Senate Economics Legislation Committee, , 6:28:00 to 6:35:28
Review of the mandatory climate financial disclosure regime starting in 2025 and proposed measures to reduce the compliance burden for different sizes of business entities.
Topics: Climate change, Emissions reduction
Speakers: Trevor Power, Senator Andrew Bragg, Hon Katy Gallagher, Unknown Speaker, Senator Lisa Darmanin
And I will go to Senator Bragg for first slot of questions.
Well, so I think we've been asked to ask you a few questions that we thought were markets, but they're not. So uh the mandatory climate financial disclosures, can we ask you about those? Yeah, so the so you put out a regime on this it was passed in 25, is that right?
We did Senator Trevor Power from uh the climate industry infrastructure division. The regime's been in place uh for some entities from one January 2025. We did put in place release a consultation paper on some regulatory reduction measures, which we've just finished some consultation on.
And at the moment, can this scheme apply to things like farms and the like? If they're larger businesses?
The schemes set up uh Senator in relation to the sizes of entities. Um basically if you fall within those um brackets, then the scheme applies to you, but it applies on a progressive basis, so um over time, and indeed one of the things we're consulting on is uh the arrangements that apply to different uh groups and for example assurance requirements that apply to different components.
So it could apply to a farm, it could apply to a supplier to a larger business.
There are certain business types that are excluded from the arrangement. So for example, um uh certain charities um and the like are excluded from the regime.
Yeah, okay. Um so you put in place these laws on climate and disclosure reporting. Um you're proposing ways to reduce the compliance burden. Okay. You think you need to say yes for the record?
Yes, Senator. Well, um to be complete, the regime was put in place. Um there was the government announced some reforms uh in the budget to reduce the cost of those reforms. Those reforms now have been consulted on, we've received those submissions, we're in the process of collating those to then provide advice to government for them to make decisions about those.
Okay. So you haven't decided the government hasn't decided yet?
No. No, it decided to um consult on reducing regulatory burden in in the areas that we set out, which I can go through. Um but then once we've received that, it will make decisions. There were certain options, of course, in the um consultation paper. And so there are um based on the feedback, we'll provide that to government, and the government will make decisions on how it chooses to go forward.
So this hasn't been included in the $780 million in claimed red tape costs then?
So the the 780 um that was in the budget included a number of measures, and I think um there was just some discussion around that. These reforms are part of uh the 780, which which goes into um that amount.
Okay, so they have been.
So they have been used.
The government hasn't decided what they are yet.
Well the government decided to consult, as I said, on on particularly three areas to reduce regulatory burden and then following consultation or finalise and implement its decisions.
But I mean, usually you don't count something until you've decided to actually do it.
Uh well, I guess Senator Budget obviously includes um things too that are uh for the future and and so the those amounts um uh represent the savings that um uh would follow the government decisions um following them finalising the consultation.
Okay, so I think people have been calling for that too, you know, fairness, like a measure of what relief would come from making a change like that, like you haven't decided yet, he just said but in turn I'm talking in terms of overall regulatory reform.
I understand that, but usually when if you were running a business, you wouldn't do it on the basis that you might do something in the future. You've either got to bank it or you don't. Now you haven't decided whether you're going to make these refinements yet, but you've already banked them in your 780 million dollars in claimed red tape costs. Okay, great. Take it as a comment.
Yeah.
Well, that's well, I mean, I think we're trying to get to the bottom of how you've made this this number up, this 780 million.
No, no, no.
So are there what else is in the 78 million?
You don't bank it? Like, what do you mean by that?
Well, that you've made a judgment and you've passed legislation to relieve industry of regulatory cost. Then you can count it as a regulatory saving. You can't do it until you've saved it.
But is that it's not banked into the budget?
No, I know that.
Right. Well, you said you banked it.
Well, you bank it in in terms of it's a bank regulatory savings.
We're saying if if these reforms are supported, like and that's how we've outlined it in the 10.2. Some of them rely on states and territories. EPBC has passed, not with your support, but we'll bank that three over three billion.
Made it worse, not better.
Well, that's not true, Senator Bragg. In your opinion, you you were opposed to the legislation when we put it through. The changes don't come in until the 1st of December. So how have you already decided it's it's made things?
Because you've made more regulations than you can take a stick at, and it's not a good thing.
When I've been talking with people around regulatory reform, they want an indication, a best assessment of what the relief from a regulatory point of view costed would be with the implementation of those changes.
Yeah. Well, what I'm trying to say to you is usually if if you were going to say, look, these are the regulatory cost savings that we have on a piece of paper, these are the ones we've actually decided to do, not the ones we might do in the future. That's my point to you. Okay, so you've got your 780 that's got some things that you might do in future and other things that you have done, is that right?
Um well the 78, I I don't have a breakdown of the 780, Senator. Um, but uh as we talked about these climate-related financial disclosures are within that 780. Um, probably just to fill out the previous discussion, the um the government was clear at the budget, for example, it was going to look at assurance requirements, it was going to look at guidances for certain phraseology in the um in the disclosures regime, and um and then so following the consultation it would it would finalise those. Not all of those changes would be legislative, some of them could be guidance related, um, and so and partly that's what was consulted on about how to do those amendments rather than necessarily whether whether they would be done.
Okay, so who's responsible for the 780 million figure?