Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In accordance with the usual practice and with the concurrence of the Senate I ask that the government responses be incorporated in Hansard.

The re sponses read as follows—

SENATE COMMITTEE ON REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT REPORT

AUSTRALIA ' S FUTURE OIL SUPPLY AND ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORT FUELS

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Introduction

The Australian Government has been responding to the issues raised by the report of the Senate Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport inquiry into Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels. This response is encompassed in a broad-based comprehensive policy framework to equip Australia in meeting its future transport energy needs in an effective and environmentally sustainable manner.

The framework includes Government policies and initiatives currently being implemented as well as various Government reviews which will lead to further policy development. Government policies, initiatives and reviews relevant to the issues raised by Committee's recommendations include the:

Specific responses to the recommendations are provided below.

Recommendation 1 - The Committee recommends that Geoscience Australia, ABARE and Treasury reassess both the official estimates of future oil supply and the ' early peak ' arguments and report to the Government on the probabilities and risks involved, comparing early mitigation scenarios with business as usual.

In 2011, the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (DRET) released updates to the National Energy Security Assessment (NESA) and the Liquid Fuel Vulnerability Assessment (LFVA), which were first conducted in 2008/09. The 2011 NESA uses trend analysis across the short, medium and long-terms to allow a more fluid assessment of the future energy security environment, based on available data. The 2011 LFVA assessed Australia's level of vulnerability to disruptions to the supply of liquid transport fuel, both in the short and longer term. Both the 2011 NESA and 2011 LFVA can be of use for the Australian Government in determining the probabilities and risks involved with future oil supplies.

In 2010, ABARES and Geoscience Australia released the Australian Energy Resource Assessment. This national assessment of Australia's energy resources examines Australia's identified and potential energy resources including crude oil and condensate. It reviewed and assessed the factors likely to influence the production, consumption and trade of Australia's energy resources.

Two key messages that emerged from the assessment of oil were that:

The 2011 World Energy Outlook, produced by the International Energy Agency, forecasts that global oil production will increase between 2010 and 2035 on a business as usual scenario.

Recommendation 2 - The Government take into account the concerns expressed in the World Energy Outlook 2006, namely: current trends in energy consumption are neither secure nor sustainable; energy policy needs to be consistent with environmental goals, particularly the need to do more to reduce fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions.

The International Energy Agency's latest annual World Energy Outlook (WEO) was released on 9 November 2011. The WEO 2011 was a key input into the 2011 National Energy Security Assessment NESA, prepared by the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism. The 2011 NESA was used to help inform the draft Australian Government's Energy White Paper (EWP). The draft EWP and the 2011 NESA were released on 13 December 2011 by the Minister for Resources and Energy. Together these documents assist in delivering a clear and robust whole-of-government policy framework to provide certainty for investors as well as reliability and security for the Australian community. The development of the Energy White Paper is also cognisant of the need for Australia to continue the transition to a low emissions and environmentally sustainable economy, which was outlined in the Government's Clean Energy Future package.

Recommendation 3 - The Committee recommends that the Government publish the results of its review of progress made towards meeting the biofuels target of 350 ML per year, including which companies are meeting the target.

The Government notes that the biofuels target of 350 ML per year was a commitment made by the previous Government and is not current Government policy. Consistent with the Energy White Paper principles that favour market-led approaches, industry and the market will drive the take up of alternative transport fuels in Australia, and the Commonwealth does not support the adoption of mandates or targets.

Recommendation 4 - The Committee recommends that the Government examine the adequacy of funding for lignocellulose ethanol research and demonstration facilities in Australia, and increase funding, where appropriate.

The Government is of the view that the development of second generation biofuels, including lignocellulose, has the potential to supplement Australia's fuel supply and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector. In recognition of the need to develop second generation biofuels, the Government has developed the Second Generation Biofuels Research and Development Program (Gen 2). Gen 2 is a competitive grants program that supports the research, development and demonstration of new sustainable biofuel technologies.

The Government has also established the $20 million Australian Biofuels Research Institute. This measure reflects the Australian Government's support for the potential of next-generation biofuels to increase Australia's energy security, diversify sources of liquid fuel supply and transition Australia to a low carbon economy. The work of the Institute will focus on supporting the development of biofuels from non-food and non-traditional feedstocks including algae, oil seeds and wood waste.

A national research, development and extension (RD&E) plan for biofuels and bioenergy is being developed under the Primary Industries Ministerial Council's National Primary Industries RD&E Framework. The plan aims to implement a collaborative national approach to ensure research and resources achieve the best outcomes for primary industries and these sectors, and will explore research priorities, capacity and emerging opportunities.

Recommendation 5 - The Committee recommends that the Government commission a research group within the Department of the Treasury to identij57 options for addressing the financial risks faced by prospective investments in alternative fuels projects that are currently preventing such projects from proceeding. This group should determine how these risks might be best addressed in order to create a favourable investment climate for the timely development of alternative fuel industries, consistent with the principles of sustainability and security of supply.

The 2011 Strategic Framework for Alternative Transport Fuels (the Framework) was developed in conjunction with industry and other stakeholders in the context of maintaining Australia's transport fuel security while moving towards a lower carbon economy by 2030. It establishes a long term strategic framework for a market-led adoption of alternative transport fuels in Australia. The Framework includes 20 actions for industry, Government and other stakeholders in the short, medium and long term that are focused on removing impediments to the market-led adoption of alternative transport fuels.

In recognition that access to capital is a challenge facing many renewable energy companies, in May 2011 the Government launched the $100 million Renewable Energy Venture Capital (REVC) fund to support renewable energy companies in commercialising their technologies. The Australian Centre for Renewable Energy (ACRE) has appointed Southern Cross Venture Partners as fund manager to deliver this commitment. Investment decisions by Southern Cross will be on a commercial basis.

In July 2011, the Government announced the establishment of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), as a part of its Clean Energy Future plan. Legislation establishing ARENA as an independent statutory authority was made into law on 4 December 2011 and ARENA will commence operations on 1 July 2012.

ARENA will consolidate administration of $3.2 billion in Government support for renewable energy technology innovation currently administered by ACRE, the Australian Solar Institute and DRET.

Around $1.7 billion of ARENA's funding is currently uncommitted and will be available for ARENA to meet its objectives of improving the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies and increasing the supply of renewable energy.

Recommendation 6 - The Committee recommends that the Government, in consultation with the car industry, investigate and report on trends in the fuel efficiency of the light vehicle fleet and progress towards the 2010 target for the fuel efficiency of new passenger cars. If progress under the present voluntary code seems unlikely to meet the target, other measures should be considered, including incentives to favour more fuel efficient cars; or a mandatory code.

The Government has decided to introduce new mandatory CO2 emissions standards for all new light vehicles, including cars, from 2015. The emissions levels to apply under the standards, as well as the regulatory framework to implement the standards, will be developed in consultation with industry and other key stakeholders.

The Government's A New Car Plan for a Greener Future is preparing the Australian automotive industry for a low-carbon future by assisting the industry to produce vehicles and components with lower fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The package of measures included the Green Car Innovation Fund which closed to new applications on 27 January 2011. The Fund provided assistance to enhance research and development, and the commercialisation of Australian technologies that significantly reduce fuel consumption and/or greenhouse gas emissions of passenger motor vehicles.

Recommendation 7 - The Committee recommends that Australian governments investigate the advantages and disadvantages of congestion charges, noting that the idea may be more politically acceptable if revenue is hypothecated to public transport improvements (as has been done in London, for example).

The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics has forecast that the annual `avoidable' cost of congestion for the Australian capitals could increase to over $20 billion by 2020. Given the consequences of congestion for productivity and liveability, the Australian Government is working on a range of measures to address these challenges, including through collaboration with the States and Territories.

Congestion charging, if considered, would be the responsibility of State and Territory governments and is only one of a series of measures that can help reduce congestion.

The National Urban Policy also recognises road pricing (which is distinct from congestion charging, but may include congestion charging elements) as a potential means of reducing travel demand, and the Henry Review of Australia's taxation system also considered congestion charging and road pricing more generally. Implementation of congestion charges is ultimately a matter for State governments.

Recommendation 8 - The Committee recommends that Commonwealth support for Travel Smart projects be maintained beyond the currently planned termination date.

The Australian Government's view is that travel behaviour change measures, such as the Travel Smart projects, are most effectively developed and applied at a local/regional level by State, Territory and local Governments. As such, the Government did not extend funding for Smart Travel projects beyond 2008-09. However, the Government recognises there may be benefit in sharing information on these travel projects and will continue to explore opportunities with State and Territory Governments.

Recommendation 9 - The Committee recommends that corridor strategy planning take into account the goal of reducing oil dependence as noted in recommendation 2. Existing AusLink corridor strategies should be reviewed accordingly.

In 2008, Infrastructure Australia (IA) was established to advise Australian governments on infrastructure issues, including strategic planning issues, following the end of the AusLink Programme. IA completed a national infrastructure audit in December 2008. The audit identified infrastructure gaps, impediments and bottlenecks in the transport, communications, water and energy sectors.

IA's prioritisation methodology provided a best-practice approach for infrastructure prioritisation and was drawn from international and national best-practice and research. IA used cost-benefit analysis as the primary driver for prioritising projects. IA was asked in making its recommendations to have regard to the effects of climate change and Government policy on this issue. Accordingly, the costs and benefits considered in the analysis were not just economic but also social and environmental. IA indicated in its prioritisation methodology that any proposals submitted should include a monetisation of the impact of factors such as local air pollution and carbon emissions.

IA's development of a long term integrated approach to infrastructure planning and investment includes the release of the National Ports Strategy, a discussion paper on the National Freight Network Strategy and the development of a Public Transport Strategy.

In January 2011, IA released the National Ports Strategy. This strategy will improve the way Australia's ports are planned and managed, and reform port governance and planning. The Council of Australian Governments have endorsed the need for a national ports strategy and requested for an implementation plan to be approved by early 2012.

Work is also underway on the first ever national freight strategy aimed at developing a truly national freight transport network. A discussion paper on the National Freight Network Strategy was released in February 2011.

The COAG Reform Council has just finalised its two year review of the consistency of capital city strategic planning systems with nationally agreed criteria. COAG will consider the outcomes of this review at its next meeting.

As part of the 2011-12 Budget the Australian Government announced a reform package which will be implemented to strengthen IA. The extra funding will allow IA to expand its work to include providing independent policy advice on national infrastructure reforms such as the National Port and Freight Strategies, while working with governments and the private sector to develop a deeper 'pipeline' of priority infrastructure projects in the Australian market.

Recommendation 10 - The Committee recommends that the Government review the statutory formula in relation to fringe benefits taxation of employer-provided cars to address perverse incentives for more car use.

In the 2011-2012 Budget the Government announced a measure to remove the incentive for people to drive more than they need to in order to obtain a larger tax concession, by reforming the statutory formula method for valuing car fringe benefits.

This implements a recommendation of the Australia's Future Tax System Review.

Government Response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee Report on the Arrangement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malaysia on Transfer and Resettlement

Committee Recommendations

On 11 October 2011, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee tabled the Report on Australia's arrangement with Malaysia in relation to asylum seekers1. The Committee recommended that the Government not proceed with the implementation of the Arrangement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malaysia on transfer and resettlement (Arrangement) "due to the obvious flaws and defects in that arrangement". Senator Hanson-Young made additional comments and five further recommendations.

Government Senators submitted a dissenting report and recommended that the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011 be passed by the Parliament in order to facilitate the implementation of the Malaysian Arrangement2 This remains the Government's position for the reasons set out below.

Government Response

The recent devastating Indonesian boat tragedies in November and December 2011, and the incident in Malaysian waters in February 2012—in addition to the loss of life as a result of the SIEV 221 tragedy off Christmas Island in December 2010 -illustrate the significant dangers involved in irregular maritime journeys facilitated by people smugglers who seek to take advantage of vulnerable people. There is nothing humanitarian in having a system that encourages asylum seekers to risk their lives getting to Australia in order to be provided with protection.

The Arrangement was designed to undermine any gain that could be achieved by travelling to Australia by boat while at the same time ensuring those transferred to Malaysia received effective protection. For this reason, the Government remains committed to the Arrangement with Malaysia, and broader regional arrangements within the Regional Cooperation Framework. They represent the most enduring means by which to address irregular migration and people smuggling in our region while ensuring improved access to asylum procedures and durable solutions for those in need of protection.

The Government believes irregular migration and people smuggling are global and regional issues that cannot be addressed by acting alone. These are challenges that must be tackled in partnership with other countries, many of which are not parties to the United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugees Convention) and its 1967 Protocol. Indeed, the vast majority of thousands of asylum seekers in our immediate region—hundreds of thousands of people—have sought shelter in countries that are not party to the Refugees Convention. It is incumbent on Australia, in pursuing a regional approach to these issues, to engage constructively with these countries as well as those that have signed the Refugees Convention.

The establishment of the Regional Cooperation Framework on 30 March 2011 at the fourth Ministerial Conference of the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime reflects that this is a common view held by other countries in the region.

The Arrangement with Malaysia under this framework was a milestone in regional cooperation, to which the Malaysian Government admirably remains committed, notwithstanding strong criticism by the Opposition, the Greens and others of Malaysia and its historical approach to asylum seekers.

Such criticism fails to recognise the very significant steps taken by the Government of Malaysia in recent times to improve conditions for the more than 90,000 asylum seekers and refugees currently in Malaysia.

This criticism also seems to question the Government of Malaysia's sincerity in entering into the Arrangement, which provides specific rights and protections to the asylum seekers transferred under the Arrangement.

The criticism also fails to acknowledge:

On 27 October 2011, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak restated his continued commitment to working with Australia to address irregular migration. The Australian Government has similarly indicated it will honour the commitment to resettle an additional 4,000 refugees from Malaysia over the next four years as part of the refugee component of Australia's existing Humanitarian Program.3

The protections incorporated in the Arrangement (including the commitment of the Malaysian Government to treat the transferees with dignity and respect and in accordance with human rights standards), and the increased resettlement opportunities it envisaged, reflected a significant advance in the management of irregular migration in our region by improving humanitarian responses and increasing the available protection space.

The Government's view is that processing asylum claims in a third country is consistent with our international law obligations and accepted practice, so long as:

The Arrangement with Malaysia reflects these key tenets of the Refugees Convention. It also provides for a range of other practical protections and benefits for those transferred. This includes access to services and education supported by UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration (TOM), as well as a commitment to durable solutions through resettlement for those in need of protection and safe and dignified return for those not in need of protection.

UNHCR and IOM were closely consulted during the negotiation of the Arrangement and both committed to support its implementation. As noted in the Government Senators' dissenting report, UNHCR remains supportive of the Arrangement. In its submission to the Committee, UNHCR indicated that the Arrangement "responds to the particular domestic and regional context of the asylum and migration situation in the Asia-Pacific region".

The Pre-Removal Assessment Process for Transfers to a Third Country for Processing, developed in close consultation with UNHCR, illustrates the Government's commitment to meeting our international obligations and ensuring that in the implementation of the Arrangement the needs of vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied minors, families and women at risk were considered and would be addressed.

In the absence of legislative amendments required to enable the Government to implement the Arrangement, the Government has commenced working towards making greater use of existing powers to more flexibly manage and process irregular maritime arrivals to Australia.4 This includes greater use of community detention and bridging visas, on a case-by-case basis, to allow residence in the community while refugee claims are assessed. Individuals will continue to be subject to mandatory detention for initial health, identity and security checks. Individuals who present unacceptable risks to the community will continue to be placed in held detention.

As part of the changes to asylum seeker management and processing, the Government is moving to a single, consistent and efficient protection visa process for both boat and air arrivals, using the current onshore arrangements for assessing applications for protection visas and independent review through the Refugee Review Tribunal system, as needed.

Conclusion

Speculation on the Arrangement alone was enough to cause a significant decrease in boat arrivals compared to the same period in 2010.5 In contrast, since the Government's announcement on 13 October 2011 that the Arrangement could not proceed due to an absence of parliamentary support for the necessary legislative amendments, irregular maritime arrival numbers have risen dramatically. In October 2011, there were 314 irregular maritime arrivals to Australia. In November 2011, this had increased to 895 and in December 2011 the number was 854.

The Government believes that, in order to have an effective deterrent to people risking their lives at sea in their attempts to reach Australia, we must work with countries in our region to develop appropriate offshore processing arrangements. For this reason the Government remains committed to the Arrangement with Malaysia.

————

1See: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=legcon_ctte/malaysia_agreement/report/index.htm

2Refer also to Recommendations 1 and 3 of Senator Hanson-Young's additional comments.

3Refer also to Recommendation 4 of Senator Hanson-Young's additional comments.

4Refer also to Recommendation 2 of Senator Hanson-Young's additional comments.

542 boats intercepted between May and August in 2010, compared to 18 boats intercepted for same period in 2011.

Ordered that the committee reports be printed.