CARBON CREDITS

The Hon. M. PARNELL (14:57): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Environment and Conservation, representing the Minister for Climate Change, questions regarding carbon neutral claims.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Last Friday, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission released a guide informing businesses about their obligations under the Trade Practices Act in relation to carbon neutral and carbon offset claims. This is in response to increasing concern by the ACCC about inaccurate and unfounded claims, and confusion in the community about what carbon neutrality actually means. In relation to making claims of carbon neutrality, the guide states:

You must keep in mind the overall impression your advertising creates in the minds of your target audience...Carbon neutral may be taken by consumers as an absolute term, that is, it may suggest to consumers that the equivalent of all the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of a business have been eliminated through emissions reductions and offsets.

It goes on:

Similarly, when applied to a product, the term may create an impression that emissions from the complete lifecycle of the product have been taken into account. If this is not the case, you should explain exactly what is covered by your claim of carbon neutrality to avoid the risk of misleading consumers. Bear in mind that the term itself may suggest to consumers that the net climate impact of the business or product is zero and this impression may be difficult to dislodge, so if this is not accurate, consider alternatives.

The current government is fond of claiming carbon neutrality. In January this year, the Premier issued a press release entitled 'Rann announces nation's first carbon neutral cabinet' which stated:

It would be great if South Australia was to become the first carbon neutral parliament as well.

This was followed up three weeks later with a press release under the heading 'Australia's first carbon neutral government'. In relation to the claim of 'carbon neutral government', the government press release only talks about offsetting scope 1 and scope 2 emissions, rather than all direct and indirect emissions. Relying only on offsetting direct emissions the guide says 'might be misleading if this is not clear to consumers'. The term is also regularly used by both minister Maywald and the Premier in relation to the proposed Port Stanvac desalination plant. My questions are:

1. Although not subject to the Trade Practices Act, does the minister accept that the government is bound by the same responsibility as businesses when it comes to making claims of carbon benefit?

2. If so, will the minister amend the government's public claims of carbon neutrality in response to the ACCC guide, particularly in relation to the proposed Port Stanvac desalination plant?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health) (15:00): I thank the honourable member for his important questions. I will refer them to the appropriate minister in another place and bring back a response.