Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to participate in the debate on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009, particularly in the presence of the responsible minister, who might, if he bothers to take the time, listen to some of the arguments I will put forward on this issue. To begin with, this is a reporting process—in other words, it is a bureaucratic process to which many businesses will be subject. It will be costly to them, and it would be of some value if the end purpose of the process was to deliver emissions reductions in Australia. Considering those facts, I am anxious to speak today. There has been much debate in the last week or so regarding the misnomer of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It is quite easy to see why the government chose to rebadge their emissions trading scheme with that particular label, because they know that the emissions trading scheme is not a scheme to reduce emissions; it is a scheme to license people to pollute.

It is quite peculiar, as far I am concerned, to think that the Prime Minister recently wrote a 7,000-word attack on the evils of the marketplace and yet he stands up here day after day telling this parliament and, through this parliament, the Australian people that he has a scheme to reduce carbon emissions in Australia when in fact, when one looks at even the compensation scheme, one sees that it is a process by which people are paid to buy the certificates to pollute and to continue to pollute.

I will take as an example the electricity generators—with whom I am totally sympathetic. They, like another circumstance I will mention in a minute—using coal to produce fertiliser for Australian farmers and to produce cheaper food for the world—will be severely disadvantaged by this legislation. The generators are unable to raise the necessary finance to maintain their business and to roll over existing loans because the financial institutions to whom they would normally apply for this money or to retain this money have told them, ‘Mate, you’re not viable under an emissions trading scheme as proposed and, as such, we’re not going to lose our money when you go broke.’ And, of course, we have had reports already of major generators refusing to commit the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to maintain their generating capacity.

There is a question on the ETS, the emissions trading scheme—though I prefer to follow Terry McCrann, who referred to it as the ETTS, the emissions trading tax scheme, which is what it is—that needs to be answered by the government. We have not heard a word from the relevant and responsible ministers on this important question—and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, who is at the table, is paying no attention whatsoever at this stage of the game so he clearly does not believe that he has to answer. The question that needs to be answered by the government is this: is Australia going to reduce its emissions as a response to this scheme? The answer is no. There are certain reasons relevant to its capacity to do so—for instance, to continue to supply Australians with electrical energy.

A letter from the electricity generators was, I think, circulated to probably all members of parliament. As I say, I am totally sympathetic to their case. Included in that letter were the words: ‘Unless we can get more compensation, we fear we will be unable to pass on the full cost to us—the generators—of the emissions trading scheme.’ The government then says, ‘Oh, don’t you worry about that; we’re going to give poor and middle-income earners compensation for passing on that money.’ So that confirms it: the government admits that the electrical generators will pass on as much as they think they can get away with—if I can use those words—to the community and of course to industry. Industry does not get any help; the consumers do because they vote. What does that say? Does that say that emissions will therefore reduce? No, it does not; it says that generators will pay to go on emitting. How does that work? Where is the purpose?

The downside of a market response in this arena is simply that you can buy your way out of the problem. If you have got a captive market—like those working-class families we do not hear of much these days—you just put your price up. It is happening all the time. Take alcopops, for example. The government put up the price on alcopops. The response of this government to every problem is to put a tax on it. And what do we read in the paper now? We read that people have got over the price increase and they are going back to drinking them. Under an emissions trading scheme, people simply pay to pollute. But it goes one step further. In light of the fact—a fact also recognised by the government—that there will be little capacity for a reduction within the Australian industry groups, they will have to buy certificates. And the government says—and let me say that the process that was put to the coalition party room yesterday made the same admission—that you will have to buy certificates overseas.

The Chinese are too smart to have an emissions trading scheme. There would be some difficulty in their managed economy to have a market based outcome, one would presume, anyway. But are they doing that? No. There are some of us within the coalition who believe the solution to this problem is for the government to invest money in renewables and, I might add—and I wish to touch on this somewhat—the improvement of the generating sector, particularly in transmission, so that you get positive reduction in emissions within the borders of Australia. That is what the Chinese are doing.

We had a seminar which was attended by 10 different groups promoting the means by which they could reduce emissions in Australia—each recognising a cost and each recognising and complaining that the government has no policy for emerging technologies. All the government wants to do is have a RET that is going to promote wind power, which is recognised universally as having no purpose unless it can be backed up by a renewable like hydro or tides, simply because if you back it up with coal—considering the lack of responsiveness of that sort of generation—you burn the coal anyway. There is not one scrap of evidence around Australia that all those wind generators have actually reduced the consumption of coal. They are burning it. If you were to talk to a couple of middle managers at one of the Victorian power stations, they would tell you that they have to burn the coal because they cannot otherwise meet the drop-off in wind generation, which might be for seconds.

With other responsive mechanisms you can get away with that, but the fact of life is that the emissions trading scheme concept does not reduce emissions. It creates a process where you can pay to emit. But then it is suggested by the government and that wonderful Treasury modelling that you can save a lot of money by buying certificates offshore. One can only wonder what has happened with the politicisation of Treasury for the first time in my history in this place. The Chinese will have certificates for sale because their government is investing in high-voltage DC transmission lines, in massive hydro projects et cetera. China will get reductions in emissions and Australia is going to buy them.

That might not be too bad, because there might be some integrity in those certificates, judging by the presentations we got the other day showing just what is going to happen in China with high-voltage DC transmission—which just happens to halve the amount of line loss over long lines. It is an interesting fact. I made some inquiries. We have 25,000 kilometres of natural gas lines in Australia. The one that runs between the Pilbara and Perth produces just less than 700,000 tonnes of emissions a year in the process of pumping the gas from the Pilbara to Perth. What do we use the gas for when it gets to Perth? Thirty per cent of it goes into electrical generation. But if that generation had been established at the wellhead or, in the case of offshore, on the beach or as close as possible to the point of production, and if that energy had been transmitted to Perth by high-voltage DC lines, of which the Chinese are building about 10—one of them under construction now is 2,000 kilometres long—then that particular amount of emissions would be considerably reduced. I put a question to Minister Ferguson on this matter. He told me in a written answer that there are only about 800,000 tonnes of emissions associated with pumping this gas around Australia, but I have it on absolute authority that 700,000 tonnes are attributed to one pipeline. I do not know if that is misleading the parliament or not—I will seek further information—but it is a classic example of how investment in the right transmission system would reduce emissions. That is measurable.

We are apparently going to have a world trade in certificates. That will be under the Kyoto principle, because at the moment Australia is the only country that is coming up with an emissions trading scheme. They say they have one in Europe, and everybody knows that is a farce. But where are these certificates going to come from? Romania? Eastern Europe has a great capacity to do so because, when they broke up the Soviet Union, competition closed down all their rust bucket industries—and that was within the first 12-year period of Kyoto. And who is going to guarantee the integrity of these certificates? When I questioned a presenter on this new scheme yesterday, he said, ‘They’ll be very noticeable because the dodgy ones will be less valuable—will sell at a lower price—than the good ones.’ I had a leading businessman tell me that the best investment in the world at the moment is Indonesian forests because you can sell the certificates three or four times for the same bit of forest. Where is the integrity in that? Where is the guarantee that Australia’s emissions will be reduced? If the minister wants to put a bit of time into it maybe he would bet me a year’s salary that there will be significant reductions resulting from this scheme. It is a scheme to pollute. You pay to pollute. The generators are going to pay to pollute, but they tell us they cannot afford it.

We just had a briefing, from which I came immediately to this place, by a fellow who wants to spend about $3 billion in the area of Collie, a good Labor-voting area on the fringes of or just outside my electorate, to create hundreds and hundreds of full-time jobs making urea and, for the first time, on his advice to us, selling that urea to Australian farmers at the price that will be attributable to his exports. That will create a very significant drop in the price of urea fertiliser, make farmers more viable and continue to maintain Australia’s food security, but he has not got the money yet, because the banks are cautious of how he is going to be treated under the emissions trading scheme. Notwithstanding what I heard the minister say yesterday about the two-year process, the answers he needs are not available.

I note Bob Brown was on the radio this morning. It is quite an interesting thing: I am closer to Bob Brown on this issue than I am to some other people I know, because I have a genuine interest in reducing emissions. I know this scheme is not going to do it and so does Bob Brown. We get all this rhetoric about the national interest. The national interest is apparently going to be served by creating a new balance of payment problem when businesses are unable to purchase certificates within Australia. Of course, the government might accommodate them by selling a few more, because that is going to be a wonderful revenue stream for them, but the reality of the situation is that every certificate sold is a certificate to pollute. The market has the option. You either pay or you reduce. We have a party that criticises the market, saying, ‘That’ll drive everybody into investment in better and less-emitting technologies.’ All the emerging technologies with the best chances of doing anything are excluded; they are not going to get any assistance.

The alternative to that is to look at the priorities of government investment. Government built all the coal-fired power stations around Australia, practically. State governments flogged them off to get some money. Government have the responsibility to fix this problem. But government say, ‘We’re going to find $40 billion to improve the speed at which Australians can download movies.’ Very few people need the sorts of speeds that are necessary under the national broadband initiative. Tasmania is so excited about it that a big political push had to be cancelled because nobody was going to turn up. On a scale of one to 10, considering the rhetoric of this government, what is most important for Australia and the world? Is it the convenience of a faster broadband system, which the private sector is willing to provide on the normal terms of business, or investing significant amounts of money—not a few hundred million here and there for a bit of research—to reduce emissions? Most of the money is going into carbon capture and sequestration for the coal industry, which will not work and will be hugely expensive. The generators have made it clear that they are about to pay the 20 bucks, or whatever it might be, because they know they are not going to have the money and no-one is going to lend it to them to invest in changes. The fundamental of the ETS is, ‘We’ll take the money off you and if you have any left, you might invest in fixing the problem.’

The alternative is for government to invest the money and invest it where it will deliver emissions through energy efficiency. I do not mean little plug-in fluorescent lights; I mean the big-ticket items. High-voltage DC current transmission is accepted around the world as being the means by which you shift electricity with least loss in the lines. AC is extremely inefficient—you are burning up electricity, burning up coal and creating emissions, and creating excessive emissions by pumping gas around the countryside. They are things that government can fix and should fix, and you do not necessarily get the right response by taxing people. Australians have got a habit, as I said—and the alcopops example is one of them—of paying the money while they have it, and often by forgoing some other discretionary expenditure. The ETS will not reduce emissions in Australia. It will generate significant job losses, increase costs and, of course, increase the balance of payments as industry struggles to keep afloat by paying the Chinese and others, because they have worked out how better to manage this issue. (Time expired)

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a big week it is in Canberra this week and what a big week it is for the nation in relation to public policy debate. The environment certainly has become front and centre in relation to debate in Australia, and so it should be. Many of the distractions that have been going on over the winter break should be well and truly put behind us and we should move on and talk about the big issues. There is no doubt that this bill, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009, is part of that debate and that is why I am pleased to speak on it today.

In relation to what Australia is going to do in the future and what our policy direction is going to be in relation to climate change, we have seen a very significant document put on the table this week by the opposition in relation to our suggestions on how we might best manage that as a nation and how we might best protect jobs and the Australian people from higher taxes and loss of income. What has disappointed me about what happened this week, and the media today have been alluding to this, is that, unfortunately, the government does not have the will to consider other ideas. When you talk to the electorate, you find that the electorate believes that one party cannot be right on everything and one party wrong, and the reverse—that both the government and the opposition have good ideas and those ideas should be put together in a melting pot and mixed to get a better outcome for our country. I think the electorate actually yearns for that to happen, for the government to adopt the opposition’s good ideas and for the opposition to support the government’s good ideas. That is the best way for democracy to work.

In relation to what has been proposed by the opposition this week, you really have to ask: why won’t the government consider a plan that will save working families $280 a year on their electricity bills? Why will they not consider it? Why will they not consider a plan to save 68,000 jobs? Many of those jobs are in regional electorates like yours and mine, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. Why will they not consider that? Why will they not consider a plan that will save our economy $49 billion? That is an interesting question and it is something that the government have been trying to avoid answering, and I do not quite understand that. When our policy was released on Monday, the government ruled out the policy before even reading it. I think that is a bit cynical and I think the Australian public will not be happy to see that the government have adopted that position.

I am pleased to say that the original bill was a Howard government initiative to establish Australia’s first nationwide mandatory system for collecting high-quality greenhouse and energy data from industry. It has allowed for a more comprehensive and accurate picture than ever before of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and energy use, and that can only be a good thing. The 2007 act brought about a single national framework for the reporting and dissemination of information relating to greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gas projects, and energy consumption and production of corporations. It was designed to underpin the future introduction of an ETS, which we are now discussing; inform policy and the Australian public; meet international reporting obligations; avoid duplication in states and territories; and assist Commonwealth, state and territory programs and activities.

The 2007 legislation demonstrated how committed to climate change the coalition government was. We have a continuing debate in this country in which it is suggested that the opposition are climate change deniers. That is utter rubbish. On all sides of politics there will always be one or two who have a different view to that of mainstream Australia. I think it is clear that the opposition are very mindful of what we need to do, what the government needs to do and what Australia needs to do to protect the future of our kids, our jobs and our families. We have seen from the government a response that is out of touch with sound economic management, business interests and the environment, and I worry about that.

The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, introduced by the Howard government, demonstrated the coalition’s action on climate change. It was a vital link to the introduction of an emissions trading scheme in 2011. Our colleagues opposite would have the public believe that the coalition had no such commitment to the environment. How wrong they are. The bill before the parliament today seeks to better administer the 2007 act and will reflect its original intentions. Because of that, the opposition will support the bill. The coalition, in supporting the bill and the administrative changes it makes, observes that it is a significant bill that will allow a company to appeal to the AAT if it is in disagreement with a Commonwealth decision. That is standard practice across many portfolio areas and will give Australian businesses greater options for review.

I have noted the coalition’s serious concerns with the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme. Australian jobs and businesses must not be forced overseas as a result of a rushed scheme. Time and consideration are needed, and the coalition is determined to have a scheme that is in the best interests of all Australians. On Monday I communicated with my electorate and indicated this to them directly. Our new CPRS model will save jobs and industries in North Queensland. We came together in the party room meeting on Monday to back our leader and his alternative scheme, which proposes to double Australia’s carbon reduction target to 10 per cent by 2020 at a cost 40 per cent less than Labor’s model. The alternative is greener, with an unconditional 10 per cent reduction on 2000 levels; it is 40 per cent cheaper than the government’s scheme, saving Australia’s economy $49 billion; and it is smarter, because it protects regional Australia and creates more jobs. As of January this year, almost 9,000 jobs had been lost in the mining sector. That has certainly affected North Queensland. Green shoots are reappearing and Australia is on the way to recovery, as is the world, but we must not allow any further loss of jobs in the mining industry. It is so important to our economy, to our state and to our families.

The Frontier Economics report released on Monday reiterated the negative impact that the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will have on regional Australia. This should be evidence enough for the government to reconsider the design of its CPRS in order to protect workers in Australia’s export industries, and there is time to do that. There are now four credible studies available that have determined there will be significant job losses in regional Australia as a result of the CPRS.

In North Queensland we were very concerned about another element of the mining industry, which was the metals refinery area. The Yabulu nickel and cobalt refinery in Townsville, which was originally owned by BHP Billiton, was very much under threat of closure. In fact, it came within 12 hours of being closed completely, with a loss of 1,000 jobs at Yabulu and all the flow-on jobs that support Yabulu. It is now safe, thanks to Clive Palmer and his operation. We must do everything we can to make sure that that refinery stays safe, as we should with the zinc and copper refineries in Townsville.

The alternative model developed by Frontier Economics would involve lower electricity prices than Labor’s model and would save 69,000 regional jobs. The debate that we are having is about design and it is purely and simply about jobs. I would like to quote to the parliament a statement by Mitch Hooke, the CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia. He said: ‘The Frontier Economics report proposes a number of significant changes aimed at better aligning Australian efforts with those of our international competitors. The proposed changes, including better shielding for trade exposed firms and a phased approach to the auctioning of permits, will reduce the disadvantage that the CPRS would impose on Australia’s export sector. In doing so, these reforms would better align Australia’s scheme with those in place or being developed by other nations, including the European Union and the United States, and remove many of the negative employment impacts of the CPRS proposed today. The reforms will also remove the arbitrary and unjustified exclusion of the coal sector from being considered for assistance as a trade exposed sector. These changes will also address a central flaw of the proposed CPRS; namely, the preoccupation with raising revenue. In its first four years the CPRS as proposed will raise $30 billion from Australian businesses, and this represents $30 billion that will not be available to invest in clean energy technologies. This is a perverse way to promote the uptake of clean energy technology.’ Finally, he said: ‘The proposed CPRS is preoccupied with raising revenue rather than delivering a positive outcome for the environment. The CPRS debate must now shift to a genuine discussion on how Australia can continue the transition to a lower emissions economy where the job losses are minimised and environmental benefits are maximised.’

I draw the attention of the House to a concern with the bill we are discussing today. The definition ‘operational control’ is very uncertain. The government needs to clarify this definition and ensure that the mining industry can be given flexibility in its obligations under this act. In the white paper it was suggested that the term be given an operational control test. Such a test would not properly address the concerns about the ambiguity of the definition. I understand this issue is currently being considered by the department. This consideration should be undertaken urgently so as to ensure that any amendments to this section of the bill can be implemented. The coalition supports that the responsibility for calculating emissions be given to mine owners where there is no clear contractual statement to the contrary. This was the view of the Minerals Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Constructors Association. The coalition will support the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009. It is a continuation of a coalition government legislative initiative and the present bill clarifies and strengthens the audit framework of the original act. In closing, I would like to thank Keegan Sard for his help in compiling this contribution to the parliament and I indicate my support for the legislation.

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—Firstly, I present a correction to the explanatory memorandum to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009. I thank all of the members who have participated in the debate on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill, but before I go to the heart of the amendment bill I would like to address a few of the points raised by those opposite during the debate, including the most immediate previous speaker, the member for Herbert. These comments go to the issue of operational control for the mining sector and the reporting obligations that arise under this legislation. I welcome the indication that has been previously forthcoming from the member for Flinders that the opposition will support the amendment bill in the House and I do hope that this bipartisan support will carry forward into the Senate. The member for Flinders also indicated that the opposition will support the government’s tabled amendment in the House and in the Senate in relation to this issue, provided of course that it adequately addresses concerns raised by the mining industry about operational control. So I would like to address this issue briefly and explain how the amendment does address this question.

The additional government amendment that was tabled on 24 June responds directly to the industry feedback, including from the mining sector. The amendment will provide increased flexibility to industry, including the mining sector, in establishing reporting arrangements under the national greenhouse and energy reporting system from the first reporting year of 2008-09. The amendment introduces the reporting transfer certificate concept to allow the voluntary transfer of National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act reporting and record-keeping obligations from a controlling corporation where one member of its group has operational control of the facility to a member of a different corporate group that has financial control of that facility.

Aligning the reporting transfer certificate concept with the liability transfer certificate concept outlined in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill will also ensure that a high degree of continuity between current and future reporting requirements is achieved. The alternative amendment tabled by the opposition in the Senate to deem that a mine owner has operational control would not align with future arrangements under the CPRS and would not require the mutual agreement of the party taking on the reporting obligation. Such an amendment also would not only change the operation of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act but also amend the CPRS legislation, which relies on the definition of operational control in this act—the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act—to define entities that are liable for direct emissions from facilities.

The approach in the government’s amendment requires the consent of both parties to the transaction, such as the mine owner and the operator, and this will become increasingly important as taking on the reporting obligation will be a precursor to taking on the CPRS liability. In addition, and importantly, the government amendment is not industry specific to the mining sector. The bill provides other industry sectors with this increased flexibility, such as the commercial building sector. These provisions are voluntary and impose no additional burden on industry stakeholders beyond those originally intended by the act. They have been worked through methodically and are properly integrated with the rest of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting and CPRS legislation. So I hope that this explanation, and the accompanying detail in the supplementary explanatory memorandum that I will present in relation to the amendment, addresses any lingering doubts that the opposition have about the amendment addressing concerns from industry including the mining sector. I believe that they will.

The opposition has also argued that industry was given only a short time to consult on the legislation. This is a contention that we do not believe is accurate. This amendment bill is the result of comprehensive stakeholder consultation, including numerous discussion papers seeking stakeholder feedback, workshops and one-on-one discussions with key affected parties. As part of this consultation, the Department of Climate Change released a consultation paper and conducted workshops on the audit framework in October and November 2008. Three hundred audit professionals and reporting entities around Australia participated in those workshops. A consultation paper on amending energy production disclosure requirements under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act was also released for public comment over three weeks at the beginning of this year. Eight industry and stakeholder submissions were received on this consultation paper. An exposure draft of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009—the bill before the House—was released for public comment for a one-week period commencing 23 February 2009 and no less than 22 formal submissions were received, 16 from industry and six from members of the public. In addition to this extensive stakeholder consultation, held over more than eight months, stakeholders will also be consulted on exposure drafts of audit regulations and the audit legislative instrument.

I would now like to make some comments on the amendment bill itself. The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2009 makes amendments to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 commenced on 29 September 2007, establishing a framework for mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, energy production and energy consumption by industry. This reporting framework is an important part of the government’s strategy to combat climate change in an economically responsible way. The act underpins the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, assists the government to meet Australia’s international reporting obligations and facilitates the reduction of duplicative industry reporting requirements under existing state, territory and Commonwealth programs. Under the act, corporations which exceed certain thresholds are required to register and report greenhouse gas emissions and energy data. The first reporting period under the act is the current financial year, 2008-09. The bill demonstrates the government’s continued commitment to an efficient and effective national greenhouse and energy reporting system, including a robust audit framework.

These amendments also support the establishment of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, with a staged approach to ensure a smooth transition for business and other affected parties. The bill reflects extensive stakeholder consultation on the audit framework to be established under the act and around reporting arrangements in the lead-up to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The bill also requires individuals who conduct greenhouse and energy audits under the act to register with the regulator, the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer, to ensure the quality of the auditing process. Stakeholders support a registration process for auditors, and through these amendments the government is developing the necessary framework for a robust auditor registration system.

This bill also allows the minister to determine by legislative instrument the requirements for the preparation, conduct and reporting of audits. This will ensure greater levels of consistency in the conduct of audits and reports provided by auditors. The amendments also clarify that the legislative instrument may outline different types of greenhouse and energy audits. This will provide the regulator with flexibility to target audits towards specific outcomes. Other amendments protect commercially sensitive information. The government recognises that reporting entities need confidence that commercially sensitive data will be protected.

Accountability is an important component of a world-class reporting system. The bill allows for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of any decision by the regulator to refuse to register an auditor. This ensures that statutory decision making is transparent and defensible. The regulations will take these review rights further by ensuring all decisions by the regulator that affect registered auditors are reviewable.

The amendments also give the regulator the power to publish certain audit results. Currently the regulator has no power to disclose information on the outcomes of audits to the public. This is in response to stakeholder feedback that audit outcomes are a key indicator of the reliability of a corporation’s published greenhouse and energy information. The bill also removes the obligation for the regulator to publish energy production information that is aggregated in such a way as to be unusable and potentially misleading. The proposed amendments will address potential confusion between economy-wide energy production statistics, such as those produced by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, and corporate-level energy production levels. Importantly, this will not affect the reporting obligations of corporations registered for reporting under the act. Neither will it affect the publication of corporate-level emissions and energy consumption data. Collection of energy production data will remain a key component of the act to inform government on energy flows across the Australian economy and to underpin energy statistics publications.

This bill is the result of continued comprehensive stakeholder consultation on the act and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The government has struck a balance between disclosing useful information to the public, by including provisions for disclosure of audit outcomes, and protecting commercially sensitive information. The amendments will make the audit framework for the act and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme far more robust to support this government’s commitment to economy-wide accountability on greenhouse gas emissions, energy production and energy consumption. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.