Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

I want to draw Senator Ludwig’s attention to the fact that during the second reading debate I asked three specific questions in relation to this legislation, and I had thought that in the government’s summing-up they would have responded to those. That has not happened, but I am sure the advisers will have provided some information. I do not wish to delay the Senate but I hope that the minister will give me a response to the issues about individual facility reporting and public reporting of individual facility emissions. The second issue was in relation to why we set 25,000 when the EU has set 10,000 for phase 3 of their emissions trading scheme—what the rationale was and whether we are going to be seeing that. The third issue was with regard to the differentiation between the implementation of the phasing-in of stricter requirements for reporting. We are doing that for corporations but apparently not for individual facilities, so I wanted to have an explanation from the government as to why that is the case and how that is to be addressed. I ask that the minister respond to those particular issues.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the opportunity during the third reading contribution to provide a response to Senator Milne in respect of the matters that were raised earlier. The first question was: why was a 25 kilotonne facility threshold rather than a 10 kilotonne facility level threshold selected through an interjurisdictional process under the COAG as providing the greatest coverage of emissions and energy data whilst minimising the reporting burden on small to medium enterprises? This was based on modelling done with the regulatory impact statement for the relevant act.

The second question was: why is there no public disclosure at the facility level? Greenhouse gas emissions have global impacts rather than local. On this basis the decision was made, in consultation with investors, industry stakeholders and state and territory governments, that the National Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reporting System could more relevantly disclose data at the corporate rather than facility level. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme green paper has identified the options for emissions data to be disclosed publicly at the facility level. Decisions on the need for this will be taken as part of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme design in consultation with industry investment, government and non-government stakeholders. The third question was: why don’t facility level thresholds phase down in a similar way to corporate level thresholds? The response to that is that corporate level thresholds phase down to the preferred thresholds to enable corporations that may not have previously reported to prepare their reporting systems. The facility level thresholds have included the preferred final threshold from the first reporting period to ensure that liable entities under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme are reporting as early as possible. As such there was no need to phase down thresholds at facility level.

The answers to questions asked by Senator Xenophon are as follows. The first question was: how will the online system ensure that reporting of scope 2 or indirect emissions will not increase the regulatory burden on Australian companies? The response to that is in four parts. Firstly, the online reporting system is already being used successfully under the Greenhouse Challenge Plus program for corporations to report scope 2 emissions data to government. Secondly, many corporations are already reporting this data publicly in sustainability reports and, through voluntary systems, the carbon disclosure project. Thirdly, calculating electricity scope 2 emissions is a simple matter of multiplying electricity consumption by a state average emission factor; and, fourthly, the online system allows companies to simply enter their electricity data which is already required for energy reporting. The system automatically converts it to emissions using the standard emissions factors.

The second question comes in multiple parts. I turn to: how is the government going to take into account studies such as the Mackay study through the ANU on measurement of forestry sinks? The response to that is: building sound scientific knowledge of carbon storage in Australian forests is important. Australia has developed a world leading national carbon accounting system to account for greenhouse gas emissions from land based sectors, including carbon storage in native forests. The government NCAS draws on Australian research from peer reviewed scientific studies and encourages research into these fields. The government welcomes the Australian National University’s research on carbon storage in intact natural forests in south-east Australia. Also it is important to build sound scientific knowledge of carbon storage in Australian forests. The methodology for the estimation of carbon in Australian forests using the NCAS is based on comprehensive review of published research by the CSIRO, and the synthesis of this work is published in scientific journals.

The estimation, methodology and national accounts follow guidelines prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and are subject to comprehensive review within Australia and internationally. It is also noted that the carbon accounting approach for forests, which underpin our national accounts, has been misrepresented in the Mackay report. Lastly, the Department of Climate Change would be interested in engaging with researchers once the research has been published and considered along with the existing body of research.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.