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

It gives me great pleasure to give bipartisan support, on behalf of the federal opposition, to the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Amendment Bill 2010. This bill fits in the context of bipartisan action on matters relating to our global atmosphere. There will be many areas of bipartisanship and some of disagreement. This falls squarely within the area of action which is jointly agreed upon to address a problem which is jointly agreed upon using a mechanism which is jointly agreed upon and which has a long bipartisan history.

I want to begin briefly with the background and history of the bill. Secondly, I will deal with the amendments and, thirdly, with the steps forward. When we look at the background, what we see is a successful example of the international community working, over a period of many years, in the relationship between science and policymakers. There was an identification of the risk posed by the release of ozone-depleting gases: the hole in the ozone layer, the potential for it to further expand, the impact on human life and the impact on human agriculture. These were real and profound and were identified early. They led over time to the creation of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. That protocol has been in many ways a model for cooperative and effective international action. The protocol has a history which includes Australian support on both sides of politics.

Let us identify the source problem. The source problem is largely related to the refrigeration and cooling industries, although it is broader than that, examples being refrigeration and air conditioning; fire protection; foam blowers; solvent manufacture; fumigation; and aerosol. All of these sorts of human activities relied upon gases which subsequently proved to have been ozone depleting in many cases. There was a recognition that this was a contribution to a global problem. It passed through the classic case and circumstance of the tragedy of the commons, and there was a recognition of a need to respond. That in turn led to the creation of the Montreal protocol and to the creation in Australia of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989.

This bill was supported on both sides. It represented an effective step forward. It prohibited, in large part, the import, export and manufacture of chlorofluorocarbons and related products—ozone-depleting gases—without an essential uses or used substance licence. It also set in place a restrictive regime and a licensing regime for general ozone-depleting gases. The coalition’s subsequent role in government was to ensure that there was a review of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act by Environment Australia and then, beyond that, that there were amendments in 2003 which dealt with and advanced the causes—in particular where there were synthetic greenhouse gases that were used as a replacement. Those different elements of the history show bipartisan cooperation in this space.

Now we come to this particular bill. It is fairly simple in what it seeks to do. It seeks to ensure that the protective regime is enhanced and expanded but that the compliance measures include civil rather than just criminal penalties. So the strict liability regime and the nature of the penalties is being adapted so as to recognise that there can be inadvertence and that a ‘one size fits all’ penalty may not be appropriate in this space. That is the direction and the nature of what we are doing here. It ensures that we are working towards management of our ozone-depleting gases. In that context, what it shows—and here I go to the future—is what the work that I did in my own thesis in 1990, just after this bill was passed, showed: that there are a number of different ways in which an effective regime for addressing a global environmental issue can be implemented. It can be effective through regulation, of which this bill is a prime example. It can be effective if the right economic modelling tool is used. It can be effective through education.

Economic modelling tools can take two completely different formats. They can take the form of a production tax on all of the elements which have been eliminated. In the case of the North American sulphur dioxide markets this was quite effective because there was a ready replacement. That was a very effective means of addressing the acid rain problem in the north-east.

Or the tools can be ineffective if there is no ready replacement. They will simply drive up prices on inelastic goods if demand remains constant or close to constant and no ready substitute is available. In that situation you can use abatement purchasing or buybacks such as that which is proposed by the government in the water market. The government’s intention in the water market is to buy back on a lowest-cost tendered approach.

Our approach to greenhouse gas management between now and 2020 is to operate a carbon buyback, which we have shorthanded as ‘direct action’. But that again is an economic instrument based on lowest-cost abatement tendering. In short, we will find the cheapest greenhouse emissions reductions in Australia and then we will acquire them rather than raising an inelastic good’s price dramatically, as we have seen with the 60 per cent price rise for electricity in New South Wales that has had almost no impact on consumption. Demand management through massive price increases on an inelastic good is classically not considered to be an effective mechanism. Abatement purchasing is, however, a very effective mechanism.

This bill is an example of an effective regulatory bill. The sulphur dioxide markets in North America are examples of an effective emissions trading scheme. It is about having the right tool for the right problem. That is where this bill fits in and that is where our approach on greenhouse gas management fits in through trying to choose the right tool for that problem.

I am delighted to offer bipartisan support for this bill on behalf of the opposition. We will take a constructive approach but we will not be co-opted into having to agree with everything. Overwhelmingly, we seek to find common ground where possible. I thank the government and in particular the advisers from the department for their good work. It is a good bill. It is an important action that seeks to improve our capacity to limit ozone-depleting gases.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to give my strong support to the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Amendment Bill 2010. I particularly welcome the support of the opposition on this bill and thank the member for Flinders for his contribution. Some people in the opposition might be a little bit haphazard and divided when it comes to meaningful action on climate change but on this bill and certainly on some other initiatives, such as renewable energy measures, the opposition have been willing partners. I again commend the member for Flinders especially for this approach.

In recent years Australia has made significant progress in phasing out and managing those substances that contribute to the depletion of the very important ozone layer. The Sydney Morning Herald reported this week that the hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic is the smallest it has been in a decade. But wait, it is unfortunately still 24 million square kilometres. The good news is that the ozone layer is slowly repairing itself; the bad news is that it is still a significant size and a problem.

It goes to show, once again, that people do have an impact on our globe. Before we knew that they did any damage to the ozone layer, chlorofluorocarbons were used extensively in refrigerants, aerosol propellants and solvents. It turned out that CFCs move around the globe, eventually rising to the stratosphere and at about 12 kilometres above the earth they are broken down by sunlight. They release chlorine, which reacts with and destroys stratospheric ozone. Scientists believe that one chlorine atom can destroy more than 100,000 ozone molecules. When the scientists showed us the evidence that CFCs were ripping the ozone layer apart, thankfully the world responded, and quickly. It was one of the finest hours for the scientists, the politicians and everyone else. It is a real example of global collaboration.

Australia banned the importation and the manufacture of CFCs from 31 December 1995 for all but essential uses. The evidence shows us that it worked. As I said, the hole in the ozone layer is getting slowly smaller, as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald this week. It goes to show that when the world acts together we can dramatically affect the climate for better and for worse. Andrew Darby put it well in the Sydney Morning Herald article when he wrote:

There are few better scientific examples of this in contemporary times than the clever detective work that found ozone depletion, established its environmental costs, fingered the culprits, and got rid of them.

If only we could use this example as our inspiration to respond to other climate challenges such as carbon pollution, for example.

Australia is a signatory to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Maybe we should move the Copenhagen discussions to Montreal; it might be a more agreeable city in which to reach a global agreement. Nevertheless, these international agreements are implemented through the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989—an act which after 20 years is difficult to enforce and out of date but, in its time, helped to achieve a culture change here in Australia regarding CFCs.

This bill amends the act to ensure better compliance and more appropriate enforcement provisions. The bill introduces a civil penalty and infringement notice scheme which mirrors the current criminal offences. Under the current system, licensees and permit holders must meet a number of conditions prescribed under the act. As it stands, the only penalty that exists for failing these conditions is the suspension or cancellation of a permit and a criminal conviction. As an alternative, the bill introduces an infringement notice scheme for some offences. This is a far more appropriate course of action for these offences, which are mostly relatively minor. Also under this bill inspectors will be better qualified and face tougher conduct requirements. Their powers will also be expanded to allow inspectors to assess onsite if a breach has occurred.

I also welcome the new provisions in the act setting out the rights of private individuals relating to the collection, handling and return of evidence. The bill also clarifies the purpose of the Ozone Protection and SGG Account, which was established under the act to support the development of evidence based policy research. The bill also extends the ban on air conditioning equipment containing hydrochlorofluorocarbons to be extended to the import and manufacture of hydrochlorofluorocarbon refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. This supports our commitment and our legally binding international obligation to phase out hydrochlorofluorocarbons.

This bill does allow for exceptions where a ban would currently be impractical. When governments engage the community about banning risky and dangerous substances from use there is often an outcry from industry that the world as we know it is over, that the sky is falling, so to speak—the Henny Penny phenomenon, I call it. In my experience this actually undersells industry’s ability in this country to find new and innovative solutions. Take for example the recent announcement by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to ban endosulfan, a chemical used widely by tropical fruit and vegetable growers, nut farmers and cotton farmers, particularly in Queensland. Industry had warned for some time that they could not do without the chemical, but when the APVMA finally banned it industry was quite accepting of the ruling and more than capable of moving on with safer, equally effective chemicals. Sixty other countries, including the European Union and New Zealand, had already banned endosulfan because of the neurological and reproductive risk to farm workers and wildlife. I note, in the case of this bill, that industry have been thoroughly consulted about the changes and they are particularly supportive of the provision for civil penalties and the restrictions on the import and manufacture of HCFC air conditioning equipment.

Once again, it gives me some hope that when this House again turns to the broader issue of climate change we—and I mean all of us; both sides of the House—will not shirk our responsibility a second time. I hope we will look at the evidence presented before us by the scientists and that we will act. I commend the bill to the House.

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Compliments to the members for Moreton and Flinders for speaking on the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Amendment Bill 2010. This is a very good piece of legislation. The bill makes four general amendments to the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989. Firstly, the bill introduces a civil penalties regime and provides for the establishment of an infringement notice scheme. The introduction of a civil penalties and infringement notice regime will provide greater flexibility in providing appropriate enforcement. Currently the act contains criminal offences or suspension or cancellation of licences for breaches. Holders of various permits and licences are required to meet certain conditions, and a breach of condition can only result in a suspension or cancellation of the licence. This can be an overly harsh and inappropriate outcome, depending on the circumstances.

Secondly, the bill clarifies the powers of inspectors, particularly in relation to the collection and testing of ozone-depleting substances and synthetic greenhouse gases and search of electronic data storage. It also provides for inspectors to be assisted in exercising their powers. This can be particularly important where tactical specialists are required. Thirdly, the bill improves the procedures for dealing with evidential material, including the seizure, retention, return or forfeiture of that material, and providing for enhanced testing arrangements. Fourthly, it clarifies the purposes of the ozone account, which is a special account established by the act to support the development of evidence based policy by allowing research to be funded from the account.

The Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989 enacts Australia’s international obligations under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Montreal protocol sets out each country’s obligations to phase out the use of ozone-depleting substances. It is predicted that if all countries continue to meet their obligations under the Montreal protocol the ozone layer will recover to pre-1980 levels by around the middle of the century in the mid-latitudes and in the period 2060 to 2075 over the Antarctic.

Ozone is actually one of the more noxious pollutants of the troposphere, the lowest 12 kilometres or so of the atmosphere. It is also a potent greenhouse gas. However, the fact that most of it lies in the stratosphere, which has the highest concentrations, 20 and 35 kilometres above the ground, gives it beneficial effects. The ozone layer absorbs about 97 to 99 per cent of the sun’s high-frequency UV light, light which is potentially damaging to life on earth. And it is thought that every one per cent decrease in the earth’s ozone layer is projected to increase the amount of UV light exposure to the lower atmosphere by two per cent. Over the earth’s surface the ozone layer’s average thickness is about three millimetres.

In the stratosphere, formation of ozone, O3, is initiated by the action of UV light on oxygen molecules, O2, which then split into highly reactive oxygen atoms or O. Once released, an oxygen atom can combine with an inactive oxygen molecule to make ozone. Ozone itself goes through a cycle of reactions. It also absorbs UV, breaking it into constituent parts only to form again. After many trips around this cycle, the end comes when an ozone molecule encounters a free oxygen atom and is converted back into ordinary oxygen. Ozone is catalysed by a series of highly reactive elements and molecules known as free radicals. They speed up the destruction of ozone and constantly re-emerge to trigger another round of reactions. This is why trace constituents such as chlorine atoms can have such marked effects on ozone levels. As the member who spoke previously said, it is estimated that one chlorine atom can destroy up to 100,000 ozone molecules.

The catalysts in the stratosphere come from the breakdown of gases which percolate up from the lower atmosphere. For example, chlorine methane, given off by rotting plants and burning vegetation, is a natural source of stratospheric chlorine. However, this supply has been dwarfed by synthetic compounds such as chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs. Ironically, certain greenhouse gases such as methane or carbon dioxide mitigate the damage caused by CFCs. By trapping heat in the lower atmosphere, the stratosphere is cooled, slowing the rate of ozone destruction.

The destruction of the ozone layer became of particular relevance to Australia when the ‘ozone hole’ was detected above Antarctica in 1985. The ozone hole is not actually a hole but a region of exceptionally depleted ozone in the stratosphere over the Antarctic that happens at the beginning of the Southern Hemisphere spring. The hole was observed as being at its largest on 24 September 2006 when it was 29.5 million square kilometres. The maximum ozone hole area for 2009 was 24 million square kilometres on 17 September. So why did the hole form here? Destructive free radicals such as the chlorine atom can become locked up in a more stable reservoir of molecules such as hydrogen chloride. They are then unavailable for reactions that destroy ozone. But if something releases the chlorine into its active form again, then it can set about destroying ozone. This is thought to be the reason behind the special chemistry of the ozone hole over Antarctica.

Due in part to Antarctica’s land mass, winter around the South Pole is especially cold. The sun disappears for six months, and the rapid cooling that results sets up strong westerly winds that swirl around the pole up in the stratosphere. The stable polar vortex isolates the air within it and leads to some odd chemistry. The air becomes cold enough—around 80 degrees centigrade below freezing—for icy particles to form, known collectively as polar stratospheric clouds. Reactions on the surfaces of these icy particles convert stable chlorine reservoir molecules such as hydrogen chloride into compounds that rapidly are broken up by sunlight. When the sunlight returns in the spring there is a burst of active chlorine radicals, hence the presence of the Antarctic ozone hole every spring.

It is also now thought that the hole is responsible for the reduced uptake of CO2 by the Southern Ocean. In most ocean regions the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels has led to an increase in CO2 absorption; not in the Southern Ocean, however, where carbon absorption has flattened out. Although the Southern Ocean is a major carbon sink, taking up around 15 per cent per cent of CO2 emissions, it is thought that between 1987 and 2004 the uptake was reduced by up to nearly 2½ billion tonnes. This is equivalent to the amount of carbon that all the world’s oceans absorb in a year. The reason for this is wind.

The decreasing stratospheric ozone and rising greenhouse gases are altering the radiation balance of the earth’s atmosphere. This in turn alters and strengthens the westerly winds that blow over the Southern Ocean. The stronger surface winds are enhancing the circulation of the ocean, raising carbon-rich waters from the deep to the surface. This then reduces the capability of the surface water to absorb atmospheric carbon. Also, perhaps more troubling is the higher carbon levels in the shallow waters, as this make these waters more acidic due to the formation of carbonic acid, and it is in these shallow waters where most organisms that require calcium carbonate for shells dwell. The chain of causation in earth’s ecosystem is very complex. It is unlikely that anyone predicted that increasing our emissions of CFCs would have affected our uptake of carbon dioxide by our Southern Ocean.

Our legislation which regulates our actions that may cause harm or adverse disruption to our ecosystems must be amended over time to ensure that they remain effective. In 2003 the coalition amended the act to include synthetic greenhouse gases that had started to be used as alternatives with the phasing-out of the ozone-depleting substances during the 1990s. Whilst ozone benign, some of the alternatives brought in were potent greenhouse gases, such as the hydrofluorocarbons and the perfluorocarbons. As this bill improves the effectiveness of the act, I commend it to the House.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is a clear demonstration that the international community can address global environmental challenges through multilateral action. Actions taken by developed and developing countries through the Montreal protocol since it was agreed in 1987 have seen more than 95 per cent of ozone-depleting substances phased out. Scientific observations show that concentrations of chlorine and bromine in the atmosphere are now reducing. Scientists predict that the ozone layer will recover by around the middle of this century in the mid latitudes and by around 2070 over the Antarctic if all countries continue to meet their obligations under the Montreal protocol.

Australia has been a strong advocate of action to address ozone depletion since Montreal protocol negotiations began in the 1980s. In current circumstances it is worth observing that the Montreal protocol is a great example of how coordinated global action can be used to combat a diffuse global threat to the environment, when we contemplate the type of global action that is now required in relation to dangerous climate change. Australia has met or exceeded all of our obligations under the Montreal protocol.

This bill, theOzone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Amendment Bill 2010, will facilitate Australia’s final phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons. The Australian government and industry agreed to an accelerated phase-out of HCFCs in the early 1990s which will see Australia phase out 99.5 per cent of HCFCs by 2016. The provision for restrictions on refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment containing HCFCs will reduce demand for HCFCs in the servicing sector as we head towards our final phase-out. This will also benefit consumers by preventing outdated technology from entering the market. This approach builds on Australia’s successful program to phase out chlorofluorocarbons in the 1990s.

The bill will bring our compliance regime into the 21st century. It clearly sets out the role of Commonwealth officials and the rights of people, businesses and property that are covered by the act. The civil penalty provisions offer an alternative to the existing severe and inflexible criminal offence provisions. They will provide effective compliance options without threatening the livelihood of minor offenders. The bill will build on the substantial efforts made to minimise preventable emissions of synthetic greenhouse gases. The enhanced compliance regime will further improve standards in the refrigeration, air-conditioning and fire protection industries and lead to lower emissions. I thank the members for Flinders, Moreton and Moore for the contributions that they have made to this debate. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.