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

I move Australian Greens amendment (2) on sheet 5878:

(2)    Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 14), after item 10, insert:

10A  Subsection 24(1A)

Omit “This subsection is subject to subsection 25(3).”.

10B  After subsection 24(1A)

Insert:

(1AAA)   In addition to publishing the totals for the corporation’s group, the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer must also publish on the website, in the case of a facility under the operational control of a member of the group and the individual operation of which meets a threshold mentioned in paragraph 13(1)(d) for a financial year:

             (a)    the greenhouse gas emissions that are scope 1 emissions (within the meaning of the regulations); and

             (b)    the greenhouse gas emissions that are scope 2 emissions (within the meaning of the regulations); and

             (c)    energy consumption;

reported in relation to the facility under Part 3.

(1AAB)    In addition to publishing the matters mentioned in subsection (1AAA), the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer may also publish on the website:

             (a)    the methods mentioned in paragraph 19(6)(b) that were used to measure the values for the facility concerned; and

             (b)    the rating given to each of those methods under the determination under subsection 10(3).

10C  Subsection 24(1B)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

Limitations

      (1B)    The Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer must not publish information mentioned in:

             (a)    subsection (1)—unless the corporation’s group meets a threshold mentioned in paragraph 13(1)(a) for the financial year covered by the report; or

             (b)    subsection (1AAA)—unless the facility meets a threshold mentioned in paragraph 13(1)(d) for the financial year covered by the report.

10D  Subsection 24(1C)

Repeal the subsection.

10E  Subsection 24(2)

Omit “This subsection is subject to subsection 25(3).”.

10F  Subsection 24(3)

Omit “This subsection is subject to subsection 25(3).”.

10G  Section 25

Repeal the section.

As I indicated in my comments on the second reading, the purpose of this amendment is to give effect to the publication on the website of the emissions from a facility under the operational control of a member of the group et cetera, and not just the aggregate total across the corporation or group. As I indicated in my remarks the reason for this in terms of public disclosure is critical. It is very clear that the government are requiring, under this framework, that that information be collected, so they will know what the emissions are across the total group and at the facility level, but there has clearly been a decision not to publish that and make it available. What I am doing here is requiring that that facility-level reporting is made public via the website so that, above a certain threshold level—which we would obviously like to be lower, but nevertheless—if you are required to report, you are required to report at a facility level.

I think it is fairly clear what the Australian Greens are seeking to do with the amendment I have moved. It is a matter of transparency, of public accountability, of giving the public the information they need to know about individual facilities. People need to know what Hazelwood, for example, is emitting. People would like to know what Aurora is emitting in New South Wales. We need to have that information. I would like to know why the government has chosen not to require that that be made available.

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

The opposition do not support the Greens amendment. Our adjudication is that this will lead to a significant increase in the compliance cost burden for businesses, especially medium-sized businesses.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will address Senator Milne’s first issue, which is the subject of the first set of amendments on sheet 5878, which is essentially in relation to the publishing of information. The government is not in favour of publicly reporting emissions in energy information at the facility level. I have indicated in my speech that corporate group reporting remains. But, obviously, in mandating public disclosure, the government has sought to balance the need to protect commercially sensitive information with the desire to inform the public and other data users about greenhouse gas emissions and energy use.

Industry stakeholders have highlighted significant issues around the release of commercially sensitive information if, for example, the information gives an indication of companies’ cost structures and it could be used by existing and potential competitors to inform their pricing and other commercial strategies. Energy and greenhouse emissions data can provide a reliable indication of the business costs of energy-intensive companies for whom energy is a major cost of production. Emissions data can also indicate the efficiency of particular technologies or facilities. In contrast, business costs cannot easily be derived from corporate level data which aggregates energy or emissions used across different activities and/or facilities. So the government is not supportive of the amendment.

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

That is really the nub of the debate. It is not about compliance costs, as Senator Johnston tried to imply. The government are going to have access to this anyway because they have to report, obviously, at each facility in order to get their aggregate emission levels. That information is going to be available; the question is whether it is made available publicly. The minister said the objection to making it public is that companies have argued it is commercial in confidence and, as she rightly said, it will give an indication of the relative efficiency of an operation.

I would argue that the community has a right to know the level of emissions coming from certain facilities and just how efficient or inefficient they are in order to make judgments about whether the generosity in compensation, free permits and so on, is justified. This is actually enabling corporations to hide their least efficient and most polluting facilities behind an aggregate figure rather than letting out the information that the public wants to know: exactly how much greenhouse gas is being emitted from certain point sources. However, it is a philosophical difference of opinion as to whether we should have facility level reporting or aggregate reporting. The Greens think that, in the interests of transparency and driving the transformative processes that we need in the economy, the community needs to have information about where the most greenhouse gas pollution is coming from.

I have moved the amendment. It is clear that it does not have the support of the coalition or the government, who would prefer corporations to be able to hide behind aggregate figures. I think that protecting some of the biggest polluters under those aggregate figures will slow down the transformation we need in the Australian economy.

Question negatived.

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

On behalf of the opposition, I seek to withdraw opposition amendment (1) on sheet 5819, in line with my former remarks.

Leave granted.

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

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 5878:

(1)    Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:

(3)   Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 5), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 3—Amendment relating to facility reporting threshold

38  Subparagraph 13(1)(d)(i)

Omit “25 kilotonnes”, substitute “10 kilotonnes”.

39  Subparagraphs 13(1)(d)(ii) and (iii)

Omit “100 terajoules”, substitute “40 terajoules”.

As I indicated in my second reading remarks, this is about reducing the threshold at which facilities are required to report. As I indicated, the government has set that at 25,000 tonnes. The Greens think it should be less than that, 10,000 tonnes, consistent with, as I said, more rigorous reporting frameworks being applied elsewhere. As I indicated, all emissions above one kilotonne must be accounted for under the European emissions trading scheme in terms of liable entities. I would like to see a more rigorous threshold in Australia, and I have so moved.

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

I am not sure that Senator Milne would be terribly surprised to know that the opposition does not support her amendments.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to respond a little more to the content of Senator Milne’s amendment. We have sought as a government to set the thresholds under the scheme at a level which will capture a significant proportion of Australia’s emissions, at the same time being very cognisant of the need to be wary of imposing significant compliance costs. The threshold has been set so as to capture a significant proportion of Australia’s emissions but avoid significant compliance costs, particularly for small business.

Under the act, as Senator Milne is probably aware—she does take an interest in these issues—reporting thresholds will be phased down over three years. This provides companies not currently reporting with time to prepare for greater reporting obligations. I could go through those, but I think the senator is aware of them. At the facility level, corporations are required to report when their facilities emit more than 25,000 tonnes or use more than 100 terajoules of energy. By design, this corporate level threshold is intended to exclude companies with relatively low emissions and/or relatively low energy use. The lower facility level threshold is intended to capture large facilities operated by companies that do not trigger the overall corporate level threshold.

The government did, as part of the regulatory impact statement, analyse a range of different threshold models based on data coverage and cost to business, and the threshold model adopted in the act has been set at a level which captures around 70 per cent of Australia’s emissions and energy data. This provides a sound basis for greenhouse and energy policy while avoiding excessive compliance costs, particularly on small businesses.

We do not support the amendment moved by Senator Milne. For example, reducing the facility reporting threshold to 10 kilotonnes would significantly increase compliance costs. The number of reporting entities would increase some three times, from 600 to around 1,800, whilst the coverage of greenhouse gas emissions would increase by less than 10 per cent. We consider that the current facility reporting threshold of 25 kilotonnes also minimises ongoing compliance costs as it aligns with the proposed threshold for assessing facilities under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.