Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I commend the Chair of the Environment and Energy Committee, Mr Ted O'Brien MP, for conducting this inquiry in the quite exceptional circumstances caused by COVID-19. I also thank the member for Clark, my colleague on the crossbench Mr Andrew Wilkie MP, for introducing the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment (Transparency in Carbon Emissions Accounting) Bill 2020 and enabling a very important debate. The bill seeks to amend the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 to ensure transparency and accountability in the way the Australian government reports carbon emissions. To achieve this aim, the bill amends the reporting requirements of greenhouse gas emissions to include scope 3 emissions, which are the indirect greenhouse gas emissions arising as a consequence of the activities of a facility, and requires the minister to table Australia's national greenhouse gas emissions inventory estimates in parliament every three months.

Although I declined to dissent from the report on this bill, I will make some general comments on the bill. I support many of the remarks that were made in the committee's advisory report. I agree that, at this time, measuring scope 3 emissions is likely to be costly and complicated and may result in inaccurate estimates. However, given the value shown by some evidence presented to the committee, there should be further consideration of the bill and measurement of scope 3 emissions in general as circumstances and methodologies evolve.

The committee learnt that scope 3 emissions are significant in general because in some cases at a company level scope 3 emissions dwarf scope 1 and 2 emissions by up to 40 times. Evidence presented to the committee estimated that, at a country level, scope 3 emissions associated with Australian fossil fuel exports could be up to five per cent of global emissions.

Various inquiry participants provided evidence that measuring scope 3 emissions is a growing practice in top Australian companies. The fact that Australian companies are measuring emissions means that it is a material consideration in their business operations, in their decision-making and for their shareholders and must, therefore, be of inherent value. Indeed, we can look at the news and see weekly reporting on companies being compelled by their shareholders to disclose scope 3 emissions or sign onto climate targets, including on scope 3 emissions.

We see climate risk becoming a material consideration for directors in exercising their duties. This will include some consideration of scope 3 emissions. We also see scope emissions being factored into planning decisions on major projects. So clearly scope 3 emissions need to be dealt with and a plan needs to be developed. By creating uniformity in the measurement of scope 3 emissions we can be ahead of the trend and provide investors, shareholders, communities and businesses with certainty in a transition economy.

The committee also heard evidence from individuals and stakeholder groups as to the value of scope 3 for informing the public. I agree that the public should know the true extent of Australia's impact on global emissions. Without knowing, the public cannot make an informed choice at elections and for what to advocate. I expect demand for this knowledge will grow as society becomes more and more concerned with climate impacts. It flies in the face of the frequently asserted position by the coalition that, being only 1.3 per cent of global emissions, we can't possibly be expected to take action. What this ignores is that, on a per capita basis, we are one of the highest emitters. As a result, we do bear a responsibility for what our scope 3 emissions are overseas as a result of our export industries. I accept that, for the moment, the IPCC has not included a scope 3 or a standardised methodology for assessing that. Inquiry participants stressed the importance of measuring scope 3 emissions, particularly in respect to the transition to a net-zero economy—something that I strongly advocate for. I agree that we do need to know how reliant we are on fossil fuels in order to plan for a transition. We must also understand how exposed Australian exports are. As other countries commit and transition to a net-zero economy, we need to be able to pivot accordingly.

The second portion of the bill would compel the minister to table the quarterly greenhouse gas estimates in the House 15 days after publication and that the release of the data is handed to the regulator, resting formally under the department. On this aspect, the committee received evidence that the release of the estimates happened, on average, 46 days after they are currently required to be released. This is unacceptable, and I would call on the minister and the government to fix this as soon as possible. This is important information that the public should have access to in a timely way, as stipulated by legislation. It's essential that the public remain informed as to Australia's emissions and progress towards the Paris targets. Climate change policy and data are too important to be politicised. Therefore, I support measures in the second portion of the bill, which would hand the coordination of the data to a clean energy regulator.

Lastly, this inquiry was conducted under a very compressed time frame, and very limited evidence was able to be heard by the committee. With only one public hearing and a handful of submissions, the Australian public would be much better served with a more thorough investigation of this matter. We all know our emissions, whether they be domestic or international, are an issue that needs to be addressed. We need to find ways of making sure they are properly accounted for and published and make sure the Australian public is properly informed. To this end, I will be presenting to parliament later this year, in November, the climate change bill, which will in fact address this reporting framework and the delays we currently have in the system and will establish a sound legislative framework to ensure we have proper reporting, proper risk assessment, proper adaptation and resilience plans and, most importantly, proper mitigation to ensure we get to net zero.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to be standing to speak on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment (Transparency in Carbon Emissions Accounting) Bill 2020 report that was done by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy. This is starting to look at something that we need to spend more time looking at, and we need to make sure we get it right. Scope 3 emissions are those indirect emissions that come from when we ship our coal overseas or we ship things away and they're accounted for in another country but not on Australia's account. There are a whole range of things that could potentially be looked at on this. I'm really pleased that the committee spent time on it. It is disappointing that they didn't have more opportunity in such difficult times to be able to explore it, but there are a few things that struck me about it.

I certainly understand and support the view that, at this time, any attempt to measure scope 3 emissions is likely to be very costly and really complicated and may not be accurate. But I also note the additional comments made by the deputy chair, Mr Wilson, the member for Fremantle, and Josh Burns, the member for McNamara. I want to draw on some of the comments that they made—that is, that right now, while Australia's system of greenhouse gas accounting and reporting is structured to be in compliance with agreements that are, in turn, covered by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, each of us is responsible for measuring emissions.

I was most disquieted by the evidence from the Department of Science, Industry, Energy and Resources, who felt that there wasn't rigour in how you'd estimate scope 3 emissions. Their view was that it would not be a terribly accurate view. Yet, at the same time, we know that more than a quarter of ASX 200 companies are reporting scope 3 emissions already. They're doing it. They're working through the complexity and the cost. That tells you that it can't be prohibitive to do. I think it would be worthwhile to see the department undertake a further assessment—or perhaps it would be their preliminary assessment—on how to do a sample of that and work out what the basis and the quality of the estimates is.

It might be that people wonder why we worry about this sort of detail—that it is, essentially, bean counting. I want to talk about why these things are important and why it's really important, as the member for Warringah said, to get this stuff right. We all know that in a region like mine, which suffers extraordinary fires and floods, all the evidence shows us that rising emissions are going to lead to more extreme weather events and natural disasters. In fact, just this morning I was involved in urging the government to look at the Australian Bushfire and Climate Plan that the Climate Council and Emergency Leaders for Climate Action released, the final report of which provides a whole lot of practical, sensible things to do. The basis of it is recognising that we need to be able to reduce emissions. You can't tackle the problem on the surface and not deal with one of the key root causes.

To get this right will mean seeing a genuine commitment at all levels of government. I don't care which party people are in. I don't care what tier of government they are. It's about accepting that the science tells us that we're going to see more and more disasters. As someone who's come out of a horrific 2019-20 bushfire season—and hopefully will not be going into another horrific one—I'm aware that a few years down the track we may well see another one, so the need to measure emissions so that we know whether our attempts to reduce the emissions are effective is absolutely key.

It will be one thing to get this sort of legislation happening. It will be another to see a real acceptance of all the other measures that we can take and an understanding of what works and what doesn't. There are some really practical considerations for people. They might see this legislation and think that it doesn't have anything to do with their lives. One key thing is: in the communities of the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, people's houses burn down in these heightened summers. I experienced it myself in 2013, when my house burnt down in the big Blue Mountains bushfires—my home and the homes of 200 other families. Of that cohort, the majority of us were underinsured. That is a practical implication: the link from a piece of legislation that sits here to what happens when our house burns down and we're told that we can't afford to rebuild it to the new standards. There are lots of things that this parliament can't do, but there are lots of things that we can do. To get the legislation right is one of the things we can do so that these things can be measured.

In my community, in the Hawkesbury, around 20 houses burnt down last summer. Of those homes, only two people have even started going through the pre-DA process. That's something like nine months of being homeless, of having every possession they owned, lost. Through that trauma they're trying to find a way to rebuild, but the big problem that so many people have is that they weren't insured enough.

The insurers are involved in this in a number of ways. They have been saying for years that we need to get this right, that we need to accept that the climate is actually making their business harder and is pushing premiums up and reducing their profits. I've worked with the insurance industry going back 20 years and way back in the early 2000s this was the message they were giving to governments and to the wider community. Sadly, they weren't giving the message effectively enough to their customers and they weren't telling people, 'Your insurance will not cover your rebuild.' They weren't telling people that the standards are changing and the standards keep changing and therefore the cost of a rebuild keeps changing. Any member who has bushfire affected residents will have this same experience.

There probably are things worse than losing your house—I can say this as someone who has lost their home to a bushfire—but you certainly wouldn't wish it on anybody. But even worse than losing your home is being told that you can't rebuild it in the same spot simply because you weren't insured for enough, even though you had paid your insurance for decades and thought that there was no question about it. I remember very vividly the first thought in my mind when I heard my house had burned down. I said to my husband, 'God, I hope I paid the insurance.' The very next day I made a call to the insurance company and was reassured, 'Yes, your insurance is up to date.'

I felt really relieved but, two days later, when the assessors came to my property and said to me what they had been saying to just about everyone in the street, 'No you haven't got enough to rebuild,' we were shocked. It was the first time anyone had mentioned it to us. I had never intended to build a new house, so that was a whole new journey that I had been having for a couple of days, but, to be told that you couldn't even take the first step on that journey, was a real shock. We think that we are very lucky in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury that we only lost 40 houses in the last fire. But, for communities but where the loss is greater, there will a huge number of people who simply can't rebuild and can't buy somewhere else and they will leave the community—and communities have the heart ripped out from them at the very time that they are trying to recover.

That's why I feel very strongly that there is an obligation on this parliament. This is not just about saying that the piece of legislation we have in front of us is not perfect and it's not great and we're not going to proceed with it. I accept the committee's findings that it needs work and that more work is needed on the issue, but I really urge this parliament to look at the hard, and maybe boring, accounting side of emissions counting so that we are able to look at the truth of what is happening. That's what we need. We need evidence, we need fact, we need science and we need to marry those together with goodwill and common sense, knowing that it is up to us to change the rules so that communities like mine and others in this chamber are not ripped apart by natural disasters that we could have done something to mitigate.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some brief comments about this report. I'd like to thank all my colleagues on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy and the chair and the deputy chair for the review process. It is quite educational when you get involved in these reviews, and there were some take-home messages from this inquiry. Australia does have a very extensive and accurate national greenhouse energy reporting system in place. Our figures can be believed—unlike some other nations in the world that fudge their figures—and we do report scope 1 and scope 2 emissions, which is the requirement.

The inquiry resolved in the negative, not to support the amendments that were proposed. The reason for that is pretty straightforward: it would mean that Australia would be taking on the obligations of other nations who are end users of our raw products. We all have to contribute to CO2 reduction, but what we are doing as a nation, providing energy that powers Asia and India and our own industry, is we have a lot of natural gas—which reduces the greenhouse footprint compared to coal by about 20 per cent, plus or minus a few per cent. There is less particulate matter that goes up into the atmosphere and there's less C02.

The other thing is the energy density of our coal. The black coal that is exported and highly valued sells incredibly well on the international market. The reason these other countries want it is that it improves the energy density of their fuel stock. A lot of them don't have energy-dense, rich black coal. By sending our raw product overseas we are helping reduce their footprint, rather than using brown coal or less energy-dense black coal, with lower thermal energy. It means we would be double counting. Our responsibility would go up exponentially and our competitor nations would be getting off scot-free. There'd also be double counting on the international figures, because they have to account for it as well.

It was just a question of practical common sense and equity, in the greenhouse reporting schemes, that all the nations in the world should undertake. I would like to commend the report to the House. Thank you very much.

Debate adjourned.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Between 2 and 7 November last year I went to India as part of the parliamentary delegation representing the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy. Parliamentary committees are charged with investigating and proposing solutions to topical issues within Australia. The committee has previously investigated topics as wide ranging as wild flying foxes and water management, and we're currently looking at feral cat management.

For this parliament, the early focus was energy, particularly nuclear, as we sought to understand the circumstances and prerequisites for any future government's consideration of nuclear energy generation. The delegation was sent to India to consider their nuclear system, how it's developing, and the challenges and obstacles facing their environment, cities and climate more broadly. The trip was broad ranging and rich. We variously went through cultural experiences to visiting nuclear power plants and talking to government ministers and think tanks. India is an extremely vibrant and diverse country with on old culture, so it was a privilege to travel there as part of an official delegation.

A major topic is energy transition. One of the assumptions often made in Australia about India is that they are not contributing in the journey to net zero. That could not be more wrong. Prime Minister Modi was re-elected in a landslide at the last national election. One of the key pillars of his success, in his last term, was his plan to electrify India. This plan includes a huge focus on renewable energy. Impressively, India has already met several of its renewable targets. They had an initial target of 20 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2022 as part of their contribution to the Paris Agreement. As a result of achieving that early, in 2019, they've ramped up their ambition, shooting for 170 gigawatts of renewables by 2022 and 523 gigawatts by 2030. To put that in perspective, that's 10 times the size of Australia's grid. They believe this initiative will lead to 1.1 million jobs. Analysts have projected that renewable energy will account for 73 per cent of India's generation capacity by the end of this decade. That's made possible as renewables are now the least-cost form of new generation in India.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently inaugurated India's largest solar power plant with a capacity of 750 megawatts in Rewa, a small district. Amazingly, in the middle of this pandemic, India attracted record applications for a four-gigawatt solar tender. While India has ambitious targets for renewable energy, the challenge will be how to integrate new wind and solar, which is where our experience can be useful. As global leaders in energy transition, there are enormous opportunities for Australia to supply the expertise, technology, material and shared knowledge for their transition. Overall, India was very impressive with their appetite for new energy generation and will continue to impress the world if they keep meeting and exceeding their targets under the Paris Agreement.

They do face environmental challenges. One of Prime Minister Modi's key policies is a national focus on cleaning up waste and air pollution and implementing clean water and hygiene practices. The Indian government in January announced their National Clean Air Program, a five-year plan with a target of reducing air pollution by up to 20 to 30 per cent on the 2017 levels in 102 of their cities by 2024. I must say, when we visited, we got firsthand experience of the air pollution. It was very much a matter of masks being necessary, very poor visibility and very, very heavy air pollution. It was with some dismay that in Warringah, at the end of last year, when we had the bushfires, the smoke blanketing cities like Sydney was not dissimilar to the experience I'd had in Delhi.

Policies to lower air pollution in India include expansion of national air quality monitoring and public awareness, an emphasis on enforcement of breaches and sectoral-specific strategies—even strategies like restricting what days cars can be driven by numberplate. On the worst day that we were there, it was actually implemented that numberplates finishing with an odd number drove on one day and numberplates finishing with an even number drove on the next day. There were some exceptions for the transport of children and women, but other than that it was quite amazing to see the level of compliance. Clearly it is about thinking about and finding solutions.

What was also very visible is every building we went into had air monitoring displays. It was very much in real-time data so you could be aware of the level of air pollution where you were and in the area generally. Ironically, it also showed the source of the air pollution. It could be traced back. For example, if there was a coal power plant in the vicinity, it could actually it trace back to the source. I could only wish that we could start to have that kind of monitoring in some of the areas where air pollution is fast becoming a problem, in particular areas like the Hunter Valley. These policies also align and work in synergy with India's National Action Plan on Climate Change; its plan for electric vehicle uptake, the National Electric Mobility Mission Plan, which will have six to seven million electric vehicles on the road by 2020; and its Smart Cities Mission, discussed below. The roads of India are well-known for being fairly busy. I welcome that ambition to transition to electric transport, because there are a lot of cars on the road.

Although Australia is not on the same level, we do have similar health impacts from air pollution. I would like to see Warringah-wide, in our major cities and across Australia the advancement of air pollution monitoring, national policies to improve pollution—particularly when it comes to a transition of our transport to electric vehicles—and the phasing out of coal-fired power. There is no doubt that, from a transport point of view, we still have some of the weakest emission standards when it comes to vehicles and fuel. These simple things could be improved to make a dramatic difference to air pollution and our emissions. Transport is our fastest-growing emissions sector.

An interesting program was the smart cities and adapting to climate change. On Tuesday the 5th we met with the Smart Cities Council India, which is led by Dr Ghosh. The council was formed under Modi's Smart Cities Mission. The primary objective of this program is to enhance the liveability of 100 cities in India by incorporating innovative technologies like artificial intelligence, retrofitting buildings with solar, increasing walkability and efficiency, preserving open and green spaces, and promoting transport options, amongst many other things. A total of $23.31 billion will be invested in over 5,000 projects across 100 cities. Some $9 billion is already in construction and development, with another series of tenders to go out in 2020.

We're doing similar work in Australia through various programs, including the government's Smart Cities and Suburbs Program. This program distributed $50 million in grant funding to projects last year. I certainly am thankful for that. I encourage there to be more funding for retrofitting and further enhancing smart cities.

Feeding into city design and planning is also a focus on understanding what are the key challenges that cities will face as the climate continues to warm. During the trip we met with the Council on Energy, Environment and Water, who are doing great research in this area. These are some of the things that people don't think about. Steady increases in temperatures, changing groundwater levels, increased rain in some areas and solar radiation will affect the durability and functioning of things like road infrastructure. These effects will shorten the longevity of road surfaces, increase cracks, expand bridge joints, affect the ability of drainage systems to cope and affect the inland waterways. This will add huge costs to the infrastructure that we all rely on so much. As a result, in India the government is starting to integrate systemwide resilience and sustainability planning into all levels of the decision-making process to cope with these added climate impacts.

This very much needs to form part of the conversation in Australia. We need to have much better assessment of all the impacts across all sectors that a warming world will cause. That is why, as part of the climate change bill that I will be introducing, we have the risk assessment adaptation plans and the resilience planning that is needed.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to give some very interesting comments about the delegation's visit to India. First of all, I would like to thank everyone who facilitated the trip, including the delegation secretary who travelled with us; my good colleague the member for Fairfax, who produced a stellar report for us; the member for Fremantle; and the member for Warringah. It was a real eye-opener to look at the energy capabilities of India, what they have achieved over the last 50 to 60 years as well as what they're doing now to expand their energy system. I would like to particularly comment on their nuclear energy program.

I'll give some background on why this delegation went to India. India is one of our major trading partners and we've got so much to learn from them. The committee was involved in an inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia. With that background, India fitted the bill because they have an extensive and long history of being involved in nuclear energy for both medical isotopes and energy production since the 1950s. The very famous Mr Bhabha led the Indian nuclear power program. They have a very extensive range of nuclear power plants—first-, second- and third-generation nuclear power plants. They have built their own endogenous designed nuclear power plants. They have a whole workforce involved in design, building and maintenance. There are something like 25,000 people involved in their nuclear power system, which is run totally by the government.

During our travels there, we were hosted by the high commission and the mission. I'd like to formally thank them for their hospitality and their assistance in making the delegation's trip so fascinating. We visited the national parliament as well. The member for Warringah explained some of the other things we did. I would also like to thank the Honourable RK Singh, the Minister for Power and New and Renewable Energy, and another minister, the Honourable Prakash Javadekar, and the Honourable Jitendra Singh. We also met with the Department of Atomic Energy officials and the officials and board members of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India. The final nuclear part of our inquiry and travels in the delegation was a visit to the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, which was absolutely fascinating.

There are some prescient things that I would like to put on the record. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India makes a profit every year for the Indian nation and delivers billions of dollars into the government coffers to supply services to them. They have the full nuclear cycle. We know that they're a nuclear power as well, but we focused on the nuclear energy and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. They are a huge nuclear power. They are constructing, I think, four or five plants and have approval for about eight more. The member for Warringah focused on their rapid expansion into renewable energy, and that is similarly amazing. Since Mr Modi took control of the country, they have put electricity through 120,000 villages. They have expanded their solar and wind capabilities as well and they are expanding their baseload energy sources out of coal and gas. As I mentioned in another speech in this same place, they love the black coal that Australia sends them, because it's very energy dense. The only thing that's more energy dense would be nuclear. It's really important that we realise that they have been doing it safely for many years, unlike other nations that have had mishaps, like Chernobyl, and the one that we all know about that was triggered by the tsunami, at Fukushima.

The take-home message is that they have the full nuclear cycle. In their waste management by recycling the spent nuclear fuel rods, they get a lot of medical isotopes and the recycled energy source is put back into the reactors. They're investigating thorium reactors, which can be added to other nuclear fuel sources. They are really cutting-edge. Most people don't look at India as a nuclear powerhouse, but they are, and they have done it very successfully since the 1950s. At the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, we saw their small research reactor. It's slightly bigger than we have at Lucas Heights. They gave us extensive briefings on that and I found it absolutely fascinating. We also visited some of their other centres and schools of nuclear material and related entities at the site. It's absolutely massive. As I said, around the country, they're building more and it will be a major part of their energy mix. The most important thing is how they are reducing their greenhouse gases as a proportion of their energy mix. Everyone knows that gas is a transition to clean energy, because it reduces the greenhouse gases and all the particulate matter by about 20 per cent. If you build a modern, high-efficiency, low-emission coal-fired power station with dense black coal, you can reduce your footprint by 43 per cent. It's basic arithmetic. That's double the benefit we are getting by going to gas. People focus on the source of the fuel rather than the technology that turns the energy from the raw product into electricity. It is an important thing for Australia to realise that India has been doing it—43 other countries have been doing it—and that we can learn a whole lot more from India.

It was a great honour to be sent on a delegation. It's been one of the highlights of my time as a parliamentarian. If anyone gets the chance to go visit India, it is a fascinating country. My wife and I spent a very pleasant 2½ weeks there several years ago, so it wasn't my first time in India.

The other thing that they are doing is getting right into recycling, like Australia. That was one of the other things that we looked at. We visited quite a few of the research and not-for-profit institutes that are looking into waste management, and we met the relevant ministers and executives in that space. The member for Warringah mentioned the meeting with the Smart Cities Council and the pollution control board at Maharashtra.

It was a fascinating trip. It was a good, beneficial fact-finding mission. All of this will contribute to the knowledge and the deliberations of our nation, as we are using technology, not taxes, to improve our energy system.

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:32