Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a great pleasure to speak on this product emissions standards legislation. In doing so, I also do so on behalf of Labor's shadow environment spokesperson, the member for Watson. I can indicate that the opposition supports the second reading of this legislation and the legislation more broadly, though I also foreshadow that I will be moving a second reading amendment to deal with the otherwise complete absence of energy and emissions reduction policy from this government.

But, before moving to that, if I can be supportive of the government's actions here and make some remarks about the Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017 particularly, but also the related legislation that we're dealing with concurrently. This bill is directed at allowing the minister to prescribe national emissions standards for what are described as 'emissions-controlled products', which, particularly for laypersons like you and me, Acting Deputy Speaker, are small petrol engines, like lawnmowers, leaf blowers, generators and outboards. This flows from the decision by the Commonwealth and states and territories, through the National Clean Air Agreement, to adopt these standards through Commonwealth legislation. That was an agreement reached in December 2015 by the different levels of government. It's important to point out that these standards have the support of industry, are going to be introduced in a way that does not impact current stock or inventories and also, because of some strategic phase-in periods over the next couple of years, are not expected to cause consumer backlash. Also, given that Australia does not manufacture the products that are captured by these regulations, the so-called emissions-controlled products, manufacturing jobs in Australia will not be impacted one way or the other by these standards being introduced.

It's important to say that similar standards covering these products are already in place in some 26 of the 35 OECD countries, including the US, Japan, the UK and Europe, and, notably, they exist also in China. The absence of those standards in Australia, until this legislation was presented to the parliament, has resulted in Australia, according to the government, becoming a dumping ground for high-polluting product that is being manufactured overseas. In some remarks I make in relation to the second reading amendment I propose to move I'll talk about the way in which that is also happening in the vehicle sector—the light passenger vehicle sector—as well, as a result of Australia's lack of mandatory emissions standards there.

The proposed standards will be equivalent to current standards operating in the United States. As I will outline in relation to vehicle emissions standards, or light passenger vehicle emissions standards, a debate has happened about whether we should try to match our standards to markets like the European Union or the UK, and a decision has been taken by government, which we support, that it is appropriate to match our standards to those of the United States. That is certainly a position supported by industry. It will allow the most seamless introduction of these standards, given the significant place that the United States and its companies play in this market.

The first products that will be prescribed under this legislation are expected to be what are called non-road spark ignition engines and equipment, NRSIEE, which are essentially lawnmowers and leaf blowers, which are very substantial features of most of our electorates and suburban Australia generally and very popular products among Australian households, but these products contribute as much as 10 per cent of the air pollutants in Australia's urban environment. So a reduction in pollution output by these very popular products in Australian households will be a substantial contribution to pollution reduction in Australia.

As I indicated, the government is able to advise that these standards are supported by major industry stakeholders in this market, including the Outdoor Power Equipment Association, which imports about half of the 1.8 million small petrol engines into Australia each year that are sold in the Australian market. We understand, or are advised by government, that the outboard motor industry, which imports around 45,000 engines each year, is also supportive of the standards. As I foreshadowed, phase-in periods were announced in December 2016 to ensure that the industry—wholesalers and retailers—would have proper notice of this and be able to run down their inventories and stocks so the standards would be introduced seamlessly on the basis that no imports of non-compliant products would be possible after July next year, July 2018, and there would be no sale of non-compliant products permitted after July 2019. I can indicate that the government supports that phase-in approach.

In relation to this bill but also in light of some comments I'll make in relation to other sectors of the economy, particularly light passenger vehicles, it's important to point out that there will, we're advised by government, be a modest up-front cost involved in the transition to these more efficient, low-polluting versions of popular lawnmowers and leaf blowers and such like in Australia. But the through-life cost of these things, because of better fuel efficiency, will compensate for that up-front cost. As we understand, it will more than compensate for the up-front cost, even over and above the health impacts, the health benefits, that will flow from making a substantial dent in the air pollution footprint from this sector of the engines market, particularly lawnmowers, leaf blowers, outboard motors and such like.

So I can indicate that the opposition will support this bill. But the relatively modest impact of this bill on our overall carbon pollution footprint, in particular, just reminds this parliament and the community what a gaping vacuum this government has left in climate and energy policy, particularly in emissions reduction policy. This is a positive piece of legislation, and we support it. But let's be clear: it is a modest piece of legislation. It is a small oasis in a vast desert of disappointment that this government has presided over during the last four years.

There is no more obvious contrast than between this legislation on leaf blowers and lawnmowers on the one hand and then this government's manifest inability to deliver anything around emissions standards on the light passenger vehicle fleet. Australians produce, on average, about four tonnes of carbon pollution per year per person through transport. That is more than the average Mexican person produces through every bit of activity that either they undertake directly or is undertaken on behalf of them indirectly, such as energy production and such like. Our transport emissions are a very substantial part of our overall national footprint. And they are growing very fast. They're growing very fast because we have strong population growth in this country. They had been growing very fast because of the mining and construction boom. This is a very substantial part of Australia's overall national challenge of driving down our carbon pollution levels. This government has done absolutely nothing to deal with the emissions footprint from our transport sector.

It's well known—and the government admits this—that now 80 per cent of the global light vehicles market is covered by mandatory emissions standards. You will now buy versions of the global platforms—made by the big global car companies like Toyota, General Motors, Ford and such like—in Australian car showrooms that you are not legally able to sell in the United States, Canada, the UK, Europe and many other countries besides. It is so far beyond time that this country dealt with the challenge of mandatory emissions standards that it simply isn't funny.

In June 2014—well over three years ago now—this government, under a different Prime Minister, of course, received the clearest possible blueprint for introducing mandatory emissions standards for light passenger vehicles. There was a thorough inquiry process undertaken by the Climate Change Authority that, essentially, dealt with two competing propositions. The first was that Australia should reflect the mandatory emissions standards framework adopted in Europe. The second—and, ultimately, the preferred option—was that we should reflect the American mandatory emission standards. These were standards that were developed after a very fierce political fight in California and then replicated nationally through President Obama's administration. They are standards that are in the process of being introduced as we speak and that have been assumed to be the operating framework for one of the most important countries in the global vehicles industry: the United States.

The reason why the Climate Change Authority decided upon the American model rather than the more stringent European model was an assessment they made, which Labor shares, that the Australian light passenger fleet is far more comparable to the American light passenger fleet than it is to the European version. They recommended in June 2014 that there be a substantial phase-in period. The recommendation made in 2014 was that these standards commence to be introduced in 2018 and be phased in over seven years, so up to the middle of the next decade into 2025.

The Climate Change Authority also made an assessment that, although there would be a modest up-front increase in the cost of an average vehicle in Australia, there would be a very substantial through-life saving. The overall saving for an average vehicle in Australia, if these standards were introduced, would be in the order of $7,000 per vehicle, netting out the up-front cost of about $1,500 added to the price tag of the average vehicle, against an $8,500 fuel bill saving to Australian motorists. That is a very substantial saving to Australian motorists over the course of the average vehicle's life in Australia. Importantly, also, though, there would be on average a 45 per cent reduction in the carbon dioxide pollution level per kilometre travelled of an average vehicle. That is a very substantial cut in carbon pollution levels from the fastest-growing polluting sector of the economy—namely, the transport sector.

So this was a very clear blueprint after a thorough process with a draft report released to the community and the industry, finally resulting in a clear recommendation in June 2014—more than three years ago now—for Australia to replicate the American standards. And there was deafening silence—perhaps not surprisingly—from the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah. It is hard to think of more low-hanging fruit in the nation's challenge to reduce our carbon footprint than introducing mandatory vehicle emission standards that operate in 80 per cent of the world's car market already. Nothing was heard from this government for nigh on 2½ years, until the end of 2016, the week before Christmas, when the government appeared to have been spooked into releasing yet another discussion paper by persistent media inquiries about whether this report was ever going to be responded to. It was another discussion paper about whether Australia should introduce vehicle emission standards that are now completely de rigueur in the vast bulk of countries around the world. It was another discussion paper where the government, in December 2016, promised a decision would be made by the middle of 2017.

When the Prime Minister came to give his beginning-of-the-year National Press Club address in January, there was fevered speculation in the media—encouraged by unnamed comments from government sources—that the Prime Minister would be making a big announcement about vehicle emission standards. It would be part of his introduction—the turning of a new leaf for a new year—that he would actually be making a decision on vehicle emission standards. But when it came to the address: nothing. There was deafening silence on vehicle emission standards that have been adopted in 80 per cent of the global car market. Instead, what we got was the first statement by a leader of this country in more years than anyone could remember that maybe we should get back in the business of building new coal-fired power stations.

Beyond the remit of this bill and even beyond the remit of my second reading amendment, it would be fascinating to know what happened between those comments in the media that the Prime Minister was going to make a forward-leaning, progressive announcement on vehicle emission standards on one day and, a couple of days later, be back in the business of building new coal-fired power stations. We all remember what the response of the business community to that announcement was: deafening silence yet again. Every electricity company said, 'We're not interested in partnering with government. Even if there's money on the table, we're not interested in partnering with government to build new coal fired power stations.' Whose was the only business to indicate interest? Clive Palmer, whose last great idea was building Titanic II. So that's where the January National Press Club address went, in spite of the fact that there had, as I indicated, been a promise to deliver this by the middle of 2017.

The next thing that we heard of was a front page—with typically underdone rhetoric from The Daily Telegraphreading 'Carbon carnage—exclusive—emissions tax to increase car costs by thousands', suggesting that the Turnbull government was about to introduce a carbon tax on cars that could push up the price of Australia's most popular vehicles by more than $5,000. Frankly, what that was all about is still an utter mystery to anyone not at The Daily Telegraph or in the Turnbull government, because none of that has been released; none of that is in the public remit, and it clearly doesn't reflect, in any way, the blueprint that the government was delivered by the Climate Change Authority. Whatever was at the bottom of that, the result of it was crystal clear: the government ran away at a million miles an hour from any suggestion that they were going to do anything soon about vehicle emission standards. To his credit, at least, the minister was very honest about this. He was quite upfront about them folding their tent for another day, yet to be determined.

The minister loves writing op-eds and he wrote one a few weeks after being scared off by The Daily Telegraph. He wrote an op-ed in TheAustralian, admitting that:

… European versions of the top selling Toyota Corolla, Mazda 3 and Mazda CX5 [are] all more efficient than the models sold in Australia …

He went on to say:

Our friends in Canada, Europe, the United States and Asia have already moved forward, delivering for their community better health, environmental and economic outcomes.

This is three years and one month after receiving a clear blueprint about how we could simply replicate the American standards. This is the United States of America, not Greenpeace. This is the USA standards that have been adopted by the biggest car companies in the world in some of the biggest manufacturing operations in the world. The minister admits we've got a problem. He admits that we're having dirtier cars dumped in Australian car showrooms than are legally permitted to be sold in car showrooms in Europe, Asia, the United States, Canada, the UK and elsewhere.

But what did he say the government was going to do about it? Nothing. He said they continue to engage but that they weren't in a position yet to even talk about a time line for introducing these standards that are so basic in the rest of the world. That says so much about the lack of courage and the lack of ambition of the Prime Minister and the government generally when it comes to the very serious responsibility we have to start to manage the transition of these sectors of the economy that are responsible for so much of our current carbon pollution output, particularly when we have low-hanging fruit like adopting emission standards that are now pretty basic fare around the rest of the world. It's a particularly stark contrast to the legislation we have in front of us, where we're apparently able to introduce emission standards for leaf blowers and lawnmowers, just not for cars and light trucks. Leaf blowers and lawnmowers apparently don't get a scary front page story in The Daily Telegraph that puts the government off taking action, but cars and light trucks do.

I wish it were only in the transport sector, though, that this government is doing so little to deal with the challenge of industry transformation and carbon pollution reduction. But we've seen exactly the same thing happen in the energy sector. It was an extraordinary contribution by the Prime Minister at question time this afternoon. Let's be clear about it—the Prime Minister effectively verballed the CEO of our largest power company in question time this afternoon. Let's be clear about what he said this afternoon. He said, 'The energy minister and I are already in discussions with the owners of Liddell—AGL—about how we can ensure that power station stays in operation for at least another five years after 2022.' Interestingly, Andy Vesey, the CEO of AGL, tweeted Tony Abbott, and not to the actual Prime Minister, a couple of hours later: 'We're getting out of coal. We're committed to the closure of the Liddell power station in 2022, the end of its operating life.' So what are the discussions?

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And then Matt Canavan told him.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then Senator Canavan piled in and the member for Warringah piled in to back him, Senator Canavan, and the CEO of AGL said: 'Wait a sec, there are no discussions. We've made a commercial decision to get out of coal and we've made a decision to close the Liddell power station at the end of its 50-year operating life in 2022.'

This Prime Minister might think he can breezily wave a finger and wave away the commercial realities that AGL and other companies have to operate under, but it doesn't work that way. He's got to do the hard work of taking a clean energy target proposition through his coalition party room and coming to the negotiating table with Labor to do what every single business stakeholder has asked this national parliament to do, and that is to finally develop a bipartisan energy policy investment framework—the type of which has bedevilled this country for too many years. This is only one example of the contrast between a very small and modest piece of legislation that we support and we think is laudable and the rest of the economy—those parts of the economy that aren't simply focused on lawnmowers and leaf blowers. Nothing is being done by this government—nothing is being done to deal with the investment transition and the job opportunities that come from decarbonising this economy.

With those words, I move:

That all words after "that" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give this bill and related bills a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that:

  (a) in addition to the products in these bills, there is a large range of products and activities that contribute the vast majority of emissions to Australia's total emissions;

  (b) the Government has failed to act to limit these emissions including from land clearing, the industrial sector, the transport sector and from electricity generation, which has led to emissions rising by 1.4 per cent in the last quarter alone; and

  (c) the Government has failed to act on climate change and is threatening our economy and precious environment for current and future generations; and

(2) calls on the Government to take the advice it commissioned itself, and implement the central Finkel review recommendation of a Clean Energy Target for the electricity sector."

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Debate adjourned.