential to have a consistent approach to measurement and audit. There is an analogy to the current drive to have consistent accounting and auditing standards in all capital markets around the world. Companies listing their securities in several jurisdictions understandably want to produce only one set of financial statements. Investors trading different securities in different markets want consistent measurement bases so that they can properly compare performance. But these concerns are minor in comparison to those where a unit for carbon trading may have different measurement and assurance bases depending on the market in which it trades but is fundamentally considered to be the same property right. This issue is already a concern for those trying to manage their global emissions exposure and it will become more significant as carbon markets develop and link.

Around the world there are a number of existing emissions trading schemes in place, but we are all still learning what works best. This will be an ongoing process of refinement. We have to deal with the inherent variability in emissions estimates and corresponding compliance imposts to liable parties, including resource allocation for verification of fuel composition and/or emissions sampling. The determination under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme estimates uncertainty for fuel energy content of up to 50 per cent and emissions between four per cent and 26 per cent.

Emissions reporting standards and the respective auditing standards for emissions related assurance statements are still evolving rapidly. The World Resource Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development have developed the Greenhouse Gas Protocol ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. These standards establish current best practice in emissions footprint measurement and reporting. The European Union ETS has developed guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. That Carbon Footprint Measurement Methodology is an open standard being developed by the Carbon Trust in the United Kingdom. All of these are consistent in direction but have differences of scope and detail. The existence of multiple standards can give rise to uncertainty. That is why legislation like this is important.

The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009 makes a number of enhancements to strengthen the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act of 2007. This bill will strengthen the audit framework established by the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act. It will clarify audit arrangements by making a number of other administrative amendments. It imposes no burdens on industry beyond those which originally had been canvassed and intended by the act. I remind the House that the objectives of the original act were to provide a single, cooperative, streamlined reporting system for greenhouse and energy data across all jurisdictions that imposes the least cost and red tape burden needed to maintain the integrity of existing national data collections; to provide for the removal of current, and the avoidance of future, duplicative reporting requirements; to provide greenhouse and energy data that are nationally consistent, robust and comparable across jurisdictions to inform decision making on greenhouse and energy policy and actions by government and business; to make information on the greenhouse and energy related performance of companies available to the public while maintaining the confidentiality of commercially sensitive information; to inform government policy formulation and the Australian public; to meet Australia’s international reporting obligations; and to assist Commonwealth, state and territory government programs and activities.

This legislation makes minor changes to the act to better reflect the original policy intent of the act and better facilitate its administration. In particular, the bill will clarify the definitions of a number of terms relating to greenhouse and energy audits to be conducted under the act; require that results of greenhouse and energy audits be included on the register established under section 16 of the act; extend the secrecy requirements to also cover audit information; and allow for decisions made by the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer not to register an auditor under the act to be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The amendments will give the data officer authority to audit entities who report under section 20 of the act; expand the scope of the legislative instrument to be determined under section 75 of the act to include requirements for the preparation, conduct and reporting of audits and allow for these requirements to be determined by the minister rather than by the data officer; and require potential auditors under the act to apply to the data officer for registration and allow for detailed requirements on auditor registration to be provided in regulations and in a legislative instrument determined by the data officer. The legislation will make a number of administrative amendments consequential to the substantive amendments and it will also repeal the requirement for the data officer to publish corporate-level energy production information.

The bill allows for regulations to be made requiring the results of greenhouse and energy audits to be published. This will provide transparency and assist the public to ascertain the reliability of a corporation’s published greenhouse and energy information. I point out to the House that the amendments relating to audit are based on feedback from stakeholders received during consultation in October of last year. The majority of stakeholders agreed that the audit framework would need to be strengthened in order to better support the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System and underpin robust reporting for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I think all of us who have been debating these issues understand the need for data accuracy. We understand the need to get it right.

Auditing processes are dependent on the qualifications and competence of highly ethical engineers, environmental scientists and technical experts in a specific industry as well as on practitioners in corporate law, business management and financial accounting, and the processes depend on their ability to perform and collaborate in a multidisciplinary environment. In addition to leadership and management skills, we need lead auditors who possess broad process and industry knowledge and experience and a deep understanding of audit structures to trace data along process flows of engineering systems for different periods and levels of business activity and a deep understanding of sources of error, variability and uncertainty—for example, emission factors, fuel quality, calibration, transcription, data corruption et cetera. They will also understand risk assessment methodologies, including the ability to apply risk filters on large and complex data samples and also compliance frameworks.

There is a requirement for the implementation of a single, transparent, consistently and universally applied, international emissions reporting program with complementary guidelines, training and case studies based on harmonised standards for greenhouse gas emissions, fuels and energy auditing, assurance, quality control and reporting procedures, including accreditation criteria for the lead auditor and independent verifier registration. The reporting program will also have harmonised methodologies for the estimation of fuel and energy production and consumption and for emissions and corresponding uncertainty assignments with clearly defined terms. That will serve to improve the quality, accuracy and consistency of facility, company, corporate, sectorial and/or aggregated emissions estimations.

So what we are trying to do is ensure that on an international level a tonne of carbon reported from China is equivalent to a tonne of carbon reported from Australia or anywhere else. We need to give company CFOs or financial statement auditors the necessary confidence that their emissions calculations, permit allocations and assessments of financial risks and liabilities are credible, reliable, robust and defendable in keeping with the high standards of public financial accounts reported under the Corporations Act 2001. We also need to streamline the repetitive energy and emissions reporting across all mandatory government schemes and programs, including international ones, in order to reduce compliance costs.

I said earlier that emissions reporting standards and the respective auditing standards for emissions related assurance statements are still rapidly evolving. The development of uniform standards for trading in the greenhouse gas emissions market represents one of the global community’s best opportunities for worldwide consistency and capability. The markets will ultimately be a global solution to a global problem, but it is essential to have a consistent approach to measurement and audit. I also note that there is an opportunity at the Copenhagen climate change talks in December for the Australian government and others to formulate an agenda item seeking that signatories to the Kyoto protocol implement an appropriate strategy for the implementation of an internationally harmonised set of energy and greenhouse emissions auditing standards for universal application. From an international political diplomacy perspective, this initiative could be a stimulus for greater international collaboration and participation.

I noted in late June an Obama administration report into the impact of climate change on the United States. This report was produced by 30 scientists, working across 13 government agencies. It was quite striking, I think, in the context of the current debate about climate change because it said, ‘Americans have already been living with 30 years of heavy downpours, rising sea levels and blistering summer heatwaves caused by rising greenhouse gas emissions.’ The report is titled Global climate change impacts in the United States. Releasing the report, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Jane Lubchenco, said its key message was that climate change was:

… happening now … in our own backyard.

She said:

I really believe this report is a game-changer. I think that much of the foot-dragging in addressing climate change is a reflection of the perception that climate change is way down the road in the future and it affects only remote parts of the world.

In fact, the report said that average temperatures in the United States have risen by about 0.8 degrees over the past 50 years. Rainfall in major storms has increased 20 per cent over the past 100 years, while the sea levels have risen up to 20 centimetres along parts of the east coast. The consequences were rippling through every region of the United States—from the disruption of salmon stocks and a shift in butterfly migrations to rising incidence of asthma, and signs such as increasingly deadly hurricanes and melting icecaps in the Arctic. Failure to reduce emissions could mean catastrophic consequences for human health and the economy, with ferocious hurricanes in coastal regions, punishing droughts in the south-west and increasingly severe winter storms in the north-east and around the Great Lakes.

As this and so many other reports have made clear, the science on this issue is in. Industry and this parliament have been on notice for many years now. If we do not act to deal with these issues, if we do not act to put a price on carbon and tackle the issue with the seriousness and the urgency that the science demands, we will be rightly condemned by future generations for our selfishness and our short-sightedness. I commend this bill to the House.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009. It was a couple of years ago that I spoke on the original National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill. I am pleased to see that important progress was made through that 2007 bill and that we are continuing to review the operation of this bill under the current government.

It is fair to say that we have not had to face these issues before and that it is a bit of a movable feast in trying to establish a process. I was a bit perplexed by the comments from the member for Wills in terms of his criticism of the former Howard government on this because this bill was originally introduced by the Howard government. In this day and age with so much opinion and speculation surrounding the best way forward to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, it is fundamentally important that we get the groundwork right. This is precisely what this bill in its original form sought to do, and I believe the amended bill going to the Senate inquiry has strengthened the operation of those measures.

In 2007, the Howard government set to work on establishing a national framework for reporting and dissemination of information about greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gas projects and energy use and production by corporations. The information collected was intended to be used as a basis for future emissions reduction policies. One of the biggest factors considered was how best to minimise red tape but maximise the efficiency of the system. That is a very important point. We do not need to continue to overly burden our industries with red tape. So that was an important part of the brief in establishing the groundwork for this reporting system.

Today, the Australian parliament is looking to further refine the system that is in place by making a number of amendments aimed at improving the function of the act and strengthening the audit framework of the act. This bill fundamentally highlights that when you have a good idea, some good original legislation, and both parties are willing to work cooperatively to better it, we can end up with a world-leading initiative or, as the parliamentary secretary for climate change has said, as a world leader in the collection of emissions data. I think it is a great pity, as we debate this framework, this bill which sets the important groundwork for a carbon pollution reduction scheme, that we do not apply the same principles of working together to get the best possible outcome. That certainly is not the principle that is being applied to the forthcoming introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills into this place. It is such an important issue and it is incredibly important to the Australia public that we work together to get this right because there is a great deal at stake. I think it is a great pity that the government have seen fit to play fairly crude politics on this particular matter that is yet to come before this place.

On the other side of the spectrum, we have seen the Labor government pick up on some very good emissions reduction policy from the previous Howard government but, rather than working constructively, they have played politics again with those initiatives. You hear platitudes all the time from those on the other side about the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, yet they have set about dismantling many of the programs that were set up by the coalition to achieve the reduction of greenhouse gases and, importantly, to allow every citizen to participate in the reduction of greenhouse gases.

The playing of politics is doing none of us any good in this place in terms of public perception. What we are ending up with is a very poor emissions trading scheme which deals the public out of the equation. Making a change to improve Australia’s environment is not something that can be done unilaterally, I do not believe. This is a very, very major issue. It is something that the world is struggling to come to terms with. There is a lot of confusion, there are a lot of different opinions, but I think it is something that requires a bipartisan approach to produce the very best outcomes that we can. The actions of individuals must count and we must do everything we can to actively engage individuals in the process of finding a solution to our environmental problems.

The first key change to be implemented by this bill is some clarification of the terminology used. Previous references to external audits and auditors have been amended to remove any confusion. Taking responsibility for improving Australia’s environment and lowering emissions of greenhouse gases should fall to each and every individual, as I said before, as well as all companies and organisations. Every legislative instrument aimed at improving Australia’s environmental future must be clear and comprehensible to everyone so that we can move forward with a clear plan.

This bill will also establish a new register of greenhouse and energy auditors from which audit team leaders must be drawn. We can then be confident that audit team leaders all have a guaranteed level of competence, expertise and independence. A decision by the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer not to register an auditor will be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It is enormously important in this foundation legislation that we make sure there is public confidence in what is being done and in that audit process in particular. As I mentioned, we need to do everything we can to empower individuals to make changes in their lives that, en masse, will make a change to their local environment by allowing the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer to make public certain audit results. There will be greater transparency and reliability in the emissions data and its public availability. While transparency is essential, we must also recognise that in many cases full disclosure of audit reports may compromise commercially sensitive information, and for this reason the bill broadens the secrecy provisions so that the audit team leaders and members who disclose information from the audit process may be liable for two years’ imprisonment.

We need to make sure that this bill is as flawless as possible because it is, after all, the groundwork for perhaps the most significant pieces of environmental legislation in Australia’s history—the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. There have been a couple of unresolved issues that were raised during the consultations, and the first issue concerns the definition in the bill of operational control. This is especially relevant for contract mining corporations because they would become liable for reporting emissions directly associated with a resource such as fugitive emission in addition to operating liability such as emissions produced during extraction and haulage of a resource. According to Leighton Holdings, who made a submission in this regard, this places contract miners under an unfair burden that should properly fall to the financial operators of mines. One-third of work in the mining sector is undertaken by contractors.

This is not just an issue that will affect the greenhouse and energy reporting framework. The law firm Allens Arthur Robinson has noted that it has also had ramifications on the liabilities under the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation as well. The correct direction for this legislation is to amend the definition of operational control so that the responsibility for calculating emissions will rest with mine owners as a default position where there is no contrary contractual advice. In this respect, I understand that my colleague Senator Johnston will be introducing in the Senate an amendment to this effect when this bill reaches the Senate. It is a wise amendment that will ensure the smooth operation of this scheme in the mining industry, and I hope that the government take that advice on board and make that change.

The second unresolved issue relates to submissions from PricewaterhouseCoopers and CPA Australia regarding the independent requirement for an auditor at the time of registration with the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer. These submissions suggested that the independence of an auditor be ascertained at the outset of an audit rather than at the time of registration because they note that independence is relative to the corporation being audited. Again, I hope the minister will consider these issues when the subordinate legislation is being designed.

Reporting schemes are only one part of a move to a comprehensive greenhouse emissions program. Clearly, lowering greenhouse gas emissions is a vital element to environmental policy and to a carbon pollution trading scheme, but it is not the only means. I think the government have established an incredible record watching things. They have watched fuel and they have been watching grocery prices—and both these policies I might say, despite all that watching, have failed—and they sometimes get so transfixed watching these levels that they limit their vision and can only see limited solutions. This bill will further strengthen the framework for watching greenhouse gas emissions. It is crucial to Australia’s environmental future in this case that we have an effective framework in which greenhouse gas emissions can be monitored and can be watched, but this system should not cloud the view to other aspects of environmental degradation that the community expects us to address.

I think I have said before in this place that we are at a crossroads and we can move forward blindly or we can look all ways and proceed with reasonable caution. By not looking further than an emissions trading scheme the government is driving the nation straight through this intersection, I think, without care or regard for what might hit us. Australia does face a much wider ambit of environmental problems than energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and it only makes sense that we consider the full ambit of available solutions.

In my home state of Western Australia—and I divert momentarily from the content of the bill—salinity is a major environmental concern, with 70 per cent of Australia’s dryland salinity in Western Australia. The numbers are indeed disturbing. In 2000 over a million hectares of land in the south-west agricultural region was affected by salinity. The research suggests that this number is continuing to rise. According to statistics published by the ABC in an article on its website called ‘Salinity: Australia’s silent flood’, by 2050 over 450 plant species will have become extinct and about $400 million will have been lost in agricultural production as a direct result of salinity.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australia is one of the highest producers of waste in the world. We generate 2.25 kilograms of waste every day per person. Addressing our resource consumption and waste production is surely a universally attractive goal. More needs to be done to focus on the efforts of individuals and not just the big, polluting corporations if we want to make a real difference right here in Australia. Corporations will respond ultimately to the demands of consumers.

I believe in the climate change science. I am not a denier, but I accept that there are still many people who are yet to be completely convinced. If we seek to make a real difference in the environment then we should start from the ground and work up by asking, ‘How can we protect our environment?’ Tackling environmental issues like salinity, waste production, energy and resource consumption, and air and water quality are projects that not only have widespread appeal but also will make a real difference on the ground.

Not so long ago I had a forum in the electorate of Pearce called ‘Our Patch, Our Planet’. It was very popular. We had a very good attendance and some excellent speakers. It was really to try to engage the public generally to look at what we can do individually to improve our patch and our planet. I believe that most Australians, including many children, are willing to make changes to their lifestyles in order to improve the environment. I see this all the time when I am visiting schools. It is the young kids in our community who are really the drivers of changes to the way we live. They are showing great initiative, and I commend many of the schools and many of the teachers who are really inspiring young people to be more environmentally aware.

During ‘Our Patch, Our Planet’ I found the overwhelming desire of the people from the electorate who attended—and there was a wide variety—was to be dealt into this. They do not want a carbon pollution reduction scheme that is just focused on the big corporations; they want to feel that they can play their part and that they will have a role in reducing our carbon footprint. I think that is one of the big flaws in what is proposed for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

One issue that was discussed in ‘Our Patch, Our Planet’ where there seemed to be fairly universal agreement was the need to improve the environment and the need to consider the future sustainability of development. We need to look at and take more seriously a renewable energy program to adapt to the changes that are taking place around us and to consider our natural resource management, including energy conservation, green industries and the development of green skills. I think Australians are willing to embrace policies when they are confident of the benefits available to their local communities—and there are many—from being more environmentally aware.

But the Australian community is certainly far from embracing the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme designed by this government. It has very little support from a large section of the community. It is a narrow-sighted approach that lacks credibility, and Australians are not confident that it will bring about a better environment for them and their families or even the globe. It is not that they do not want something to happen; they do. But they do not have the confidence that this is the way forward. What they are sure of is that it is going to cost jobs for them and their families and their local communities and that without a global commitment the scheme is very limited in scope. They are frustrated that they are not being listened to and that changes implemented on a personal scale will be negated by aspects of this proposed scheme. It effectively disempowers individuals from making real changes to better their patch and their planet.

Some of the things the government have done have understandably made the public very cynical. We have seen the sudden withdrawal of solar rebates and the remote area solar rebate program, for example, and their replacement with something far inferior. If you listen to the government’s rhetoric of how important this is and then you go through the list of some of the programs they have applied budget cuts to or have diverted funding from you will see they include the Green Loans Program, the Climate Change Action Fund, the Greenhouse Action in Regional Australia program, the Commonwealth Environmental Research Facilities program and the Coal Mine Methane Reduction Program. It is no wonder and justifiable that the public feel cynical about the proposals that are about to come into this place. (Time expired)

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009. This bill strengthens the audit framework established by the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act and also clarifies the audit arrangements by making other administrative amendments. The passage of this bill is essential for Australia to be able to develop a third-party audit framework that is robust enough to support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. We have heard a lot in the House today about the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme so I am going to add my contribution, especially on the importance of and the need for a carbon pollution reduction scheme. I think people on this side of the House at least do recognise that the need for a scheme like this is indisputable. The vast majority of scientists recognise that carbon pollution is causing the climate to change. We have seen 11 out of the past 12 years rank among the 12 warmest years since records began. The impact of climate change poses a threat to our economy, our environment and even our health.

As one of the hottest and driest contents on earth, Australia has a lot to lose from the impact of climate change. It has been proposed that anything more than an increase of 1.8 degrees Celsius could destroy the Great Barrier Reef—therefore not only destroying an amazing iconic site in Australia, one of the greatest wonders of the world and a unique environmental ecosystem, but also threatening the tourism industry and the businesses and jobs that go with it. We also know that it is predicted that climate change will see an increase in both the frequency and severity of drought. It has been suggested that the frequency of drought may increase up to 20 per cent over most of Australia by 2030. This poses a significant threat to our agricultural sector and to the country as a whole.

Of particular concern to me as a South Australian is the impact that less rainfall and greater evaporation will have on the Murray-Darling Basin, which has already been stressed by drought, over allocation and years of inaction. The system is simply not able to sustain further reduction in run-off as a result of climate change—thus threatening rural communities that rely heavily on the basin and the city of Adelaide, which also relies on the basin for its drinking water. We have seen in particular the refusal of the National Party to make any meaningful contribution to the policy discussion on climate change. To this day we see the coalition deeply divided on the existence of climate change. I believe that this position of the National Party is an enormous betrayal of the party’s core constituency. Rural Australia is going to be exposed to increased economic hardship caused by prolonged drought and possible fuel shortages to an even greater extent than city dwellers.

One particularly frightening possible result of a changed climate which is not often talked about is the effect on our health. I mentioned this just previously. One of the Australian contributors to the IPCC report is Dr Rosalie Woodruff, the author of Climate change health impacts in Australia. She has identified several threats to our health security. The first and most obvious is the likely increase in deaths from heatwaves. As, sadly, we saw last summer in Adelaide, the elderly are particularly vulnerable to the effects of severe heat. Currently over a thousand people die each year from the heat, mainly in nursing homes, but Dr Woodruff identifies that in a worse case scenario this figure could rise to 15,000 as temperatures rise and heatwaves last longer.

A changing climate will also change tropical disease vectors—that is, where mosquitoes that carry most tropical diseases are found. This means that if global temperatures increase then we can expect to see an increase in mosquito-borne illnesses like malaria, Ross River fever, and, according to Dr Woodruff, especially Dengue fever in urban Australia. So this is a particular threat. This is not something that is just a threat offshore; these diseases could potentially become a threat onshore. I know that the health and ageing committee will be looking further into this very important issue. The health impacts of climate change are significant and provide another compelling reason why we must take action on climate change.

For all these reasons, as a country and as a member of the global community, we must act now. That is why this government has sought to deal with climate change by introducing the CPRS legislation. That is why we need, as this bill suggests, to monitor our emissions, reduce them and begin to transfer to a low-carbon economy driven by renewable energy and green jobs. There is no uncertainty here—the science is clear. It is even clearer than it was in 2007, when those opposite, who were in government, refused to accept the facts and instead preferred to peddle myths. Those opposite continue to be divided on whether or not climate change is even occurring, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence. While the Leader of the Opposition plays political games with his response to this challenge, there remains a lack of certainty for business and the community at large. So if the opposition are serious about working in the national interest—about leaving things better than they found them and about making sure that Australia is sustainable and prosperous into the future—then they need to start getting serious about climate change.

Instead we have seen the opposition deny, deny, deny—until the eleventh hour, when they present a report but no policy. While the opposition call for amendments on the CPRS, they do not suggest any. I believe, along with many from this side of the House, that the events of the last few days have shown that the coalition are not serious about the challenge of climate change. The coalition need to start talking and to have a policy about mandatory renewable energy targets, just as the government has. The coalition need to start considering how to encourage green innovation, particularly in the automotive-manufacturing sector, as the government has with its Green Car Innovation Fund. The coalition need to start supporting funds for the research and development of clean technologies.

The coalition also needs to take its head out of the sand and realise the global nature of this problem. Those opposite when in government refused to sign the Kyoto protocol and were part of the ignorance in the global community and not part of the solution. It is in this context that this government has begun to seriously address the climate crisis by introducing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. While the opposition has been waiting and trying to see which way the wind blows, changing its position depending on the day or who the spokesperson is, the government has been getting things done.

I commend the Minister for Climate Change and Water for conducting a large range of consultations last year which did show the need for a strengthened audit framework to underpin accurate reporting as a part of an effective Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. In response to this need the minister has presented this bill before the House today. The key elements of this new framework are the clarification of terms, changes to access to audit results, procedures for the registration of auditors and improvements to the system of public disclosure of energy production data.

The revised terminology proposed by the bill directly links the name of the audit activity to the subject matter being audited, either a greenhouse or an energy audit. It also clarifies the status and role of auditors under the act by referring to them as ‘registered greenhouse and energy auditors’. These seemingly simple changes also assist stakeholders understand the purpose of the audit framework being established which will ensure more effective participation. The government realises that there are a variety of sensitivities in relation to the compilation of information necessary to conduct a greenhouse or energy audit and so this bill includes provisions relating to both the publication of audit results and the secrecy of audit information.

The amendments to the act in this bill provide for the establishment of clear criteria for disclosure of audit results and give the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer the discretion to make audit outcomes available to the public provided issues such as commercial sensitivity have been considered. Similarly, the bill ensures that the secrecy provisions of the act extend to information gathered whilst conducting audits and apply to all team members. This is common sense given that the auditors typically have access to highly confidential information and the protection of confidential information is important to ensure that businesses feel comfortable complying with the scheme.

The bill will also require potential auditors under the act to apply to the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer for registration. Detailed requirements for auditor registration will be provided in subordinate legislation that will be determined after consultations that took place in May. The registration of auditors is a necessary requirement to ensure the integrity of the GEDO’s accounting. This is reaffirmed by the bill’s expansion of the scope of the legislative instrument determined under the act on the conduct and reporting requirements of audits and ensures that these requirements are more substantial than the current guidelines.

The final substantial change included in the provisions of this bill is to the public disclosure of energy production data. The bill removes the requirements for the GEDO to disclose corporate level energy production data. The purpose of this amendment is to avoid confusion between economy-wide energy production and other energy production totals. This is because the collection of energy production data is a key element of an effective national climate strategy and an important complement to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics’ energy statistics.

An additional amendment to the act in the bill released by the Minister for Climate Change and Water and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change enables the voluntary transfer of reporting obligations to a facility specified under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act from a controlling corporation, where only one member of its group has operational control of a facility, to a member of a different corporate group that has financial control of that facility.

I began at the outset of this speech by discussing the threat that climate change poses to Australia. It threatens our economic wellbeing, our environment, and it threatens our health and our future. The bill before us today provides for an effective, transparent and robust auditing system which will align with our proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. In combination we will be able to reduce emissions and contribute to the global effort of avoiding dangerous climate change. I commend the bill to the House.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start with a point of reflection for all of us on the first day back debating what is often talked about as part of a suite of the most significant legislation before this chamber in the session and, potentially, in our times in this chamber. I look around and see one fine gentleman sitting and listening, and that is a point of reflection for all of us in thinking about the principles of engagement and whether or not we are engaging with the community on what we, I hope, consider to be of such significance.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’m listening.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks. On the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009 and on the suite of Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation generally, I think, depending on what happens in the other place later this week, I look to be the Independent of Independents and probably the only one who has taken a position of supporting the government in regard to this range of legislation that we saw pass through the last session and see in this one. That does not mean—and I made the point in the speech that I gave when the CPRS legislation went through—that I am 100 per cent happy with this legislation. It is far from an endorsement of this legislation. It is more of a position of supporting the hope that we can turn this legislation into something of substance in the future. Essentially, it is the framework for a market based response to the natural resource question of our times. That is a concept that I support.

I tried to move amendments to the CPRS legislation to establish an independent authority to oversee the framework questions that at the moment—and we are seeing it again in this legislation—are falling in the hands of executive authority and ministerial discretion. If there is one thing that government and this place need to look at very, very closely in all this legislation as it passes through this place, it is that increasing centralisation of decision making around those framework questions, around the minister and the executive, and treating this as a political exercise rather than a policy exercise. This will be dangerous if it is not addressed in the future.

I can understand the reasons in the establishment of this framework for having to have so much intimate control over so many aspects of the framework legislation. However, over time I would hope that there will be recognition of the point I am making about the value of an independent authority looking after the framework questions just as the Reserve Bank looks after many of the financial issues that face this country in independent way and just as, in a state like New South Wales, an independent corruption authority looks after issues of public sector corruption within that state. If this legislation is so important, if this legislation needs to let the science flow then it needs to allow that to happen and not get caught in the political mosh pit of what we are seeing this week and what we have seen in the birth of this framework of the suite of CPRS legislation.

In the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill we see a shift to ministerial authority. This bill as it stands proposes to remove the power and authority of the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer under section 75, which currently allows the GEDO to determine, by legislative instrument, guidelines to be followed by an audit team when conducting a greenhouse and energy audit and preparing the appropriate reports and to place this power and authority within the hands of the minister. Again, we see the philosophical point of difference between me and, I think, many members of the community and government as to the role that government should play in the future management of and decisions about CPRS and the attached legislation that we are seeing pass through.

It is as much in the government’s interests to keep this at arms length as it is in communities’ best interests. If we can project out 10 or 20 years and if the CSIRO is to be believed that we could potentially pay around eight dollars a litre for fuel, the political pressures on a government to make a decision under this legislative package are going to be enormous, and so it is necessary to keep this at arms length so that hard decisions can be made when they need to be made. If this is science based issue and we want to be genuine in allowing the science to flow, then there are dangers for any government in keeping these decisions within the executive and very close to the relevant minister of the time.

From a business and investment point of view there are also enormous dangers in keeping this as a political rather than an arms-length, independent process in relation to the questions of investment and security of tenure. If I were an investor, even if the indicators were harder and tougher, I would be much more confident in the investment environment if it were at arms-length and independent from the political process. So I think it is better legislation and better policy for the government, in this legislation, in legislation we have seen go through this place already and in future bills—whether they are renewable energy bills or anything that is attached to this general suite of CPRS legislation—to really consider the role of divorcing the executive from the framework that is being built so that, in the future, independence and scientific evidence rather than vested interests or political imperatives can lead the decision-making process. I would hope that the government and the opposition consider that in the future when or if this legislation passes this week or in the future.

Whilst I was not opposed the CPRS, similarly I am not opposed to this bill, other than to make the continued point about the need for greater independence in future decision making. I want to pick up on a couple of key quotes in the second reading speeches on this legislation and on previous legislation made by the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change on the question of ministerial power under section 75. When introducing legislation the parliamentary secretary made the point:

This will ensure greater levels of consistency in the conduct of audits and reports provided by auditors.

The point I have just made is relevant in that I argue that this need for consistency in the marketplace should be monitored and regulated by an arms-length body, an independent body, as ministers change, as governments change and as political pressures change and this is where, if it remains a ministerial discretionary power, we lose consistency. Consistency cannot be guaranteed because, as we all know in this place, things change. If it is a genuine exercise in trying to establish consistency, I continue to make my point that we need to look at being arms-length in future framework questions, just as a whole range of independent bodies have been established by state and federal governments around this country.

Another point he made in a previous speech, when I put up the amendments to this question, was that the government basically rejected the concept because they believe the issues are so important they deserve parliamentary scrutiny—which is a very polite way of voting down an amendment. In the end, I would be more comfortable with parliamentary scrutiny, but executive authority is being gained in this legislation, and that is significantly different to parliamentary scrutiny. It is ministerial authority that is being gained. A lot of it will not be seen by us in this parliamentary chamber, and we will have very little control over more than 20 key framework questions that we are seeing go through this place as part of this package of legislation. They are new principles, new concepts, that have been established by government.

I have no problem with those principles or concepts but I do have a significant problem with the fact that the future decision making around those principles and concepts is owned by the people on that bench—in particular, one, two or three of the people on that bench. That has huge problems attached to it from an investment point of view, from a policy point of view and from the point of view of community level confidence in this being a genuine exercise in trying to answer one of the great science questions of our time. I am not opposed to this legislation but I am concerned about that particular point and I will continue to raise it as each of these attached pieces of legislation come through.

It seems that everyone in this place has been writing essays or reading essays during their break. Over the past six weeks I have been reading an essay, ‘Quarry Vision’, which was published in the Quarterly Essay 2009. It makes some tremendous points about the language that is used in this place, the general view that we have of this legislation and who the drivers of the legislation are. Some of the points it makes include this: not one credible piece of economic research suggests that making deep cuts in emissions by 2050 would cause even a temporary recession let alone crash the economy, cut GDP, send energy prices spiralling or cause whole industries to shut down or flee our shores. Every serious study of the costs finds that deep cuts would delay the trebling of the economy and doubling of real wages by a few years at most later this century.

For all of us in this place, a consideration of the language shows that, rather than saying that halving Australia’s emissions by 2050 would result in the sky falling in and GDP being cut by at least 10 per cent, in reality what is going to happen is that it will not grow by 280 per cent but by 240 per cent. We can use positive rather than negative language about this. There are good business and good community outcomes for establishing a very important market based response to this natural resource question. We should be proud of that, we should be positive about that and we should push for that. We should push for the best policy outcome that we can. There are jobs attached to this. There is a new economy attached to this. I do not think it is something we should be afraid of. All of us in this place should consider the real place in the GDP of today and of the future of the vested interests that are knocking on our doors trying to protect their patch and what we can do to grow the best possible economy of the future as well as be a good international citizen with regard to this key science question of our time.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand to speak on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009. I must say from the outset that it is nice to finally be immersing ourselves in the nitty-gritty of laws that will actually go some way to addressing climate change. It is a really good feeling to be doing this, and it is a long way from the Howard years, when the previous government were climate change deniers. Through those years, Australia became an international embarrassment, blindly following the thoroughly discredited US Republican administration down the path of denial of the absolutely obvious. After that shameful chapter in Australian history, it was a great thing that the Rudd government ratified the Kyoto protocol, and we are now moving to legislate for climate change reduction. This feels even better for me; we are finally getting down to working through the details of practical actions that we as a government need to take.

Australia has moved a long way in the short time that the Rudd government has been in office, but our political opponents, the Liberals, still do not seem to get the problem of climate change. There have been many studies which have totally spelt out the devastation that climate change will cause, and the conclusive evidence that has come from those very detailed reports over many years shows the challenges that climate change will present not only to our economy but to the international economy. The Liberals are still stuck in time; nothing seems to have changed for them at all. They are still stuck between the climate change deniers, the climate change delayers and those who just want to ignore the whole problem.

I had a really good laugh over breakfast during the last parliamentary sitting period when I was reading a piece by Michelle Grattan in her column in the Age. Michelle described the current Leader of the Opposition as a horse rider riding two horses at once, one foot on each, desperately holding the reins and trying to keep the two horses together. Two wild horses—Neddy Do Nothing and Neddy Denial, with Malcolm in the middle. He was probably reading a leaked fabricated email at that time, so he may have missed that contribution, but that image was perfectly captured by Michelle. She really nailed it in that one sentence—‘Malcolm in the middle’. Of course, that is very disappointing for this nation.

I should say something about the detail of this bill. This bill again shows the rigour with which Rudd government ministers are approaching all legislation. We are trying to be thorough to ensure the legislation works as it was intended. This bill strengthens the audit framework established by the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act by requiring auditors to register with the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer, or GEDO. It also clarifies audit arrangements by making a number of other administrative amendments. It is also important to note that this bill imposes no burdens on industry beyond those originally intended by that act. This bill will be followed by subsequent legislation that goes through in detail the requirements for the audit registration and the criteria for conducting and reporting on those audits. There is a very obvious imperative for this bill, which is that we must have a very strong and robust third-party audit framework to support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and to ensure proper compliance.

I would like to say a couple of other things about the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme because this bill and that legislation are very strongly linked. There is no doubt that we need and, one day soon, will have a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It is simply a matter of time. It is a terrible shame that we currently have all the game playing by the various political parties in this place and in the Senate, particularly by the Liberal Party and the National Party. I believe that most Australians strongly support what Labor is doing and abhor the silly games being played by the coalition. Clearly, putting in place a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is extremely difficult, but it is essential. It has implications for our current workforce and provides some great opportunities to grow new jobs and develop new industries. We hope to introduce a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in a way that does not tip hundreds of thousands of people out of work, and that is what Labor is doing. We are putting in place a well thought through, well calibrated piece of legislation designed to grow jobs and to ensure affected industries can make that transition.

We must also take account of what the rest of the world is doing, and Labor’s legislation does just that. However, I believe it is also incumbent on countries in the developed world to take a lead. It is the countries of the developed world that created this problem. The less-developed countries have every right to point that fact out. I believe Australia, as one of the most developed countries in the world and also the country with the highest carbon footprint per head in the world, has a moral obligation to lead on this question. That is why the opposition stance is so shameful; that is why the opposition stance is so immoral. My view is that the most culpable of our political leaders in this debate are the climate change deniers. If some people still want to believe the world is flat, I guess that is their decision; they are just foolish and ignorant. My real beef is with those on the other side who know that climate change is happening, who know that climate change is caused by carbon pollution and greenhouse gases but do not take any steps to address it. They would rather take some cheap, opportunistic response than do something about the most significant issue facing this planet. They care more about scoring points than about their kids’ futures. It is time the opposition took a hard look at themselves on this question.

Another important aspect of this bill is that it requires the results of the greenhouse energy audits to be included on the register established under section 16 of the act. This is extremely important for building on our knowledge base and data sources on business carbon outputs. A more detailed knowledge of the outputs across every industry is very important. A knowledge of what every industry sector is doing is very helpful for developing future policy on carbon reduction and knowing what the impact on those industries will be. The collection of energy production data will remain a key component of this act to inform government on energy flows across the Australian economy and to underpin the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics energy statistics.

Another important aspect of this bill is that it allows for the review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of decisions made by the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer not to register an audit under the act. As well, there are provisions in relation to the registration of auditors. This is clearly an important and necessary control measure. This bill also gives the GEDO the authority to audit entities who report under section 20 of the act and clarifies and increases powers in relation to requirements for the preparation, conduct and reporting of audits. This bill allows for regulations to be made requiring the results of the greenhouse energy audits to be published. Clearly, transparency and public knowledge are a very important aspect of this bill.

The amendments are based on feedback from stakeholders received during consultations back in 2008. The majority of stakeholders agreed that the audit framework would need to be strengthened in order to better support the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System and underpin robust reporting for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. This is evidence of a thorough consultative process and clear evidence that the Rudd government is listening to key stakeholders. We will continue to engage with key stakeholders on these matters. The Rudd government has made a commitment to further consultation on the draft regulations. Yet again Labor is leading in this debate and yet again we are listening to that feedback from our stakeholders.

I would like to conclude on this point. We have seen debate in the media in more recent times on some fairly flimsy reporting that the coalition and others have produced. I had a look at that report today, and clearly the coalition cannot be taken seriously on these matters. I commend this bill to the House.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I most certainly have great respect for the minister at the table, the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport, but it disappoints me that there is not a single public servant over there and there are none of the relevant ministers in the chamber as we debate the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009. In the Queensland state house, where I was for 20 years, for all legislation there was a senior officer of the department there. In saying that, I want to pay tribute to Tony Burke, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who is the only minister in my 15 or whatever it is years here who has ever come into the parliament to face the music on his own legislation and who has insisted that his senior public servants were in here as well. Not only are these people out of step with the rest of Australia; they are not even in step with their own parliament. They do not even know what the parliament says, let alone what the people of Australia say.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They don’t care.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member who is representing the opposition interjects. I would not be speaking too loudly if I were her, because I cannot remember any of her ministers ever coming into the parliament when they had legislation. We get up here and talk and I just wonder what the value is of getting up here and talking. Is anyone going to be listening? I wonder about the value of it. But, assuming that there is a value in talking in the parliament, in the house of the people of Australia—which I doubt—I will say what I have said here on numerous occasions. Sometimes I agree with Barnaby Joyce. His comments in the Australian were dead spot-on. Naturally I think they are very clever, because I have said them about 400 times myself! All that is going to come out of the government’s program is a huge windfall profit for the likes of Goldman Sachs, Macquarie Bank and all of these people that buy and sell shares. Whether they are people that do that or not I do not know; I am not familiar with the share market. But I do know this: where they may have had $100,000 million worth of share value that they could trade, now they will have $110,000 million worth of securities that they can trade. I speak with authority on that because I did buy and sell securities as an insurance agent in my younger days. That is all that is going to happen here. It is a glorified managed investment scheme. That is all it is. It will be a glorified MIS.

It seems to me that the proposals that are coming forward from the opposition are more sensible, but I do not think that they will achieve any of the goals or objectives that we want to achieve. I scored Media Watch a few weeks ago because on a Monday I said that there was no problem and on the Tuesday I said, ‘This is how we fix up the problem.’ Of course, they pointed out that I had said the day before that the problem did not exist. I reiterate that the problem with CO2 is 400 parts per million. Imagine if all that roof were illuminated and there were 20 or 30 cockroaches up there. This is like saying that we would not see anything in this room because of the few cockroaches up there. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is 400 parts per million. Are you telling me seriously that the world is going to warm because there are 400 parts per million of CO2 up there? If you know anything about science, you realise how utterly preposterous that proposition is, how absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous it is. There is eminent scientist after eminent scientist after eminent scientist debunking this. People will be laughing at it, as they did at the Club of Rome’s prognosis that the world would be starving to death in 1984. It was fairly unfortunate for the Club of Rome that in fact there was the greatest superfluity of food in all of human history in that particular year and food prices throughout the world tumbled through the floor.

People are just picking up some emotive proposition out there and running with it, without any hard scientific rigour whatsoever. You do not have to be Albert Einstein to figure out that it is under 400 parts per million. Get a light globe and put a little pinhead in front of it and then say that there is going to be no illumination coming from the light globe because of that pinhead in front of it. That is how stupid the proposition is. I must also say—and this is where some will accuse me of speaking with forked tongue—that there has been a massive increase. When you are looking at a 1,000 per cent increase in a period of a century or two centuries or whatever it is, even an anti—I am not a sceptic; I am an anti—will say, ‘Maybe we should take a bit of a pull on the reins here.’

I do not come at it from the point of view of CO2, but there are enormous benefits in reducing the enormous amount of energy that we consume. I had the great privilege and honour of being the mines and energy minister in the Queensland government. Before that I had very senior portfolios which gave me a lot of responsibility in the energy area. When I became minister, we immediately started preparing cabinet submissions and forewarned the electricity commission that we would be putting solar water heaters on the roof of every single government house in Queensland. With the Housing Commission houses and welfare houses, that amounted to about 15 per cent of all of the houses in Queensland having a hot water system on the roof. We felt that because it would be a mass purchase we could give them at very attractive prices and we might even put a little bit of a subsidy in there. But to every household in Queensland it would be very economically attractive for them to put a solar hot water system on the roof, so we reckoned that about 25 to 30 per cent of the houses would take it. Forty per cent of energy requirements domestically are for heating water, so if you take 20 or 30 per cent of that away and use the sun to heat that water, though you have still got to take it to boiling point if you want to make a cup of tea or something, you take 20 or 30 per cent of domestic demand away. We were looking at an expectation that, instead of having to build another 1,000-megawatt power station in the next two or three years, we could postpone that power station for at least 10 years. We have 40 of those 1,000- megawatt power stations in Australia, but Queensland could have postponed one of them and it would not have come on line, because we were using the sun for the supply of that energy.

It amazes me that the government is going to go forward and create tens of billions of dollars worth of securities which will make the security traders rich. I can bet London to a brick that any intelligent, sensible person in Australia knows that there will be a tax dodge involved here somewhere and it will just be another glorified MIS scheme. There is no doubt about that; that is what it is going to come to. But instead of going down the pathway of doing something practical and real, such as the solar hot water systems, no, we do not do that. The government has put some insulation batts in the roof, but I really think when compared with solar hot water they are a joke. The sorts of savings that you are going to get out of that are very small indeed. Of course, 20 or 30 per cent of Australia’s population has a very hot sun. Reflective roofs rather than insulation batts might have brought serious benefit. I would put that forward as a proposition.

I and my colleague from New England, with great support from the member for Lyne, have emphasised the benefits of ethanol on numerous occasions in this place. I am not a greenie, I am an anti-green, but the great patron saint of the Greens, Al Gore, on page 136, I think, of his book An Inconvenient Truth names as the first solution ethanol. But have we heard it from the government side of the House? The other side of the House can stand ashamed of themselves. They destroyed the ethanol industry in Australia. We went from 72 megalitres down to 24 megalitres under their regime. They smashed it to pieces, to suit what interests we do not know, but they most certainly were the architects of destruction of the Australian ethanol industry. Whilst America was building 40 ethanol plants a year and Brazil was building 20 ethanol plants a year, Australia built one plant in 40 years. This is something that Australia has a huge advantage in. We still at this point of time have a very sizeable sugar industry. That industry can be very easily converted, 50 per cent of it or even 100 per cent of it, across to producing ethanol instead of producing sugar. Since the average price for sugar has been very poor for the last seven years, it would be a very good thing to do. All I am saying is that in just two projects in North Queensland there are three million megalitres of petrol—one-seventh of Australia’s entire petrol needs in just those two projects.

I seriously feel physically sick and uncomfortable when I reflect on the fact that my country is a net importer of food. When I say it I am sure no-one here believes me. We are a net importer of fruit and vegetables. The graph has been heading that way for ages and it has just continued its trend, but now we are a net importer of fruit and vegetables. Five years ago we became a net importer of pork, a very important commodity in food intake in this country and in most countries. Last year we broke through with fisheries: we became a net importer of fish products like prawns, fish and everything else that you get from the fishery industry. So we are now only an exporter really of beef and grains, and sugar, a very minor commodity as far as food consumption goes. Isn’t that something to be proud of as a race of people! We occupy a continent in size almost as big as China, almost as big as Canada, almost as big as America, almost as big as Brazil. We are not much smaller than any of those countries. But we are a net importer of food. What is happening? The opposition side of the House decided they were going to close down 40 per cent of the Murray. The honourable member sitting here representing them today is one of those members of parliament. I have to say that if you are then you should have resigned from your party. If any party decides to wipe out the base industry of your electorate, you should do the decent thing. If you cannot talk some sense into them then you should get out and join us over here, move to the cross benches as I had to do.

Let me just reiterate, because there are a lot of people who do not understand what is going on. Sixty per cent of Australia’s existing agricultural production—what is left—is coming off the Murray-Darling. There will be those that say 40 per cent, but I would take Ian Causley’s figure of 60 per cent. I think he would know more than anyone else, and I have always reckoned 60 per cent. I will not go into the details of the argument of whether it is 40 or 60 per cent. We are going to take 3 million megalitres of the 8 million megalitres of irrigation water out of the Murray-Darling River. If you want to do the mathematics, you will find out that what existing agricultural production we have in this country will be cut by a further 25 per cent. What a shameful reflection upon this country. If you produce less food, somewhere someone in this world is going to starve. If there is less food out there, there will be more people starving. There are about 1,500 million people that go to bed hungry every night, in a world with a population of about 6,500 million.

All I am saying is that—whether you want to grow sugar to produce ethanol or whether you want to grow food, I do not really care—I think it is immoral, the worst possible type of immorality, to not use the land. I refer to the words of Ben Chifley, who said, ‘If you don’t use this land, you have no moral right to hold onto it,’ which was almost the exact phrase used by Ted Theodore—probably the most important person in Australian history. That was the same phrase used by McEwen again and again in this place. Is it any wonder that thoroughly decent people like the member for Indi and the member for Windsor no longer attach to a party that cannot understand that most basic concept?

I speak with some considerable passion because I love my country. All of my forebears were on the ground in this country in the 1870s. We would like to think we have made some sort of contribution to the country throughout that period. There are many others in this place that could claim to have made a greater contribution than my family; that is for sure.

Consider the proposition that we are proceeding with here. Let me be very direct: we only export one commodity now. We do not have any manufacturing. Our agriculture is just about finished and what is left of it will be killed by the Murray-Darling decision. We have only one commodity left and that is minerals. I represent the richest mineral province on earth. We have 500 million tonnes of iron ore. We have never looked for iron ore; we just happen to stumble across it when we are looking for other things. We have just happened to stumble across 500 million tonnes. We have not mined a single tonne of it yet. We have about one or two per cent—I have to check on the figure, so don’t anyone quote me on that—of the world’s reserves of uranium, which is clean energy but with some dangers.

We have the world’s biggest vanadium deposit. Virtually anything made out of steel, anywhere in the world, will have some vanadium in it. We have one of the biggest silver-lead-zinc deposits, which the Chinese have just purchased. And—God bless them—we hope they will open up and start mining because it has been there for 30 years at Dougall River, which we have not touched yet. We have one of the four biggest oil shale deposits in Australia in this area. There are only 24 major phosphate deposits in the world, and we have four of them.

Having said all of those things, I also say that we will not be opening mines in our area. It is mainly copper-silver-lead-zinc—and I have not even mentioned them as I have been going through. We will not be opening mines in our area. We will be closing four mines; there is no doubt about it.

When you say—as one of the previous speakers did, from the government side—that it is not going to affect industry, I am telling you that they are already running at a loss. How much loss do you think the person in Zurich who owns Xstrata is going to take before he starts closing mines? Do you think he is just there to be Santa Claus to Australians, do you? It is rather a novel concept. If a mine is not making a profit, yes, it might be good business to try to keep it open for a few years, but these mines are desperate. This relates to all of the mines throughout that great mineral province, which is producing nearly $15,000 million a year of export earnings for this country. Many of my good friends go down there and risk their lives, because it is still a very dangerous occupation. There is a limit to how safe you can make a mine. As an ex-miner, I can talk with authority. They are on the cusp. Unless help arrives shortly, they are going to close. Instead of helping, you are pushing them over the edge.

Are there alternatives? Yes, there are. The first solution of the patron saint, Al Gore, is ethanol. The last government smashed ethanol, and this government is clearly determined not to do anything about it. Yes, that is a solution. As far as the electricity industry goes, I have pointed out the most simple of things. When I say 40 per cent of domestic consumption, that is from Szokolay’s book, which is probably the best book ever produced in the history of the world on energy and housing in Australia.

I say with great passion: let us look at serious ways of reducing CO2 if you are serious about it. If you are not a cynic but an anti like me, you would say, ‘Well, we should give a pull on the reins.’ There is the way to do it, so do that. Do not line the pockets of the slimy, slithering city suits from Sydney. Don’t do that again, please. Don’t create a glorified MIS. Please, look at reality and do something real, substantial and specific for the Australian economy, as the great governments throughout Australian history have done previously.

When this government talked about nation building, I said, ‘That is about Ben Chifley building the Snowy Mountains— (Time expired)

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a bit challenging and daunting to follow the member for Kennedy, because he speaks with such passion and across a wide range of areas in speaking to particular bills—talking particularly about water, mining and industries. It all has relevance to the bill before us, but it is a little bit daunting to follow him. In the electorate of Page, we have a project underway to do with ethanol, one of the things that the member talks about all the time, and I am pleased about that.

I rise to speak in support of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009. The then Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change—now Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change—said it makes minor but important changes to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act, and indeed it does. They may be minor, but they are very important. I will recap the purpose of the principal act and then outline the nature of the amending bill’s changes, the specific impact and the general impact. I will conclude with a few general comments on the broader framework this principal act and this amending bill respond to, which is climate change.

The principal act established a general framework for mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and energy production and consumption by industry. This framework is important in facilitating the operations of the government’s efforts to reduce the deleterious effects of climate change, and these effects are not in dispute. There is discussion around the quantum in some areas but not around the fact that climate change is a fact. Climate change is global warming, but it is a result of human activity. I know there are some on the opposite side of the chamber who try to dispute that climate change is a reality, because we do have climate change deniers in this place, but the evidence supports the other view: that it is a fact and we have to deal with it.

I also wish to emphasise this point because, wherever the emissions come from, it is really human activity, and that is what we have to deal with. We have to take action to respond to and deal with it. My point is that humans cause it as the primary base and we humans in government and the community are responsible for changing it. The government does that by leadership. That is what it has done and what it is doing, despite what I would say is the reckless political posturing of the Liberal and National parties. I know that in the National Party—the whole nine of them in this place—there is absolute climate change denial, and even—

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don’t get stuck into us!

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The whole nine! It is really astonishing to see—it is amazing—because even in their electorates there are people who know that climate change is a reality and we have to deal with it. But the key issue is that, even with people running around in circles and without direction, we have to deal with it, and dealing with it we are. It also seems that there are a few in the other place, the Senate, who have those views as well, and it is interesting to hear that played out. It is also interesting to hear the amount of airplay they get for such a minority view.

I will go back a step. The framework of the 2007 act which this is amending is not capable, in its current form, of providing the regulatory mechanisms required to make advances in domestic and international reporting obligations, and those reporting obligations are significant obligations that we have to be very mindful of given that we are now a party to Kyoto, having ratified that. They also give life to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, providing a cohesive central repository for the data, which will serve the community and government in a coalesced but also discrete way as it helps us achieve our primary goal, which is about reducing carbon emissions. The amending bill will make the principal act stronger and it will support the government’s policy with the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the emissions trading scheme, ensuring that the economy is wide and accountable for greenhouse gas emissions, production and energy use, because that is what we have to have being reported.

Because we are dealing with companies and businesses as well, some of them understandably with commercially sensitive information, the amending bill provides the balance between public disclosure of audit outcomes—that which is for the public good—and protection of commercial-in-confidence information. I do not support any regime that hides behind commercial-in-confidence, because sometimes it can be convenient for that to happen—in fact, it annoys me—but this bill actually gives the right balance in that area. But we always have to err on the side of public interest disclosure when we are dealing with these matters. It is a feature of this amending bill that it imposes no burdens on industry beyond those originally intended.

I will turn now to the functions of the amending bill. The functions of the act will be enhanced by the amending bill through strengthening of the audit framework. It replaces ‘external auditor’ with ‘registered greenhouse and energy auditor’ to remove any confusion relating to the status and role of auditors under the act. Importantly, such audit team leaders will be required to register with the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer, and the AAT—the Administrative Appeals Tribunal—will be able to review decisions by the regulator to not register any auditor. That is an important function.

The stakeholder feedback was supportive of a regulatory process for auditors. It was a good public interest initiative. The legislative instrument may now outline different types of greenhouse and energy audits, thus facilitating scope to target audits to achieve the outcomes. The commercially sensitive information will be protected, and the legislation will also include an offence regarding the release of audit information beyond authorised purposes. Audit team members, as well, are now legally obliged to keep greenhouse and energy information and audit information obtained under the act confidential—I take it by extension, again, unless so authorised to release.

The regulator will be authorised—the way I read it, and I stand to be corrected—on a discretionary basis to publish certain audit results. I am not quite sure on what basis, and I ask the parliamentary secretary if he could address that issue in his speech in reply in the second reading debate. Currently, the regulator is obliged to publish information aggregated in such a way as to render it unusable and potentially misleading and therefore of no utility whatsoever, according to my deduction from what I have read and from some of the comments that the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change made in his second reading speech. The parliamentary secretary said that the amending bill will remove that current obligation, and that is a good thing.

I have some general comments. This forms part of the Rudd government’s response to climate change, and it is a matter that was committed to in the 2007 election campaign. The climate change policy had 10 key activities contained in it. There was not just one; it had 10 key activities. It covered a whole range of activities and actions that needed to be taken to address climate change, which are about reducing carbon emissions. The climate change policy was a comprehensive one. It also included the mandatory renewable energy targets.

I now wish to make some concluding remarks regarding the bill and its location in the overarching climate change framework policy. It is really surprising to be standing here after about 2½ years of debate, discussion and discourse, when this information, this policy and these ideas have been distilled in the public arena. In the lead-up to the 2007 election there were policies. In fact, I remember hearing the opposition say that they would commit to a climate change policy—that was said in the 2007 election campaign—and there was a cap-and-trade scheme, an emissions trading scheme, as well. It was a big issue in the election; it is still a big issue now in the Australian community. In my seat of Page, it is a big issue. In fact, in my area, there has been a whole lot of leadership in this area of climate change, of environmental advances while at the same time being sensitive to the industry base in my area, which is agriculture, horticulture, timber and also retail and a whole range of other areas. After 2½ years we have had green papers, white papers, the Garnaut report and all sorts of reports. There is nothing not known about this. There is nothing that is new. It is in the public domain.

We still have an opposition that cannot get its act together—it cannot get its leadership act together; that is the key issue—and that is not serving the national interest and basic electorate interests by agreeing to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation with the emissions trading scheme that is before the Senate. To have a policy—no, it is not a policy. To have somebody’s policy, not a policy of the opposition but a policy released yesterday that the Leader of the Opposition said was not a policy and about which he then said, ‘Look at it,’ seems to be more about, ‘Look at me; look at me—I’ve got something too,’ but after seven or eight delaying tactics over a long time.

Even though I am talking about this amending bill, which is about reporting, all of these things fit together like a glove. We need the whole package to ensure that we as a government and an opposition, as responsible parliamentarians, as members of parliament responsible to our electorates, introduce a scheme that will be of benefit to the Australian public. On my local ABC today I heard one of the National Party senators. Senator Nash was on the radio talking about how introducing such a scheme would be the end of the earth as we know it. What absolute nonsense. We only have to look at the Treasury modelling. We just have to look at the figures to do with employment and look at the Treasury modelling on the number of jobs that will be created in this industry: 26,000 green jobs alone. These are not make-believe jobs; some of them are happening now. I have seen newspaper coverage even today talking about the insulation industry and other industries. They are hiring more people. They are training more people. Job numbers are going up.

This is responsible policy. It is responsible environmental policy. It is responsible economic policy as well. No responsible government introduces an environmental policy, however much it is needed, without factoring in what that means to the Australian economy. It is absolutely essential that those two work together, and indeed they do. There are some people who would like to have higher targets. Wouldn’t we all? All of us want to make sure that we do reduce carbon emissions and that we reduce our environmental imprint, but we have to do it in a sustained and balanced way, and doing that is what it is about.

But I am astounded. There is not too much that astounds me in public life, in politics, but I am astounded by the obstructionism, the obfuscation and just the delaying tactics. Sad to say, it really is more about the member for Wentworth, the opposition leader. It appears to be more about his leadership—or his lack of leadership—or his failing leadership or whatever than it is about good public policy. In a sense, the Australian public is being held to ransom by really base political interests in this area.

This is an issue on which the Australian public have made it really clear that they expect us to act. The government is acting. We face challenges. There are future challenges. This amending bill, which in the whole context of climate change forms part of the package to address those issues, is about leadership, is about responsible action and is about positioning Australia to face up to and meet those future challenges that we have. With those concluding remarks, I commend this bill to the House.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009, a bill which makes minor amendments to the coalition’s act of 2007. The administrative amendments allow corporations to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if they disagree with Commonwealth determinations, through an audit framework which improves the administration and policy intentions of the act. The coalition does not oppose this legislation.

The original act was introduced to establish a national framework for reporting greenhouse gas emissions, various abatement actions as well as energy consumption and production by corporations. The aim was to minimise costs and red tape while providing criteria to calculate greenhouse gas emissions. When I consider corporations in my electorate of Forrest, the consultation and appeals processes are very important to companies such as Griffin Coal, a company that, for example, is currently experiencing major problems with determinations made by the Department of Climate Change and Water’s NGER scheme in relation to presumed emissions default determinations.

Currently, there is very limited capacity for any company to appeal any decision or determination made by the department—something Griffin has made several representations to me about. Griffin Coal owns and operates an open-cut, low-rank sub-bituminous black coal mine in the Collie Basin in my electorate, and is currently required to report under the NGER scheme and existing legislation. I note that Wesfarmers Premier Coal operates out of the same coal measures in the Collie Basin.

Noel Ashcroft from Griffin Coal wrote to the director of the National Inventory Section of the Emissions Reporting Branch:

I am writing to request Griffin be consulted during the determination review process that you are currently undertaking. In particular, we would like to discuss our disagreement with the current default emissions factor for fugitive emissions from Western Australian open cut mines prior to the finalisation of the new determination arrangements. Griffin is concerned that the department has set a default emissions factor for Western Australian fugitive emissions that is based on limited and possibly inappropriate information.

Mr Ashcroft enclosed a report to the director of the National Inventory Section of the department, commissioned from a leading energy and greenhouse reporting consultancy, which reviewed the default emission factors and the presumed basis on which they were established. The key findings of the report were that ‘The default emissions factor for WA open-cut mining was changed during the process of finalising the NGER determination and there was no opportunity for public comment on this change. The emissions factor that has been applied to WA is inconsistent with findings that indicate that Western Australian coal has a negligible emissions factor. There appears to have been an inconsistent approach undertaken in how to apply emission factors to different states.’

Potentially, one of the most relevant parts of the report in relation to the bill before the House was the statement that ‘There is little available information, nor is there clarity on the basis for the decision to change the emissions factor for WA open-cut mining.’ This is a practical example of the need for appropriate administrative appeals processes, specifically at the determination level in relation to existing and future departmental determinations, particularly as in Griffin’s case, when the department’s determination is based on an assumption not supported by independent sources of advice—advice such as that also provided by the Western Australian government Geological Survey and State Mining Engineer; advice that states quite simply that it is well known that Western Australian coal measures are of a different age and development from that on the east coast, and do not contain methane.

I understand also that this position was verified, supported and communicated in writing to the Department of Climate Change and Water by none other than the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum—the state authority. To further support this in an operational sense, the new highwall miner currently operating at Collie—a machine with an extendable mining arm capable of working up to 300 metres into coal seams from an open-cut pit wall—has a continuous methane measuring capacity. I am told that in the two months the highwall miner has been in operation no methane has been detected in the Collie coal measures, a further reason for Griffin to have a mechanism to appeal NGER determinations.

I am also told that Griffin Coal is not the only company needing a process to appeal Commonwealth determinations. Mines in western New South Wales and parts of Queensland have also been allocated default factors beyond their actual levels and need a determination process to appeal such decisions. An appeals process may also prevent companies from having to conduct extremely costly drilling and tier 3 sampling and measurement processes to substantiate their actual emissions. This drilling and sampling process could cost individual companies tens of millions of dollars.

The need for an accurate default emissions factor in the first instance has major commercial implications for companies like Griffin that have to report under NGER. The default process needs to be simple and accurate, and not made based on assumptions of methane emissions from other states. Clearly, given the problems faced by Griffin, an appeals process at this particular level is a necessity. As Mr Ashcroft stated in his letter to the department:

The situation that exists with the current WA fugitive emission default factor has, if not corrected, the potential to materially and unjustly impact on Griffin’s business. We would like the default emission factor that we use to report to be based on credible information and assumptions.

My most recent information is that the department is ‘looking’ at the information provided by Griffin, but will not change anything until next year. Given the connection between the NGER emissions determinations and the government’s proposed flawed CPRS, accurate assessment and appeals processes are absolutely critical. For practical purposes, this also strongly supports the coalition’s calls to separate the Renewable Energy Target legislation from the CPRS. The need to get it right is paramount. I understand from a recent article in the Age newspaper on 10 August that just over half of the industries required to report their emissions to the government under this legislation have actually registered prior to the 31 August deadline. They do still have time. Of the over 700 businesses required to register, only 400 have currently done so.

The coalition cannot support the seriously flawed CPRS legislation, which will lead to job losses for Australian workers without materially cutting our 1.4 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions. We cannot afford to lose jobs and investments throughout regional Australia, particularly given the unprecedented government debt and deficit. The 40 per cent increase in power bills will affect every Australian and has the potential to render key regional industries uncompetitive and unviable. And we are yet to be told what the complete regulations will be under the CPRS and what and where the additional costs will be. Take today, for instance. A simple question on the additional cost on a litre of milk could not be answered by the Prime Minister.

The CPRS will bring about major structural change in our economy—potentially the most major structural change in our history. Framing Australia’s legislative response has to be right, and clearly the legislation is not right. We have repeatedly been told that it is a friendless scheme, and I have had visits to my electoral office from a range of green groups who strongly oppose the government’s CPRS. Business and industry do not support it. The expectation was that, with such significant structural change, the government would engage in comprehensive legislative, policy and regulatory consideration, consultation and amendment.

As I have said, without materially reducing our carbon emissions, this government is legislating to export jobs, investment and emissions through the design flaws. It is a design which will seriously damage the globally competitive position of many industries, severely disadvantaging our export and import competing industries. It is an incredibly complex design, which is a flaw in itself, creating one of the greatest churning of funds ever designed by a government in our history. This makes it almost impossible for industry to understand and evaluate specific impacts on their individual operations, let alone consider the management of the reporting and churn process.

There is genuine business concern that this complexity in itself will add ongoing major costs to business and industry. Some of the flaws in the scheme are quite fundamental. For instance, coal electricity generators in my electorate will add a $4 billion tax on the industry over five years. And coal fired power generators in my electorate, under the CPRS legislation, have been completely assumed away; they do not exist. They are not part of the government’s modelling at all. The legislation is based on the national energy market, which operates a gross pool system which allows costs to be passed through in the way that electricity is sold.

WA, of course, is an energy island. The market is primarily a bilateral contract system with long-term contracts of typically 15 years, with only a minor percentage of the market traded. Unless several years ago, when negotiating their contract, an electricity generator in the south-west made provision for carbon costs, the generator will now have to pay this cost under the proposed scheme. I note that 90 per cent of the transitionary assistance will go to four brown coal generators in Victoria and South Australia, with only $24 million going to the WA government Verve Energy plants and there being no assistance at all for the private sector.

A further structural flaw is the treatment of fugitive emissions, the cost of which is set from the greenhouse legislation using a set of default emission levels for each state. As I have said, south-west coal has been allocated the highest default factor when, as I explained earlier, Collie coal does not produce measurable methane. One company has been to Canberra four times and has met with more than 40 members of parliament and key departments. In spite of this, nothing has changed in the legislation. Seriously flawed legislation is not the answer to climate change.

I have a major alumina refinery in my electorate which operates in the global market, where prices are set by international supply and demand. In the words of the Aluminium Council, our major concern with the proposed CPRS and renewable energy target is the magnitude of the cost being imposed on Australian producers that is not being imposed on competing suppliers from other countries. The total cost impact of the current scheme design is approximately $4 billion over the first 10 years. This is tens of millions of dollars per site imposed only on Australian producers.

Concept Economics modelling shows that 23,500 direct jobs will be lost in Australia’s minerals industry by 2020 and up to 6,000 jobs will be cut in regional Western Australia. Put simply, the families and communities in my electorate will pay not only for the Labor government’s debt and deficit but also for this flawed legislation. And we have not seen the detailed analysis and modelling of the costs, how it will it affect each industry and regional community and whether this is the most effective option for Australia to reduce emissions. We need to know what the cost of action or lack of action by competing countries is, and industry and business need a globally competitive level playing field.

The proposed US emissions legislation will provide 100 per cent protection for US export and import competing industries until 2025. Coming from the dairy industry, I well understand how difficult it is to compete in global markets without a level playing field. The industry competes at this moment with heavily subsidised competitors that have a direct economic advantage. The result has been an erosion of our traditional dairy markets by those subsidised competitors. There have been losses in numbers of dairy farmers, jobs, small businesses, investment and Australian-owned processes. It has come at a huge cost, both socially and economically, to communities right around the country.

Any assumption that, by making the concessions first, the rest of the trading world will do the same, as the Rudd government is doing with the CPRS, is wrong. Farmers and exporters continue to carry the cost. Instead we are now seeing an increase in and a return to those subsidies by the US and the European Union. The agricultural, horticultural and viticultural industries will, under this scheme, now also have to compete with imported products from countries that have the advantage of no flow-on costs of production from an ETS.

The Australian Farm Institute and ABARE indicate there will be between 6 to 20 per cent cost increases to our 150,000 business growers, and under this scheme farmers will have no opportunity to participate in carbon capture and storage but will face declines in production and income. The forestry industry has also been excluded from additional fuel cost compensation, and I ask: what future will the Australian agriculture and forestry industries and manufacturers have under the flawed Rudd government CPRS? It should be no surprise to Australian farmers that Treasury modelling has not even considered the impacts on agriculture.

No-one in my electorate should underestimate the very direct impacts the flawed CPRS will have on every industry, business and individual, including the mining and resources sector; manufacturing; all forms of agriculture; forestry; tourism; every small, medium and large business; as well as every home and family. For Australia to implement a flawed, complex, bureaucratic emissions trading scheme which fails to make a measurable impact on reducing global emissions—at the same time as costing Australian jobs, industrial output and investment—will damage the economy and increase the cost of living for Australians. Businesses and individuals in Australia need to be globally competitive and environmentally effective in their emissions mitigation decisions, and businesses need certainty that they will actually still be in business after the introduction of the government’s flawed emissions trading scheme legislation. I support this bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Brendan O’Connor) adjourned.