David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the opposition I want to put on the record the opposition’s position in respect of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2008. It is a very technical bill. It has minor amendments that go to positively affecting the practical operation of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. The aims of the amendments are to simplify the reporting requirements of corporations by reducing red tape through the simplification of the regulatory burden and increased flexibility associated with the registration of corporations under the act. Needless to say, this act was enacted by the previous Howard government and these amendments are in fact in line with the evolution of this very important legislation as the foundation stone upon which the emissions trading scheme is to be built.

It also confirms that the obligation of a registered corporation to comply with an external audit extends also to the corporations group as a whole. It clarifies the provisions relating to the reporting of greenhouse gas projects and offsets of emissions. It gives greater power under the act for the government to make mandatory and separate public disclosure of direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions. It confirms the ability of the minister to specify conditions for the use of alternative methods to calculate greenhouse gas emissions and to allow publication of information relating to those methods. It is a very difficult area for this legislation, but this is a step in the right direction.

I also simply add that, having said that it makes minor technical amendments, these amendments were in fact foreshadowed prior to the last election. Having put the reporting system in place, this is a preparatory framework which will ultimately assist both in monitoring Australia’s greenhouse emissions and allowing us to prepare in the most efficient and least disruptive way for an emissions trading scheme. In relation to this particular bill, I note that there are amendments here aimed at three things: firstly, simplifying, as I have said, the regulatory burden; secondly, confirming the obligation of a registered corporation to comply with an external audit extending over the corporations group; and, thirdly, clarifying the provisions relating to the reporting of projects and the offsets of emissions. I think that this bill is a very straightforward minor amendment to the evolution of what is an important legal framework. I thank the Senate.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today on behalf of the Greens to support this National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2008. As has been indicated in the second reading speech and as Senator Johnston just said, it is a bill which is making some technical amendments to a larger piece of legislation which has previously passed the Senate, and of course it is giving more detail around the accounting that is going to be implemented for an emissions trading scheme.

I would like to go to the first point of thresholds. I am disappointed that the threshold for the reporting for the Australian emissions trading scheme is going to be 25,000 tonnes. It seems to me that that level is somewhat too high especially since the European emissions trading system is going to require mandatory auditing and reporting at 10,000 tonnes, and that is going to apply in phase 3 of the European emissions trading scheme starting in 2013 to 2020. So, if we are actually going to think about a globally consistent emissions trading regime, then it would be eminently sensible to be looking at mirroring what the EU is doing in terms of reporting. I would like to know from the minister—and I presume Senator Carr is the minister who is going to be responding to this so I hope he is listening to what I am saying here and not talking over there in the background—why the government has chosen to stay with 25,000 tonnes and not go down to 10,000.

I would have thought that it is in the interests of the companies concerned to start the process. I know quite a lot of detail is required and companies would have to make a real commitment to do it. But, essentially, many of the companies producing between 10,000 and 25,000 tonnes are public companies and they are reporting to their shareholders. Their shareholders are going to want to know the exposure risk of the company to an emissions trading scheme, so they are going to want to know the greenhouse gas footprint of the company, the footprint of the sources of the inputs for whatever they are manufacturing or doing and their exposure to increased costs through an emissions trading system. Essentially, as I understand it, the principles that any company should be looking at in greenhouse gas accounting are: firstly, the relevance of what is being accounted for—defining the boundaries that reflect the greenhouse gas emissions of the organisation and the decision-making needs of the users of whatever the product is; and, secondly, consistent methodology and measurement. You would want to make sure this is happening across all companies—transparency; consideration of all relevant issues in a factual and coherent manner; a clear audit trail; accuracy in reporting so that there is real integrity in those greenhouse gas measurements; and reporting to shareholders on the exposure to emissions trading and price signals.

I will be very interested to hear what the government has got to say about why they decided on the 25,000 tonne threshold and not 10,000 tonnes. I did consider moving an amendment in relation to this but I am interested to hear from the government first as to what the rationale is. I think it is only a matter of time before Australian companies are going to be required to do this anyway. Every year that Australia allows our regulatory system to be less rigorous and less comprehensive than the Europeans is a year closer to Australians being less competitive in a global economy. As was very clear when we talked about luxury cars, when you set very high and transparent reporting and auditing standards and so on then you get a more efficient operation and you get higher quality, cheaper prices and you outdo your competitors who have been more lax. That has been the story. That is in fact why a number of companies are not competitive anymore. It is because we have not set high enough standards. It means they do not invest in new plant and equipment. They let the old equipment run down, making it easier for them to move offshore, which has occurred in many cases.

In relation to the accounting standards, it is important that they have integrity. I am fully aware that greenhouse gas reporting does not include the forest industry sector. We have supported land use, land use change and forestry being left out of an emissions trading system because we do not believe that the accounting is anywhere near adequate at the moment to reflect the real nature of the greenhouse gas emissions. That is not to say that they should not be included in different ways, through regulatory environments and so on. I put the government on notice that the Kyoto accounting rules do not accurately reflect greenhouse gas emissions from land use, land use change and forestry, and will not stand up in any assessment of how much greenhouse gas emissions are going into the atmosphere. We desperately need a new accounting system that separates out the emissions that come from forestry operations in particular compared with the uptake of carbon dioxide in the flux process. So you need to separate those two out to get a realistic view of how to cut emissions. That is why, of course, we are arguing too that there should be a protection of carbon stocks. The issue of integrity and accuracy in accounting is very important.

In the second reading debate the last time the main bill came before the Senate, we argued that there also needs to be transparency at the facility level. It is not clear to me, Minister, in this particular bill—and I will be interested to hear your explanation of this as well—whether we are now going to have transparency at the facility level. I notice that the Treasurer, Minister Swan, does say that the amendments proposed by this bill go beyond the existing policy in the area of public disclosure. The problem before was that public disclosure was not at the facility level, and that is something the community deserves to have. I do appreciate that there is now in this bill better public disclosure than previously but, Minister, I would like a response about whether the public disclosure amendments cover individual facilities.

The reason I want to know that is this: the plant in South Africa that is the equivalent of the proposed liquefied coal plant in Victoria is the largest point source of greenhouse gas emissions in the world. This one plant, this liquefied coal facility, in South Africa is the largest individual point source. If Victoria goes ahead and tries to rival South Africa as having the largest point source of greenhouse gases in the world, then the community needs to know precisely what the greenhouse gas load from one individual facility actually is. I will be keen to hear the response to that.

In terms of the way the thresholds operate in this legislation, it is looking at two things—individual facilities and also corporations. While the thresholds for corporations scale down, those for individual facilities do not appear to. I would like an explanation from the minister as to why, in that two-stage process, we have not got an equivalent phasing down of the thresholds for individual facilities as we do for the corporations in the second range of thresholds set.

Essentially, what we are seeing in this bill is an improvement to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. It is giving more detail around that and it is getting Australia ready to be able to account properly in the lead-up to the implementation of an emissions trading system. We welcome that. However, I want to put on the record here my concern that when the Rudd government was elected its undertaking was to bring in an emissions trading system, and people assumed that meant an emissions trading system to reduce emissions, but it is now not clear to me that that is the case. It is clear to me that the mechanics of an emissions trading system will be introduced by 2010, in a federal election year. But I am certainly not persuaded, from the signals that are coming from the government, that an emissions trading system will actually deliver a reduction in emissions because for that to occur you would need a reasonable cap on greenhouse gas emissions, therefore driving a reasonable carbon price and therefore actually driving a reduction in emissions.

So I would like to have some reassurance from the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, when he responds to the speeches in the chamber, that the intention of the government with an emissions trading scheme is to actually reduce emissions, not just set in place the mechanics of an emissions trading system. I also remind the minister, since he was speaking with another member of the House when I originally asked these questions, that I want to have an answer about what the rationale is for the 25,000 to 10,000 and an answer on public disclosure at individual facilities. The third question I would like an answer to is whether at the individual facility level there is a ramping down as there is at corporations level. But, yes, the Greens support the bill.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The purpose of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2008 is to make a number of minor amendments to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, to improve the administration of the act and to make modifications to what information can be published by government under that act. The act was introduced by the previous government and enacted on 28 September 2007. It establishes a framework for mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and energy production and consumption by industry. Corporations which exceed certain thresholds are required to apply to register under the system by 31 August 2009 and to provide data connecting their emissions and energy use, commencing with the 2008-09 financial year. The first corporation reports by industry are due by 31 October 2009.

Data collected by the national greenhouse and energy reporting system will facilitate policy making on greenhouse and energy issues. A goal of the system is to eliminate duplication in industry reporting requirements under the existing patchwork of state, territory and Commonwealth greenhouse gas and energy programs. It provides a repository for data which may potentially serve the needs of all Australian governments. The government is working with the states and territories through the Council of Australian Governments to identify opportunities for streamlining national reporting requirements via this system. In addition, the system aims to underpin the introduction of an emissions trading scheme and will assist the government to meet Australia’s international reporting requirements.

For the most part, the administrative amendments of this bill are to improve the functions of the act. They do not impose new regulatory burdens on industry, and the measures will not have a budgetary impact. An example of the greater flexibility provided by these amendments is in the area of registration of corporations under the act. The proposed amendments will ensure that a corporation may apply for registration well in advance of meeting one of the emissions or energy thresholds specified in the act, as opposed to waiting until the day the threshold is met. In addition, it will no longer be necessary for a corporation to provide evidence that it has met a threshold at the point of registration. This will significantly reduce the red tape burden imposed on industry at the start of their involvement with the scheme.

Another administrative amendment set out in this bill is to clarify the distinction between reporting of projects leading to reductions and removals of greenhouse gases and reporting of offsets. Currently, the act allows a corporation to report on offsets arising from a project undertaken by itself or a member of its group. This would prevent a corporation from reporting offsets which could be generated by activities carried out beyond the corporate boundaries of the group. A new provision inserted by this bill will allow separate reporting of offsets and other types of projects.

The bill will ensure the public and investors have access to information on both a corporation’s scope 1, which is direct, and its scope 2, indirect, greenhouse gas emissions. This distinction has been added following public consultation. Corporations will benefit from a greater public understanding of how their emissions profile is composed rather than from the publication of a single total. The bill also allows corporations to disclose to the public the methods used to measure their emissions, and for the accuracy rating of the methods to be disclosed publicly. This will lead to a far greater transparency concerning the accuracy and reliability of data published. This bill demonstrates our government’s commitment to tackling climate change.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the unions? What about them? What is their commitment to the unions?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pretty pleased, actually, that there is finally an interjection because it gives me a chance to get on to some of the comments that Senator Boswell made. I am very interested in Senator Boswell’s quite ridiculous intervention on this matter, because we are talking about our commitment as a government to moving forward on climate change. Senator Boswell is still off fighting the old Work Choices battle, so when we talk about climate change, he starts talking about unions. Senator Boswell should understand that the coalition have actually lost that battle. They were thrown out, mainly because of Work Choices but also because of the very progressive position taken by the Rudd Labor government and its acknowledgement of the need to actually tackle the issues that are important to this country.

At the forefront of that are two issues which Senator Boswell seeks to completely ignore. It is as if he has been sitting over there and has not realised that he has changed sides in this chamber. He ought to start taking notice of what it is that the Australian public wants from a government that actually has a long-term interest in this country at its heart. That is what we are doing. Senator Boswell, through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, we are tackling the hard issues. Of course, tackling greenhouse emissions and climate change is one of those key areas. It is no wonder Senator Boswell tried to intervene on this very serious debate in the ridiculous way that he did, because over there on that side of the chamber they are absolutely full of climate change sceptics.

Let me go through what some of the senators on that side of the House think about climate change. Let us talk about what Senator Cory Bernardi, a member of this chamber, said last year:

I have come to believe we’re seeing a distortion of a whole area of science that is being manipulated to present a certain point of view to the global public, that is that the actions of man are the cause of climate change.

He went on to say:

... I have examined both sides of this debate and when the alarmist statements are discounted, the scientific evidence that remains does not support the scenario that is being presented to us. The facts do not fit the theory.

How out of touch is Senator Bernardi? Really, the world has moved on, Australia has moved on, the Australian public knew that this debate had to move on and we have moved on. And we are going to tackle these hard issues regardless of your scepticism, Senator Boswell, and regardless of the scepticism of most of those on the other side of the chamber.

Let us talk about what Ian Macfarlane, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources when the coalition was still in government, said about climate change. There are a few interesting quotes here:

For every two scientists who argue that there is a connection between global emissions and global warming there is another scientist who will argue the opposite.

That is reminiscent of the old tobacco debate about whether tobacco and smoking cigarettes cause cancer. Yes, you can always roll out the old climate change sceptic scientist, but that does not take away the fact that the science community has overwhelmingly considered these issues and come up with a unanimous conclusion. But you will always find a redneck, and of course rednecks are attracted to those opposite. They love their rednecks, and they gravitate to those opposite because they are full of sceptics. Ian Macfarlane also said:

There is still a degree of uncertainty in the connection between global warming, which we accept that it appears as though the globe is warming but only slightly, and whether or not that is entirely or largely due to human activity. The jury’s still out on that.

Again, it is not. The jury is not out on that, and there is no better jury than the Australian public, who want firm action on climate change—and that is what the Rudd Labor government is going to deliver.

Let us talk about a report of the former House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation which was prepared under the former coalition government. Its members included Dennis Jensen from WA, Jackie Kelly from NSW, Dana Vale from NSW and David Tollner from the Northern Territory, who were all members of the former coalition government when they were in power, which seems so long ago now that it is not long enough. In an extraordinary dissenting report to the House of Representatives science and innovation committee report on the inquiry into geosequestration technology, those members wrote that those who believe humans are causing climate change are fanatics. Really? People who believe that humans are causing and contributing to global warming are simply fanatics! Perhaps the most extraordinary claim made by those then government MPs in the coalition government is that evidence of global warming on other planets, such as Mars and Jupiter, makes it unreasonable for humans to take pre-emptive action on Earth. Of course, the real question is: what planet was the coalition on when those members put in that dissenting report? While those MPs were happy to accept claims about global warming on far-flung planets—ones that Australians can never hope to visit, much less live on—they continue to deny the very real evidence we see of climate change in our own backyards, such as more intense drought and extreme weather events.

The truth is that 1,200 of the world’s leading climate scientists contributed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report of 2007 and found that temperatures on earth rose in the 20th century and will rise at an even faster rate in the 21st century. So, Senator Boswell, through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, when you want to make some serious contribution to this debate, we would welcome hearing it. We would welcome any serious contribution to the climate change debate from anyone in the opposition. They lost the plot when they were in government, they ignored this issue at the peril of Australia, and we are not going to allow that to happen. We are going to take firm action and we are going to show leadership—not just for today and tomorrow, as was so common a theme of the previous government, but in the long-term interests of Australians, their children and their grandchildren. So I welcome your next intervention, Senator Boswell.

The usable and relevant data, the collection of which this bill addresses, will be released publicly to allow Australia’s best thinkers and scientists to find new and innovative solutions to tackling climate change. That data will underpin the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which is to be introduced in 2010. Even prior to the election last year the Prime Minister—then Leader of the Opposition—showed how serious Labor is about tackling climate change. From opposition last year the Prime Minister initiated the National Climate Change Summit to explore the critical challenges of climate change in the 21st century. The summit explored environmental and economic impacts that are likely to result from climate change.

This sits in stark contrast to the members opposite and their steadfast refusal to acknowledge the concerning realities of climate change. Sitting opposite me are many of the same people who, for 11 years, failed to act in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. Not only have they failed the Australian people that elected them but they have failed the future generations of Australians. For too long we have poured greenhouse pollution into the atmosphere, and we are continuing to do so at an alarming rate. We are starting to feel the effects of this pollution: changing temperatures, rainfall patterns, more droughts, floods, water shortages, rising sea levels and extreme weather. Australia is a dry country—the driest inhabited continent on Earth—and we are particularly vulnerable to climate change.

In my state, Victoria—which is the smallest mainland state but the most densely populated and urbanised—we are already feeling the effects of a decade of coalition inaction. Victoria is expected to become warmer with more hot days and fewer cold nights. It is predicted that this will result in increased bushfire risk, less snowfall in alpine areas and more frequent and more severe droughts. Uncontrolled climate change could put a substantial proportion of agricultural production at risk, with a projected decline in Victorian farm production.

I would have thought that Senator Boswell might have intervened at this point of time, as I am talking about the effects on the constituency that his party professes to represent. But it was quite adequately demonstrated by their inaction over the last 11 years that not only do they not care about people who live in urban and built-up areas but they also do not care about people in rural and regional communities, either.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is cruel.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Cruel but true, Senator Boswell. It is time that you started to face up to the hard issues facing this country.

For example, Victoria’s regional agricultural profits from the Lower Murray irrigation sector are likely to decrease by 19 per cent under moderate climate change scenarios. Victoria’s coasts are also at risk. Climate change has the potential to see global sea levels rise dramatically and there is a huge amount of coastal buildings and infrastructure at risk. Along with the threat to agricultural production, the likelihood of rising sea levels, the risks to human health and the likely stresses that will be placed on our infrastructure, we are also likely to witness a decline in biodiversity across the country. There is a need for action now. That action is being led by the Rudd Labor government after nearly 12 years of complete inaction by the previous coalition government.

We are acting now to secure our future and do what we can to make up for the failures of the past. The best way to minimise both the long- and short-term costs and limit the impacts on our future is to act now. In amending the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, we are improving the administration of the act and we are making modifications to what information can be published by government under the act. This is a central part of the Rudd government’s commitment to tackle climate change. I look forward for once to having the support of the opposition. If they do not get their act together, stop being climate change sceptics, get on board and support this government in its long-term goals to make our country and the globe habitable, there will be serious consequences for the next generation and all future generations to come.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate is debating the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2008.This bill amends the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. It mandates the separate disclosure of direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions. It allows the minister to specify conditions of measurement and their publication and amends provisions relating to reporting requirements. The original coalition government act was passed in September 2007, establishing a national mandatory corporate reporting system for collection and dissemination of information related to greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and production. The reporting obligations under the act are intended to lay the foundation for the proposed national emissions trading scheme, due to be introduced in 2010.

Organisations that are going to have to start reporting from the middle of 2009 will need to have in place systems to measure their emissions and trade carbon and will need to address all reporting and monitoring responsibilities under the NGERS. Currently, about 450 companies are required to report under the scheme and by 2011 the number of organisations is estimated to increase to more than 700. Evaluation of the implementation of the scheme and the impact and costs of the measures is still to be undertaken, as the 1 July 2008 start-up date has only just occurred.

This bill signals that Australia is on the cusp of a radical change in the way we do business. There is to be a new cost, at present unquantified, that will impose a burdensome tax on our largest businesses, our largest employers and our largest export earners. Australia faces the most serious decision affecting our economic viability since the great depression. Yet those circumstances were largely beyond our control; with the Rudd government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme, we hold our destiny in our hands.

This debate needs to engage the public’s attention in far greater depth than we have seen so far. There should be no taboo on questioning exactly what price we will pay in jobs, exports and economic health. I say that because there have already been attempts by the green lobby extremists to vilify any who challenge their right to moral supremacy in this debate. Where so much is at stake, we should be totally informed about the consequences of our legislative actions. The costs to householders, workers and businesses under the proposed green paper are dire to say the very least. Business went along with the government to start with, saying, ‘Yes, we’ll work to reduce greenhouse emissions.’ But they do not seem to have realised the Pandora’s box they have opened by choosing that tactic.

The green paper is a recipe for colossal damage to our key competitive industries. The recent BCA study highlights the dangerous impact of Rudd’s emissions trading scheme. It would be reckless in the extreme to impose this on the Australian economy. The Business Council of Australia study found that half the businesses will see their returns drop below acceptable levels. Some trade-exposed, emissions intensive industries will close; others will wind back. There will be a large reduction in new investment. I hope you are listening to this, Senator Carr, as you are the industry minister. Australia will lower its emissions in large part by exporting them to other countries. We will simply import our growing needs rather than meet them locally. Australia will suffer considerable economic pain for no global environmental gain.

The government’s green paper compensation scheme is inadequate and contains significant anomalies. The green paper approach will strongly limit future trade-exposed, emissions intensive investment. The electricity sector requires a near doubling of spending on new power generation and transmission lines to $4 billion per annum. Gas use for electricity must approximately triple, requiring significant development of undeveloped and, as yet, undefined Bass Strait reserves. It is highly likely that brown and black coal electricity generation facilities will have to be rapidly revalued and written down. There is a severe risk of increased electricity supply interruptions.

Australia’s comparative economic advantage is built on commodity based, emissions intensive industries that are often greener than our overseas competitors. Damaging our major industries and sending them offshore will only leave Australia worse off economically and the world worse off environmentally.

We should also be very careful about becoming partners with New Zealand in an emissions scheme, as was recently canvassed by Prime Minister Rudd. New Zealand, as I understand it, already has a carbon market relationship with Europe. If Australia joins up with New Zealand we could be prematurely brought into the European market through arbitrage and we would be swamped by what happens there because it is so large and so beyond our control.

There are 1.1 million people directly employed by trade-exposed, energy intensive companies. Many more are beneficiaries of jobs that flow from the output of these companies. The New South Wales Minister for State Development, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources and Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Macdonald, told trade-exposed industries in June that it looked as if emissions trading could double power prices in the eastern seaboard electricity market. He added:

I shudder to think how the wealth and job-creating industries of NSW will cope.

The Rudd government, he warned:

... has to devise the scheme carefully so as not to send the economy in to freefall.

Late last week we heard more bad news from the transport sector on the unworkability of the carbon reduction scheme. Domestic tourism and Australian airlines will be hard-hit because their costs will go up, while foreign carriers will be cheaper by comparison. This is because the aviation industry will not qualify for compensation. I think the call should go out to the tourism minister: ‘Where the bloody hell are you!’ And perhaps also: ‘Who the bloody hell are you?”

The rail industry is upset that the trucking industry gets compensated for fuel price rises, while they get nothing. The shipping industry says that that puts them at a disadvantage as well, not to mention the fact that foreign shipping will be exempt from the carbon scheme, which will put Australian coastal shipping at a huge competitive disadvantage.

On the weekend it was reported that the Managing Director of Alcoa Australia, Alan Cransberg, warned the Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, that the emissions trading system as currently envisaged, combined with the government’s proposed mandatory renewable energy targets, would threaten future investment in Australia. A representative of Chevron Australia said that the scheme could threaten the proposed Gorgon liquefied natural gas project in Western Australia, even though it would be one of the cleanest LNG projects in the world, with plans to sequester carbon from its operations underground. The manager of refining at ExxonMobil, Glenn Henson, said that the current compensation formula would threaten the operation of the refining industry in Australia. A representative of OneSteel said that the proposed scheme would have the perverse effect of driving production towards higher emissions processes that were slated to receive compensation, rather than cleaner processes that were not. And just today, the Australia Institute reported that an emissions trading scheme will cost charities and community groups $1.1 billion a year. The executive director, Richard Denniss, said:

... if you’ve got hundreds of people in an aged care home then that is a lot of hot water systems. That is a lot of air conditioners. It is a lot of heaters and it is a lot of other energy intensive appliances being used 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Is the government going to compensate charities for extra energy costs? They are not in a position to pass on higher charges to their clients. How will the charity and community sectors cope with an ETS? Has the government even thought about it? And what about the government’s own agencies in these areas? Where in the forward estimates does it allocate extra spending to departments to cope with rising costs as a result of an ETS?

Of all the issues to decide to take real action on, rather than just posing, Rudd chooses the one with the highest risk to jobs and to the economy. There is Fuelwatch and GroceryWatch, which are merely token reactions to government by populism. The one time—the most important time—on which it would be wise to watch closely what is happening before acting intemperately is with this emissions trading scheme. The most important businesses in Australia are lining up to say how this scheme will wreck Australian industry. We have transport infrastructure providers warning of the fallout, we have tourism up in arms about the effect on their competitiveness and we have the not-for-profit sector asking how they will cope with higher costs. Never have I seen a policy give rise to such a litany of liabilities.

We are told that, since the European Union has instigated a system, we can have one too. Yet the Australian reported on August 25:

The EU hasn’t worked out how to treat its emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries and find an equitable system for auctioning permits.

They are facing the same problem as Australia is: any domestic trading scheme renders the home country less competitive and encourages the relocation of trade exposed firms to unregulated economies. To quote Matthew Warren:

Business activity and commensurate government revenue will diminish, unless these transfers can be accurately identified and compensated, or until a comprehensive global deal can be negotiated.

The European Commission is working on a solution by 2010 with a gradual phase-in of permits from 2012 to 2020. People say, ‘If the EU has done it, why can’t Australia do it?’ But the problem is that the core dilemma for Australia—what to do about export industries—has not even been addressed by Europe. We cannot copy or learn from them because they do not know how to handle it either.

Before I conclude I would like to note the latest output from the global warming enthusiasts. The World Wildlife Fund has claimed that recent freezing temperatures in Sydney are proof of the urgent need to cut carbon pollution. I thought we were talking about the perils of global warming. I thought we had to act to stop temperatures rising and inflicting untold disasters on us. Now carbon emissions are responsible for global cooling? This whole emissions trading scheme has been built on the assumption of man-made global warming. Now we are asked to believe it is man-made global cooling and that that will be a similar disaster. That is what I would call a very inconvenient truth. What a twisting charade—and it is no mistake.

I hope the business sector, and Ms Ridout in particular, see what a dangerous friend they have made in accepting global warming. I hope they see now the policy Armageddon they have opened up. If the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme is not drastically altered, if the litany of liabilities is not comprehensively addressed, then it is Australia who will end up pleading with the East Timorese to take us as guest workers and not the other way round.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, I would just like to clarify that you are asking for a committee stage on this bill.

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

I am seeking a response to the matters that I have raised. I am sorry; I have learnt bad habits from being in a state upper house. It is quite different here. I am just seeking a clarification in relation to the matters that I have raised, and that can be done prior to the committee stage.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In a summing-up speech.

The Acting Deputy President:

The minister is able to respond in his summing-up speech.

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

Yes.

The Acting Deputy President:

So there will not be a committee stage required.

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

Yes, very well.

The Acting Deputy President:

Okay, thank you.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I found it regrettable, listening to Senator Boswell’s contribution this afternoon in relation to the very important National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2008, that he sought to take a different path from what I understand to be that of the coalition. Clearly Senator Boswell is one of those sceptics out there who do not believe that climate change is real. We heard Senator Boswell talk about the people—the ‘Jeremiahs’, as he might call them—detailing what might go wrong, what could go wrong and how, if we get tied up with New Zealand, we will be tied up with Europe. I was disappointed. As a former leader of a once great party—I would not say it is great anymore—the National Party, and a Queenslander who would be at the cutting edge of seeing climate changing, dare I say under his feet, he might have been a bit more positive in supporting what we are essentially being asked to do this afternoon—that is, to fix up legislation that was introduced by the previous government.

I urge the coalition to cooperate with us on this important, major shift in public policy, and I do so because I understand from my observations and discussions with members of the business community that they wish to cooperate with the Rudd Labor government. I was heartened when I had the opportunity to skim through some of the submissions that were put before the prime ministerial task group of the previous Prime Minister, Mr Howard, to advise on the nature and design of an emissions trading scheme. I will take the opportunity to highlight to the Senate a number of the great Australian companies that, in their submissions to that prime ministerial task group, have not in any way, shape or form supported the negative comments that we have heard this afternoon from Senator Boswell. Let me commence with our greatest Australian company, BHP Billiton. On page 3 of its submission it says:

It is clear that an effective, sustained global response to the threat of climate change is required.

I did not hear any solutions being offered by Senator Boswell this afternoon—no doubt there will be other senators of his ilk—but there is our great Australian company BHP Billiton, active in mining operations all over the world. BHP went on:

BHP Billiton supports the development of a global, market-based mechanism for valuing and trading emissions entitlements and reductions, on the basis that it is broadly-based … efficient, and phased in in such a way that industry and the economy have sufficient time to adjust.

Here is one of our great Australian companies. It understands that change is underway and it wants to be a partner in that change rather than sit on the outside, as now seems to be the case with the coalition. It went on:

Australia is vulnerable to climate change, as are many of the nations in its region. Acting alone, Australia can do little to mitigate the growth in global emissions.

As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, I take the opportunity to subscribe to a number of magazines that deal with that portfolio area. Each one that I have read in virtually the last 12 months has been acutely aware of the need to address climate change and to have a proposal before government that can involve them. I will name just a few of those magazines. The Land would probably be the bible of the National Party in New South Wales. If you read the Land you will see that almost every page is dedicated to some aspect of climate change, an emissions trading scheme, droughts and other areas of important public policy that are imminent—and they wish to cooperate and be partners in the outcomes.

The Daily Commercial News deals with the import-export business. Again, it is very active in the debate because of its association with shipping and road and rail transport. If you look at the bus industry magazine, called ABC, again almost every page of that fine publication is dedicated to how we are going to deal with this impending crisis. Owner/Driver, a magazine published for single and multi-operators in the road transport business, is equally involved. Australasian Transport News is another. Where is the solution from the coalition? Where is their willingness to partner this government in the outcomes that we need for the sustainable future of our nation? There is none.

I will go on. BHP is a global company started by an Australian. This is what they said in their submission to the Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading: ‘There is a real possibility that an effective global market will develop through the convergence and linking up of a number of regional, national and subnational carbon markets—that is, a bottom-up approach to developing a global market.’ BHP went on: ‘This seems much more likely than following the top-down approach of designing a global market from scratch.’

What is happening here is that these major resource companies, understanding that they have to be partners in this debate, have become involved. We on this side are acutely aware of the threats of climate change. We know that we live on the oldest and driest continent on earth. We know, like you do, Madam Acting Deputy President Troeth, from your small-town background, as you have told me on occasions, that the threat of lack of water is one that many regional and rural Australians are well aware of. We cannot put our heads in the sand and ignore this as, it would appear, the National Party has. I am still unclear as to what is the daily position of the major coalition partner, the Liberals. Are they going to cooperate? Are they going to partner us on this? Are they going to debate it and try to get an outcome that not just the business community but the Australian community can live with? That is their task. I am not sure exactly what the daily position is, but maybe one of the speakers to follow me in this debate will fill us in.

I can go on. Maybe Senator Moore may wish to highlight some of the other companies that made submissions to the prime ministerial task group, understood the need to address the problem and wanted to be part of the solution. They did not stand on the outside waiting for someone to hand them a sheet, as indeed the coalition seems to be wishing would happen for them.

Today I want to support this bill. This bill forms an integral component of the Rudd Labor government’s efforts to tackle climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are committed to reducing greenhouse emissions, and robust, accurate and reliable data is essential to achieving this goal in the most efficient and effective way possible. The bill builds on the emissions reporting requirements introduced by the previous government last year. The act as it stands establishes a framework for mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and energy production and consumption by industry. This system is called the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System. This system will be critical to properly and precisely assessing and quantifying Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. For the first time we will be able to provide public information on the emissions profiles of Australia’s larger corporations.

At the election last year, the working families of Australia made it clear that they were concerned about the impact of climate change on our country.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After 11 years of inaction, denial and neglect, Senator Bernardi, Australian working families made it clear that they wanted a government prepared to act decisively on this issue and tackle climate change head on. Labor made a commitment to do just that.

The Rudd Labor government has taken that commitment on board and run with it. Within weeks of forming government, we had negotiated Australia’s ratification of the Kyoto protocol at the Bali climate change conference. Now we are taking the next steps by patching up the holes and tightening the loose screws on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System. The ultimate purpose of these amendments is to fix the problems created by the previous government’s failure in developing the administrative procedures to be followed and their failure to consult with stakeholders about the legislation.

The then member for Kingsford Smith, now the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, was particularly scathing when, in his speech to the second reading debate in the House of Representatives, he referred to the ‘sloppy’ drafting of the original bill, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill 2007. The Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts found that, while the relevant stakeholders supported the intent and purpose of this scheme, they had not been consulted in the drafting process and as a result there were a number of flaws. This amendment seeks to rectify those flaws. The goal of the national reporting system is to unify the mishmash of local, state and Commonwealth reporting requirements that have been imposed on industry and effectively create one national scheme for greenhouse emissions reporting.

Minister Wong and the government have been working cooperatively with Australian business and state and territory governments to implement the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System. These amendments have been developed in consultation with these stakeholders. By streamlining the existing greenhouse emissions and energy reporting requirements on business, the Rudd Labor government is seeking to reduce the red tape faced by business.

This process is not being developed in isolation; the streamlining of reporting is being pursued with state and territory governments through the Council of Australian Governments’ Working Group on Climate Change and Water. This reporting framework will underpin the planned Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme due to commence in 2010. The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System will collect data across the Australian economy that will underpin the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and provide better information to the public.

The amendments to the act are minor administrative amendments. They will make mandatory the separate disclosure of scope 1 (direct) and scope 2 (indirect) greenhouse gas emissions. Scope 1 emissions, for Senator Bernardi’s benefit, are those that result from an activity or a series of activities that constitute a facility—that is, they are the direct result of the facility’s activities. Scope 2 emissions result from activities that generate electricity, heating, cooling or steam consumed by the facility but do not form part of the facility. Scope 2 reporting is internationally accepted as a standard component of corporate greenhouse gas emission inventories. The government has committed to publicly disclosing scope 1 and scope 2 emissions data separately—a practice that is widely supported by data users—and will ensure that publicly available data is usable and relevant. This is something that those opposite would have realised had they bothered to consult when drafting this legislation.

These amendments will also require any member of a corporation’s group to provide assistance to an external auditor during audits of the corporation to ensure the integrity of the external audit regime is maintained. There is no sense in developing a scheme like this without putting in the proper enforcement and accountability measures. This amendment will fill a glaring hole in the legislation as it stands.

The last two changes that I want to take particular note of are provisions that were raised by the Treasurer in his second reading speech. The first deals with a gap in the legislation that would have made life very difficult for business. Under the current act, corporations could only register to participate in the scheme once it was established that they had reached the emissions threshold. There was no provision to register in anticipation of this, meaning that any business new to the scheme would encounter a great deal of difficulty. These amendments will allow corporations to register for reporting before an emissions threshold is met, rather than having to wait, thus removing a red-tape burden on business.

The second deals with the reporting of carbon offsets outside the regular business of a corporation. Currently, the act only allows offsets to be reported if they arise from a project carried out by the corporation. This would exclude the possibility of reporting offsets created by the activities of a different corporation. An example of this would be an airline offsetting its emissions via tree-planting activities. Should this continue, it would be a significant disincentive to investing in carbon offsets—which any government that is serious about tackling climate change should be doing its utmost to encourage. Again, this is another significant gap in the legislation that was a result of sloppy drafting and a lack of consultation by the previous government.

These amendments do not increase regulatory burdens on industry or have any budgetary impact. They are designed to improve the administrative operation of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme. They are designed to better reflect the original policy intention of the current act and, if passed, will make it easier for business to comply with their reporting requirements. If anything, these amendments will make compliance easier for business. This system will, by the 2009-10 reporting year, reduce the number of reports that businesses are required to submit under the existing greenhouse and energy programs across Australia. The Rudd Labor government is simplifying the system and making it easier to tackle climate change head-on.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like Senator Hutchins, I am very pleased to be able to speak to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment Bill 2008 today and support it, because it is yet another plank in the government’s legislative framework to address the pressing issue of climate change and, in particular, to introduce our emissions trading scheme, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which, although a daunting prospect for the government, is one that we have embraced and are very proud to be advancing through steps in consultation with the community and with business. This bill, while modest in its intent, is certainly very necessary to ensure that we have the best possible outcome with regard to the introduction of our Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Introduced by the coalition last year, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 was enacted on 28 September 2007. The act established a national mandatory corporate reporting system for, and for the dissemination of information related to, greenhouse emissions, energy consumption and production. This bill will make a number of minor amendments to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act to improve the administration of the act and to make modifications to what information can be published by the government under the act.

Before it passed through parliament, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, now called—much easier to say—the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts. The committee tabled its report on September 2007. As part of its report, it noted:

All stakeholders supported the development of a national greenhouse gas reporting scheme.

The report goes on with an example:

The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network (AIGN), representing industry associations and corporations, stated that:

AIGN members have long supported the need to develop a rigorous, transparent, nationally consistent, energy and greenhouse reporting system, underpinned by purpose built Commonwealth legislation.

The report goes on to say:

Environmental groups were also supportive. The Australian Network of Environmental Defender’s Offices (ANEDO) stated that [it] has consistently supported proposals for comprehensive and transparent public reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. State governments also indicated their support. The Victorian government for example stated that:

The implementation of a national mandatory emissions reporting system is a critical building block in the introduction of a national emissions trading scheme. The Victorian Government supports the development of the most efficient emissions reporting system that imposes the least cost and least regulatory burden on business.

Of course, what the Victorian government stated there is the objective of the federal government as well.

I am pleased to be supporting the bill, which will greatly improve and strengthen a scheme which has, already, so much support and which will necessarily make sure that there is accountability and transparent reporting mechanisms for the future CPRS. Prior to the election last year, Labor was clear on the fact that the future of the environment and tackling climate change was to be one of the highest priorities for Labor if we won government. It became apparent that it was also of the highest priority for the Australian public because they rewarded the Labor Party with the honour of government and the honour of being able to lead the nation in tackling climate change.

The Labor Party has always been up front with the Australian public about these important issues. This is in contrast to those opposite who refused to act on climate change despite the fact that they had more than 11 years to do so. From time to time we note that there are still, on the opposition seats, climate change sceptics. It was very disappointing to see the Leader of the Opposition on a television program last night still grappling with whether or not he believed that climate change was having an effect on water security in Australia, and in particular in my state of South Australia.

Recently I was fortunate enough to speak about these important issues with the agriculture sector when I represented Minister Burke at the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics Regional Outlook conference in Mount Gambier in South Australia. It was a very welcome opportunity to meet with stakeholders and hear about research on various topics affecting rural and regional areas. These topics ranged from local agricultural data and innovative business practices that farmers, horticulturalists and agricultural producers are implementing in my state of South Australia through to the global commodity overview.

I spoke to the conference about two challenges that frame much of the federal government’s policy for our agriculture, fishing and forestry industries, particularly in the context of climate change. The first challenge discussed was, unsurprisingly, climate change and the fact that that is the greatest threat to the wellbeing of our agricultural competitiveness and sustainability. As I have said before, the Labor government’s response to climate change is based on three pillars that are worth reiterating: adapting to inevitable and unavoidable climate change; reducing our carbon emissions; and being part of a global solution.

Linked to climate change is another major pressure on primary industries—that is, globalisation, or the way the world effectively is shrinking as people and goods cross borders more seamlessly and in greater volumes. Globalisation is also a driver for Australia implementing a national emissions trading scheme, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. We want to be there with the rest of the modern world addressing climate change through an ETS.

Agriculture, forestry and fishing, of course, are all huge contributors to the economy of my state, and none of those contributors is immune to global pressures. Rightly, the people who attended the conference at which I spoke were concerned about the prospect of an emissions trading scheme but were reassured by government representatives that they would continue to be consulted about the implementation of that scheme, which has particular implications for agriculture. One of the reasons agriculture will not be included in the scheme is that we want to have adequate time to get our policy absolutely right in that regard.

As I said before, since the Rudd government was elected we have made sure that climate change and addressing the health and wellbeing of our environment are upfront and centre. One of the first actions of the new government was ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in December 2007, just a week or so after the election. Representing Australia in those negotiations was Senator Penny Wong, Australia’s Minister for Climate Change and Water. This is the first time the nation has had a minister with specific portfolio responsibilities in that area—and a great initiative that was on the part of the Prime Minister!

I did mention the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The following principles will guide the development of the scheme, and this bill that we are discussing today is integral to the success of that scheme. The scheme will be a cap and trade scheme. That is, it will set an overall environmental cap by issuing a set number of permits and allow entities to trade permits, thereby putting a price on carbon. The caps will be designed to place Australia on a low-emissions path in a way that best manages the economic impacts of transition, while assuring our ongoing economic prosperity.

It is very disappointing to hear the gloom and doom apocalyptic predictions of those opposite about the implementation of an ETS when the government is striving very hard to bring industry on board and encouraging them to participate in our negotiations, discussion and policy development. My colleague Senator Hutchins went into some considerable detail about what the government is doing in that regard and how big business in Australia is well ahead of the opposition in coming to grips with the fact that climate change exists and that we may need to make significant policy advances—policy leaps, in fact—to ensure that we address it as a mature country not afraid to confront the significant global issues out there that will affect us if we do not take a leadership stance, which I am pleased to see we will be doing.

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will necessarily have maximum coverage of greenhouse gases and sectors, to the extent that it is practical. The broader the scheme’s coverage, as we know, the more cost effective it will be, the more cost effectively it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the more fairly it will spread the burden of such reductions across all sectors of the community. The scheme will be designed to enable international linkages, while ensuring it suits Australia’s economic conditions. The scheme’s design will address the competitive challenges facing emission-intensive trade-exposed industries in Australia and it will also address the impact on strongly affected industries. Measures will be developed to assist households, particularly low-income households, to adjust to the impact of carbon prices.

This bill is another step along the way to achieving an effective carbon pollution reduction scheme, the broad outline of which I have just put to the Senate. This bill establishes a framework for mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and energy production and consumption by industry. The bill will make mandatory the separate disclosure of scope 1, direct, and scope 2, indirect, greenhouse gas emissions. Direct greenhouse gas emissions are those owned or controlled by a company, while indirect emissions are those produced by third parties using a product. The most obvious example is energy consumption. This new reporting process will give consumers and investors a much more realistic idea about emissions, as some sectors contribute to significant indirect emissions.

The National Generators Forum expressed some criticism of this proposal, saying it will add to the red tape of the system without assisting greenhouse emissions trading, and the government has taken those criticisms into account and will simplify the reporting process by setting up an online emissions calculator—an innovative way to use modern technology to address a modern problem. The government is very cognisant of the fact that we need to keep a lid on red tape and avoid any significant increase in the reporting burdens that could otherwise be faced by business if we did not take that into account.

The bill also gives the minister power to determine the methods for measuring emissions, energy production and energy consumption. The minister will set out how emissions, reduction, removal, offsets, production and consumption are to be measured. Registered corporations and members of a corporation’s group must also comply with an external audit process.

Currently, around 450 companies are required to report their emissions; however, lower thresholds will gradually be phased in from 2010 and the number of companies involved will be increased to more than 700. The amendment in the bill will simplify the emissions-reporting requirements for companies and will help to give us a clearer picture about the emissions that companies produce. Of course, that information is integral to ensuring the effectiveness of our CPRS. At the same time, the bill will increase the number of matters which may be published by the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer to improve public access to information on corporate use of energy and greenhouse gas emissions.

A very important part of the system is to eliminate duplication in industry reporting requirements under the existing state, territory and Commonwealth greenhouse gas and energy programs. It provides a repository for data which may potentially serve the needs of all Australian governments, and that will also be invaluable in developing and implementing our CPRS. The government is working with the states and territories through the Council of Australian Governments to identify opportunities for streamlining national reporting requirements via this system. That is another excellent example of cooperation between the state and federal governments to address the most significant issue facing us.

In addition, the system aims to underpin the introduction of an emissions trading scheme and will assist the government to meet Australia’s international reporting requirements. An example of the greater flexibility provided by the amendments in this bill is in the area of registration of corporations under the act. Unfortunately, with the limited time, I will not go into that in great detail, save to say that once again it is a very necessary mechanism to ensure that we have the best possible CPRS and that we are collecting the best possible data and making it available to those who need to know so that we can have the best possible policy in every area when it comes to addressing climate change and carbon emissions.

The bill clarifies that a member of a corporation’s group must provide assistance to an external auditor during audits of the corporation’s group—again, an accountability mechanism targeted at organisations to ensure that the integrity of the data is as good as it can be, as good as it must be, for us to develop and implement the best possible mechanisms to address and reduce carbon emissions in this nation.

I am very pleased I have had the opportunity to speak to this bill today and I understand that there are a number of other speakers on the list. It is always of interest to see that what seems like a modest bill has in fact generated considerable interest amongst senators in the chamber. I think it is a testament to the Senate that we are taking considerable time to address very minor amendments but in an area that is integral to the future economic and social wellbeing of the nation. That is about all I can squeeze in today and I look forward to seeing this bill in operation in the very near future as the nation moves onwards and forwards—

Debate interrupted.