Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to give my strong support to the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Amendment Bill 2010. I particularly welcome the support of the opposition on this bill and thank the member for Flinders for his contribution. Some people in the opposition might be a little bit haphazard and divided when it comes to meaningful action on climate change but on this bill and certainly on some other initiatives, such as renewable energy measures, the opposition have been willing partners. I again commend the member for Flinders especially for this approach.

In recent years Australia has made significant progress in phasing out and managing those substances that contribute to the depletion of the very important ozone layer. The Sydney Morning Herald reported this week that the hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic is the smallest it has been in a decade. But wait, it is unfortunately still 24 million square kilometres. The good news is that the ozone layer is slowly repairing itself; the bad news is that it is still a significant size and a problem.

It goes to show, once again, that people do have an impact on our globe. Before we knew that they did any damage to the ozone layer, chlorofluorocarbons were used extensively in refrigerants, aerosol propellants and solvents. It turned out that CFCs move around the globe, eventually rising to the stratosphere and at about 12 kilometres above the earth they are broken down by sunlight. They release chlorine, which reacts with and destroys stratospheric ozone. Scientists believe that one chlorine atom can destroy more than 100,000 ozone molecules. When the scientists showed us the evidence that CFCs were ripping the ozone layer apart, thankfully the world responded, and quickly. It was one of the finest hours for the scientists, the politicians and everyone else. It is a real example of global collaboration.

Australia banned the importation and the manufacture of CFCs from 31 December 1995 for all but essential uses. The evidence shows us that it worked. As I said, the hole in the ozone layer is getting slowly smaller, as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald this week. It goes to show that when the world acts together we can dramatically affect the climate for better and for worse. Andrew Darby put it well in the Sydney Morning Herald article when he wrote:

There are few better scientific examples of this in contemporary times than the clever detective work that found ozone depletion, established its environmental costs, fingered the culprits, and got rid of them.

If only we could use this example as our inspiration to respond to other climate challenges such as carbon pollution, for example.

Australia is a signatory to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Maybe we should move the Copenhagen discussions to Montreal; it might be a more agreeable city in which to reach a global agreement. Nevertheless, these international agreements are implemented through the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989—an act which after 20 years is difficult to enforce and out of date but, in its time, helped to achieve a culture change here in Australia regarding CFCs.

This bill amends the act to ensure better compliance and more appropriate enforcement provisions. The bill introduces a civil penalty and infringement notice scheme which mirrors the current criminal offences. Under the current system, licensees and permit holders must meet a number of conditions prescribed under the act. As it stands, the only penalty that exists for failing these conditions is the suspension or cancellation of a permit and a criminal conviction. As an alternative, the bill introduces an infringement notice scheme for some offences. This is a far more appropriate course of action for these offences, which are mostly relatively minor. Also under this bill inspectors will be better qualified and face tougher conduct requirements. Their powers will also be expanded to allow inspectors to assess onsite if a breach has occurred.

I also welcome the new provisions in the act setting out the rights of private individuals relating to the collection, handling and return of evidence. The bill also clarifies the purpose of the Ozone Protection and SGG Account, which was established under the act to support the development of evidence based policy research. The bill also extends the ban on air conditioning equipment containing hydrochlorofluorocarbons to be extended to the import and manufacture of hydrochlorofluorocarbon refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. This supports our commitment and our legally binding international obligation to phase out hydrochlorofluorocarbons.

This bill does allow for exceptions where a ban would currently be impractical. When governments engage the community about banning risky and dangerous substances from use there is often an outcry from industry that the world as we know it is over, that the sky is falling, so to speak—the Henny Penny phenomenon, I call it. In my experience this actually undersells industry’s ability in this country to find new and innovative solutions. Take for example the recent announcement by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to ban endosulfan, a chemical used widely by tropical fruit and vegetable growers, nut farmers and cotton farmers, particularly in Queensland. Industry had warned for some time that they could not do without the chemical, but when the APVMA finally banned it industry was quite accepting of the ruling and more than capable of moving on with safer, equally effective chemicals. Sixty other countries, including the European Union and New Zealand, had already banned endosulfan because of the neurological and reproductive risk to farm workers and wildlife. I note, in the case of this bill, that industry have been thoroughly consulted about the changes and they are particularly supportive of the provision for civil penalties and the restrictions on the import and manufacture of HCFC air conditioning equipment.

Once again, it gives me some hope that when this House again turns to the broader issue of climate change we—and I mean all of us; both sides of the House—will not shirk our responsibility a second time. I hope we will look at the evidence presented before us by the scientists and that we will act. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context