HANSARD EXTRACT
| National Greenhouse and Energy
Reporting Bill 2007: Second Reading |
| 12
September 2007 |
Mr HAYES
(Werriwa) (6.03 p.m.)—I say
from the outset that I certainly will be supporting the amendment
moved by the member for Kingsford Smith, but I will return to that a
little later. The
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill
2007
establishes a single national framework for reporting greenhouse gas
emissions, emissions reduction actions and energy consumption and
production of corporations from July 2008. As I understand it—and I
have no reason to doubt this—this is an absolutely essential
precursor to establishing an emissions trading system. By the
2010-11 financial year, the reporting framework will apply to
approximately 700 companies that emit more than 50 kilotonnes of
greenhouse gases. However, the fact remains that this particular
bill is being rushed through this parliament so that this government
can claim that it has passed primary legislation to enable the
establishment of an emissions trading scheme.
I concede that the bill is necessary. It certainly underpins the
introduction of a national emissions trading mechanism. However, the
bill’s has major shortcomings. Firstly, there is the provision of
excessive reporting powers to the Commonwealth, which could be used,
quite frankly, to usurp and marginalise some of the existing state
laws and programs dealing with similar matters. Secondly, the
timetables are so constrained—and they are certainly constrained
from Labor’s point of view—that, under the way the bill is drafted
currently, they would not be able to allow an emissions trading
scheme to be introduced by 2010, which, I remind the House, is
Labor’s policy.
All members of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment,
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts that sat to
consider this bill when it was referred to them have recommended
significant amendments to this piece of legislation, particularly in
relation to the excessive reporting powers as drafted therein. Labor
recognises the urgent need for progress on emissions trading, but it
does not excuse the poor process or a lack of genuine consultation
not only with industry or environmental groups but also with the
community at large.
The bill, which was introduced in this place in August of this year,
includes the following elements: mandatory registration and
controlling corporations with a national scheme; the requirement of
registered corporations to keep records and provide reports;
requirements concerning the security and disclosure of information
under the scheme; compliance and enforcement of arrangements;
administrative arrangements, including the establishment of a
position of a greenhouse and energy data officer; and compliance
monitoring arrangements. I have no issue with those. I think they
are matters that are required as natural precursors to establishing
a mechanism upon which to base a national trading scheme.
This bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on
Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts,
and that committee convened on 3 September of this year—not all that
long ago, you would say. At that stage the committee heard evidence
from a range of groups. One of the consistent areas of complaint
throughout the evidence that was taken by that committee was the
fact that there was little if any consultation with key stakeholders
within the environmental area, within industry and within the
community. Regardless of who they were, whether they were expert
witnesses, state governments, industry groups or environmental
groups, all agreed that, while the objectives of this legislation
are sound and are necessary to underpin a proper emissions trading
scheme, this bill as it is drafted—as it is poorly drafted—is
riddled with problems.
The inquiry heard that the bill would deliver unintended
consequences, such as a significant rise in compliance costs; would
produce a fractured system, which may not include as a consequence
all the major emitters; would undermine state laws on climate
change; and could conceivably cut across other state laws which,
while not directly or primarily connected to greenhouse emissions,
would nevertheless be involved in emissions and pollution control
issues. The Investor Group on Climate Change—not an insignificant
group—were of the opinion that the time frames for introducing a
practical emissions trading system are far too slow. They were
calling for better quality in the drafting of this piece of
legislation in order to deliver a trading mechanism sooner. I will
come back to the issue of the investor groups.
Whilst everyone is talking freely these days about aspirational
targets, one of the main things that industry want is certainty.
Industry want to know how they are going to raise capital to invest
in a number of these technologies which will deliver greenhouse
abatement benefits. To do that they need to have certainty in
relation to raising funds, whether publicly or privately, and that
is why industry say that they are on the outside and are what some
might see as needing to be dragged into this tent. The people who I
deal with in the industry, quite frankly, are looking for
leadership. They are looking for government leadership when it comes
to proper attention to greenhouse gas emission. Industry are not our
problem at the moment; a lack of direction from this government is.
As a consequence of its drafting, the bill sets in place a number of
issues. According to the evidence of those who participated in the
inquiry, for those in the business community who are looking for an
investment opportunity it sets in place a slowness for Australia to
actually take action on climate change. It is all very well to have
an issue brought to the parliament at this stage of the electoral
cycle—at a time when the government is trying to demonstrate some
credentials, after 11 years, in relation to environmental concerns,
particularly the emission of greenhouse gases. But this hastily
cobbled together piece of legislation, which is, as I said, a
precursor to the development of a national trading scheme, has been
put together with no consultation. And the Senate inquiry, having
heard evidence from those who appeared only very recently, on 3
September, had to deal with the consequence of this very hasty
attempt by the government to try to establish some meagre
environmental concern.
I indicated that there would potentially also be issues in relation
to the application of this bill to existing state law. That is a
real and present danger as a consequence of the drafting of this
legislation, particularly in terms of New South Wales. Madam Deputy
Speaker Bishop, you are probably familiar with the greenhouse gas
reduction scheme that operates there. In a previous life I had much
to do with the New South Wales greenhouse abatement certificates
issued to commercialised projects and, indeed, with those issued to
commercialised projects in Queensland, of all places, as a
consequence of the
New South Wales
system of gas abatement certificates. It is important that the
stakeholders in this legislation also include those states which
are, by default, running their own de facto mechanisms in this
respect. If anything, from what we can see, this legislation is
simply moving to usurp those mechanisms which are available in many
states presently.
The Labor members on the committee that dealt with this matter on 3
September all supported the urgent implementation of the
comprehensive mandatory greenhouse emissions energy reporting
scheme. That is not something that is going to be contested. It is
something that must be achieved. Unfortunately, the time constraints
imposed by the bill make it difficult to think that this bill as it
is currently structured could actually lead to the development of an
emissions trading scheme by 2010.
In the absence of federal leadership on climate change, state and
territory governments have been taking steps—disparate as they may
be across the nation—to address the issue of greenhouse gas
emissions. As a consequence, Labor members on the committee had the
view that clause 5 should be amended to rein in the proposed overly
broad Commonwealth powers, which can extend over state laws. Labor
members also want to amend clauses 27(1) and 27(2)(c) so that it is
necessary to provide reporting information to state governments. I
do not think it should be the objective of government to simply
impose some exclusivity when it comes to addressing greenhouse gas
emissions when there are clearly measures at a state level which are
making inroads. We should be looking for a degree of harmonisation,
but certainly keeping those states which are applying themselves
well in this area in the loop. Rather than reducing uncertainty,
this legislation, as I read it, has the potential to deliver
unintended consequences, such as legal ambiguities, which will
increase the compliance burden of this scheme.
There is no doubt that the sooner we act on emissions trading the
longer the economy will have to adjust to the market signals and the
better placed we will all be to prosper under the growing
international approach to carbon markets. That is just an economic
fact of life. I mentioned earlier the timely nature of this bill—and
probably put it somewhat facetiously—with the bill coming in at this
point in the electoral cycle. The fact remains that in the 11
budgets delivered by this government there has not once been a
mention of ‘climate change’. In the whole 11 years of this
government—this government which wants to contend that the single
biggest thing that occurred at APEC recently was the statement in
relation to aspirational targets and the fulfilment of the
government’s objective in that respect—not once has it listed
climate change in its budgets as a line item.
Yesterday in the matter of public importance debate the member for
Kingsford Smith, whose amendment I am supporting, read the following
statement:
Climate change is a serious issue. It is a global problem and the
solution will also have to be global. The cost of adjustment must be
distributed fairly evenly among developing economies as well as
developed ones. We have a comprehensive national response to limit
our greenhouse gas emissions.
That statement was made on
28 August 1996
by the current Prime Minister. Climate change has dominated real
politics now for some time, yet the language of the Howard
government remains the same as that enunciated back on
28 August 1996.
Recently there was a contention by some in this place that climate
change really was not an issue of concern. You may remember, Madam
Deputy Speaker Bishop, a report of the Inquiry of the House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation into
geosequestration. I am a member of that committee and enjoy my
participation on it. The committee gains a very real insight into
the issues referred to it, particularly by having access to some of
the best scientific and academic resources available in dealing with
the various subjects referred to it. The minister had referred to
the committee for inquiry the science of geosequestration. This is
effectively the science of carbon capture and storage of CO as a
consequence of energy production. The committee looked at the
science of capturing that CO, putting it into liquid form and
storing it in the earth. This is something that the government, to
its credit, is investing in as a real and viable technology in
addressing the issues of CO emissions, particularly in relation to
power generation.
As I said, I am a member of that committee. This particular inquiry
took around 13 months, during which we heard evidence from a range
of highly credible witnesses, including representatives from
industry, academia and CSIRO. Throughout the committee’s
deliberations there were those who certainly had concerns in
relation to the efforts of government or alternately wanted to have
their position on this technology recorded—enough on the history of
that. The point of the matter is that the majority of the
government’s elected members on the committee produced a minority
report. The member for Tangney, the member for Lindsay, the member
for Hughes and the member for Solomon all combined to write a
dissenting report, which, as I understand it—and I have only been
here a short time—is a pretty rare occurrence. The government has
six members on the committee, so the majority of government members
on the committee all combined to write a minority report.
The basis of their dissenting report was that they wanted to record
their view that they do not believe in climate change. They are
climate change deniers. These four members of the committee produced
a report denying the fact that climate change has been caused in any
way by greenhouse gas emissions and saying that the jury is out as
to whether greenhouse gas emissions have been contributed to by man.
This dissenting report said:
Another problem with the view that it is anthropogenic greenhouse
gases that have caused warming is that warming has also been
observed on Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Pluto, Neptune and others.
This dissenting report wanted to question whether there is any
reputable science underpinning the notion of greenhouse gas
emissions contributing to climate change and wanted to cite what is
occurring on other planets and moons. If they are the majority of
people that this coalition government put on their committee to look
at the consequence of carbon capture and storage, how many other
people— (Time expired)
Return
to Speeches Menu.
