Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2006. It is true to say the Australian government comes in for a fair amount of criticism for not signing up to the Kyoto protocol. However, a practical approach by this government is designed to manage a program for renewable energy and greenhouse gas mitigation. It is part of the essential policy mix to address a growing number of environmental concerns. There is so much this government has done. This government established the Australian Greenhouse Office, and I know from my work in the Public Works Committee that the office does a great job in that area alone—in looking at how we can reduce the greenhouse gas from public buildings.

Australia was the first country in the world to introduce a nationally mandated renewable energy target, which is backed by this legislation. In another first, the Australian government initiated the AP6 group. For those who do not understand that short title, it is the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which includes Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States. This partnership covers about half the world’s population and about half the global contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Kyoto covers about 32 per cent of the world’s emissions. This is a practical way of endeavouring to reduce greenhouse gas through regional cooperation and to explore new technological solutions to address climate change. Representing the parliament at the 114th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Nairobi in May this year, I was able to encourage the drafting committee, in a resolution on combating global degradation of the environment, to acknowledge in that resolution the establishment of the AP6 group and its contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I also want to make the point that the Australian government is well-regarded internationally for its action on climate change, despite the fact that Australia is a relatively small producer of greenhouse gases, with just 1.46 per cent of the global emissions. We are investing considerable money, time, resources and energy into doing something about it. This is backed by a $1.8 billion investment. Australia is on track to meet its target set under Kyoto. In contrast, many countries that have signed up to Kyoto will not to meet their targets when the agreement expires in 2012. Investment in renewable energy is expected to be in excess of $3 billion, increasing renewable energy by more than 50 per cent compared to pre-legislated mandatory renewable energy targets.

In 1997, the Prime Minister made a statement, Safeguarding the future: Australia’s response to climate change, in which he said:

Targets will be set for the inclusion of renewable energy in electricity generation by the year 2010. Electricity retailers and other large electricity buyers will be legally required to source an additional 2 per cent of their electricity from renewable or specified waste-product energy sources by 2010 (including through direct investment in alternative renewable energy sources such as solar water heaters). This will accelerate the uptake of renewable energy in grid-based power applications and provide an ongoing base for commercially competitive renewable energy. The program will also contribute to the development of internationally competitive industries which could participate effectively in the burgeoning Asian energy market.

This statement was followed by the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000, which provided the framework for Australia’s mandatory renewable energy targets. Under this act, Australian electricity retailers and other buyers of electricity, as the Prime Minister said, are required to collectively source an additional 9,500 gigawatts of electricity per annum from renewable sources by 2010. The amount contributed to the target by each liable entity is determined on a proportional basis. The target of 9,500 gigawatts is being phased in up to 2010 and will be sustained until 2020. In the interim, incremental progress will be achieved through annual targets.

The amendments in this bill implement the government’s agreed responses to the review of the act. The legislation allows further opportunities for the bioenergy and solar sectors to participate—that is a move I particularly welcome—and it improves administrative integrity and efficiency. Since the initial legislation was passed, there have been several inquiries and some earlier amendments to the original bill, with alternative renewable technologies developing so rapidly that it is not surprising that the operation of such landmark legislation will need careful monitoring and appropriate adjustments from time to time.

Contemporary environmental debate has been significantly focused on climate change. While this is indeed a very important part of the debate, it would be dangerous to allow climate change to be the exclusive focus of any debate relative to the environment. Energy use may be a major contributor to climate change, but one of the overwhelming issues for a contemporary world is how we use energy more efficiently, both at an industrial level and at a domestic level.

In both cases, much could be done to place emphasis on recycling. Not only do we use raw products, both organic and chemical, to create many consumer goods, but we frequently dispose of products before the end of their useful life, thus wasting both the natural and manufactured resources as well as the energy used in their production. Take plastic pot plant containers, for example. Five years ago it was estimated by Pot Recyclers Ltd that 100 million pots were used as plant containers. Of these, 8,000 tonnes of these plant pots went into Western Australian landfill alone. There is a wonderful family in my electorate, the Williamsons, who for many years have battled bureaucracy as they have strived to collect and recycle plastic pots.

A consumer will buy a single plant in a single plastic pot from their local nursery, take it home and plant it and then throw the pot into the rubbish. A research report in 2004 conducted by the Sustainable Energy Development Office found that to manufacture one tonne of polypropylene 27,222 kilowatts of energy are used. This would be enough energy to power the average home for 5.3 years. Australian manufacturing uses 240,000 tonnes of polypropylene per year. Of that, 108,000 tonnes will end up as landfill. Short-term packaging goes from manufacture to landfill, on average, within six months. Pot plants go from manufacture to landfill in six weeks.

The Williamson family reprocesses the pots using 98 kilowatts of electricity per tonne. This not only saves pots going to landfill; it also saves energy. For their trouble, the Williamsons pay 5c levy on each pot they recycle. The work of the Williamson family has attracted attention and awards from Australia and around the world, and recently Mr Williamson and his family were flown to Atlanta to receive an award for their environmentally friendly business.

One of the great threats to human life—if we continue to consume at the rate that we are and other developing countries also begin to consume to the extent of the developed world—is the disposal of goods we no longer want and in which all the component parts have not been fully expended. According to many scientists, climate change has occurred and does occur naturally from time to time. While we do not wish to hasten major climate change due to our profligate ways, we must also look at these matters in balance with other measures.

Public education is one of the ways that we can change industrial and domestic users’ behaviour. For example, there is the formation of the Climate Group, an international coalition with a secretariat in the United Kingdom, which has members ranging from corporations to governments, who are committed to developing new, clean technologies that maximise energy efficiency and minimise greenhouse gas emissions and to developing renewable energy sources. This group has demonstrated in a recent study that sustainability is not necessarily antithetical to profitability. For example, BP reports a saving of $650 million from emission reduction efforts; IBM reports a saving of $791 million; DuPont claims $2 billion in efficiencies; Alcoa is looking at saving $100 million by 2006; and ST Microelectronics expects $900 million in savings by 2010. Germany reports its efforts will lead to the creation of 450,000 new jobs, many of them within the renewable energy sector, according to M Northrop in Leading by example.

The government is taking a multifaceted approach, and I am pleased to see programs such as the Solar Cities program, which is aimed at reducing energy consumption at the domestic level. Again, this is an initiative of the federal government. There are many practical things we can do in our day-to-day living to reduce the amount of energy we consume, and the Solar Cities program is designed to achieve efficiency through trials and public education.

Climate change is not new. What is alarming is the speed at which it is changing and the lack of preparedness to design lifestyles and commercial and industrial developments to reflect these changes. In addition, we need to avoid adding significantly to the problem by polluting and by overclearing land of vegetation.

The mandatory renewable energy target legislated by this government in 2001 seeks to accelerate the uptake of renewable energy in grid based electricity supply. A number of renewable energy sources have been identified as suitable, including solar, wind, ocean, wave and tidal, hydro, geothermal, biomass, specified waste, solar water heating, renewable stand-alone power systems and renewable fuels—

See this speech in context