Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill 2007. This bill establishes a single national framework for reporting greenhouse gas emissions, emission reduction actions, and energy consumption and production by corporations from 1 July 2008. A greenhouse reporting bill is necessary to underpin a national emissions trading scheme. Federal Labor has a longstanding commitment to implementing emissions trading as a sensible and flexible approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It recognises that this legislation is fundamental to what it believes should be a growing bipartisan approach to tackling climate change. That is why Labor was surprised and disappointed that, in the first instance, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources introduced into the House of Representatives such a sloppy bill—evinced in part by the fact that the government was required to amend its own legislation.

Labor recognises the urgent need for progress on emissions trading, but that does not excuse poor process or lack of consultation. Emissions trading is a significant economic reform—particularly as we need to address dangerous climate change—and we need to ensure that we get the underlying structures right. The bill before the chamber has a range of shortcomings. A major concern is the provision for the all-powerful Commonwealth reporting power to potentially usurp or marginalise state laws and programs. In the absence of Howard government leadership on climate change, the fact is that the state governments—rather than the federal government—have led the way. Their efforts should be supported rather than handicapped. This power is clearly unnecessary. Additionally, the thresholds and time lines are loose and slow so as to prevent an ‘as soon as practical’ introduction of emissions trading. Perhaps this was to be expected given the government’s plan for a slow and modest start to emissions trading by 2011 or 2012.

The chamber will be aware that Labor referred this bill, which was introduced with very little notice, to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts for review. That Senate inquiry heard that this bill was put together without due consultation over a few weeks between July and August. Clearly that is simply insufficient time to produce legislation as important as this. That really follows in the footsteps of many previous bills which this government, since it attained control of the Senate chamber, has rammed through without proper consideration—the most famous one in the term of this parliament was of course the Work Choices legislation, which had hundreds of amendments to it, introduced about 20-odd minutes before it was debated in this chamber. The point to make about that, regardless of the politics of it, is that it is frankly sloppy legislative work from a government that does not feel it has to do that work because it has absolute control of the Senate.

Extraordinarily, in the context of that inquiry the department admitted that they had not consulted specifically with any of the stakeholders during the drafting of this bill. Perhaps this should come as no surprise given the hasty way in which legislation has been introduced into the parliament previously by the member for Wentworth. A notable example of the approach of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources to these matters is the draft water bills—the National Farmers Federation, environment groups nor the state governments had an opportunity to look at those bills before they arrived in the parliament. It was only when Labor insisted upon the need for a Senate inquiry that this matter of substantial national significance was given at least some detailed consideration. Frankly, this government’s practice of dumping proposed legislation into the Senate with little opportunity for due and proper consideration confirms just how out of touch this Howard government is.

All the stakeholders who gave evidence to the inquiry identified significant problems with this bill. The inquiry heard, amongst other things, that the bill could deliver unintended consequences such as: significantly raising compliance costs; producing a fractured system which may not include all major emitters; obliging companies to seek judicial review; undermining both current and future state laws and programs on climate change, many of which are working effectively; and potentially cutting across other state laws and programs not at all connected to greenhouse gas emissions issues. A number of representations to the Senate inquiry, including from environment organisations, made the point that the reporting thresholds had all the appearance of being too loose and that it was critical that more information be publicly disclosed about the reporting under the proposed legislation. I note that the Investor Group on Climate Change, which represents some $370-odd billion of funds under management, was critical of the fact that the stipulated time frame is so slow.

As the bill is being rushed through parliament, it is worth the chamber considering the particular reasons why this legislation is being rushed through. The answer is very clear: until it believed it was politically necessary, the Howard government had done virtually nothing at all over its 11 long years in office to address climate change. There has been a systemic pattern of denial and inaction on climate change. That systemic pattern goes to, amongst other things, the question of setting up Australian businesses and the community to deal with climate change and the establishment of a market within which to operate so that emission reductions can have value. It is a matter of record that, on a number of occasions in the past, the Howard government has had the opportunity to consider emissions trading—these have included receiving cabinet submissions on that very matter, which were rejected. Now what we see is the Howard government suddenly realising that climate change is a matter of real interest to the Australian community—