Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to indicate my support for the second reading of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2008. I note the comments of Senator Boswell in relation to this debate. It seems to me that his concerns in relation to the impact of an emissions trading scheme are something that will have to be dealt with in great detail in the coming months. I see it as one of the major and most important issues that we face in terms of getting an ETS right, because if we do not get it right there will be huge ramifications for our economy. It is pleasing to see that the Minister for Climate Change and Water was reported in today’s Financial Review making reference to looking at other emissions trading models for such a scheme. I think that is encouraging. I want to put on the record that I have significant reservations about the model proposed by Professor Garnaut to date. But that is something for another debate and for another bill.

In relation to this particular bill, I see this as a bill that is about setting the framework to measure greenhouse gas emissions. It is a precursor, if you like, to an ETS, because we need to have the foundation right in order to determine accurately greenhouse gas emissions. That is why I see this bill as being an important precursor to the main game, if you like, in terms of an ETS.

I do have some questions that I would like to put on notice so they can be dealt with prior to the committee stage or during the committee stage. I note that there has been some criticism by the National Generators Forum of the proposal to include the reporting of indirect emissions—scope 2 emissions—from electricity, saying it will add to the red tape of the system without assisting emissions trading. That was from a report in the Australian Financial Review on 17 March this year. In the same newspaper report other business groups warned they ‘will face huge compliance costs reporting their indirect emissions’.

I understand that the response from the government is that there will be an online tool to automatically calculate these emissions and that there will not be any increase in the reporting burden. I want the government to clarify the nature of the online tool. How will it operate and how confident is the government that there will not be an increase in the compliance burden? Is the government confident that the mechanism that they refer to will be effective in terms of compliance without an unnecessary administrative burden on businesses in terms of dealing with those particular complaints?

There is another matter which I wish to raise. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 5 August headed ‘Logging bigger risk than realised: study’ by environment reporter Ben Cubby says:

Wild eucalypt forests across south-eastern Australia store far more carbon than previously thought, according to research that has far-ranging implications for climate change policy.

The article goes on to say:

The Australian Greenhouse Office and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have underestimated the amount of carbon held in native eucalyptus forests and soils by up to 400 per cent, researchers at the Australian National University say.

It goes on to say:

The study found that Australia’s 14.5 million hectares of undisturbed eucalypt forest holds 9.3 billion tonnes of carbon in its wood and soil, offsetting about 460 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year for the next century.

Figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s peak organisation for climate change study, showed the same forests as capable of storing 3.1 billion tonnes.

The article goes on to say:

The Federal Government’s accounting system also underestimated the carbon storage, because it is designed to measure biomass growth in reafforestation and plantation forests, rather than dense bushland that has never been disturbed.

Insofar as this bill deals with reporting requirements, to what extent are the concerns raised by the ANU study relevant in the context of ensuring that we actually have accurate measures for carbon capture and emissions? If this bill is about getting the framework and foundation right so that we can then set the policy framework for an effective emissions trading scheme, to what extent are the concerns raised by the ANU researchers taken into account in the context of this piece of legislation? That is a concern of mine because I would have thought that in any national greenhouse and energy reporting regime you ought to get it right, and if the researchers are accurate then that raises very serious concerns about the veracity of the reporting mechanisms in the context that I have just raised with respect to carbon sinks. They are my principal concerns. I look forward to the committee stages of this bill and to receiving a response from the government regarding my concerns.