Matt Williams (Hindmarsh, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Energy Efficiency Opportunities (Repeal) Bill 2014. I would like to acknowledge the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Brand, as it was great to see some bipartisan acknowledgement in the House—something we do not often see—whether he acknowledged the former Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, or the Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane, and the work that he has done. As we have said in the House, we have acknowledged former Labor Prime Ministers Hawke and Keating, and it would be great to see a new Labor Party going forward with such bold reforms and making a coherent argument for a better future.

But I will return to the bill at hand, which repeals the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act 2006, which was introduced by the Howard government when Australia's use of energy was very different from today. We had rising energy prices then, in conjunction with regulated energy programs, and this has driven the improvement of energy management and productivity gains in industry over the last eight years. Although we do not like rising energy prices, this has been probably one of the most positive outcomes, in the sense that it is a market mechanism for businesses to improve their operations and efficiency and use of energy.

The consultation processes that have occurred indicate broad industry stakeholder support for repealing the Energy Efficiency Opportunities program, to reduce the regulatory burden on industry, acknowledging that market forces and other regulatory measures are driving similar energy efficiency outcomes. It is great to have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Josh Frydenberg, here, because he has been championing deregulation and a more efficient market and economy with fewer compliance costs. This is one example of our program overall to reduce the compliance burden on companies.

In response to these changing factors, and in line with removing regulation where the desired outcomes can be, and have been, achieved through alternative measures such as market forces, the government decided to repeal the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act 2006. The Energy Efficiency Opportunities program requires, as we might know, large energy using businesses to assess their energy use and identify cost-effective energy-saving opportunities. This is something that every company in Australia is now actively doing. This is what we wanted to happen, and it has occurred.

Energy prices have spiralled in the last few years, as I mentioned before. In South Australia, my home state—and it is great to see the member for Makin here today; he will know this just as well as me—electricity bills have risen 160 per cent under the state Labor government, and there are companies in my electorate who are concerned about tens of thousands in rises in electricity costs. Furthermore, and more worryingly, the average consumer faces another five per cent increase in power bills from 1 July. This price hike includes the $29.40 for Labor's solar feed-in tariffs in South Australia. A report by the Australian Energy Regulator recently confirmed that South Australian consumers face the highest electricity prices in the country. And I know why the member for Makin is concerned, because he does not want the consumers in his electorate—the small businesses that are working hard; the families that are doing it tough—to experience such high electricity costs. Well, he is right on that account.

What else have we got? We have got Labor's carbon tax that we all know too well. The cost of that to the economy was over $6 billion in its first year of operation. The carbon tax currently costs $24.15 per tonne and rises to $38 per tonne in 2019. And what has it done to emissions? Well, we know that domestic emissions under the carbon tax are projected to rise through to 2020. It has not succeeded in its objectives. And that is why we have to look at other methods, and that is why we are exploring other initiatives, whether the Emissions Reduction Fund or the Green Army.

But I want to return now to the actual bill at hand and to talk about energy management, because, as the previous speaker in this debate alluded to, companies have become quite successful in their energy management. That has become a standard business practice, whether through the use of the technology of sensor lighting or energy-saving globes, or energy efficiency. The companies have moved on, and, fortunately, this scheme has helped them. But when a scheme has succeeded, it is time to review it. And if it has done its job then why continue it? I could use the analogy of teaching a child to read or write: when they can read or write successfully, then we move on; we do not need to invest any further in those particular skills; there are other skills in other areas we need to develop.

The return on investment at some stage in the process and the scheme does diminish. Although the member for Brand laboured the fact of the successes of the program, he failed to acknowledge that things need to move on and be reviewed in an appropriate way. This is where Liberals manage taxpayers' money far better. We look at how taxpayers' money can best be spent. Compare that to our friends on the other side of the House. They like to continue throwing money around on more programs, with less diligence in the way they review them. It is almost like the denial that appears in Kafka's novels: everything goes on as if nothing has changed. We see that in the budget process that is going on currently.

But, to go back to energy management: importantly, we can now remove the regulatory burden, with annual savings of $17.7 million. This is not insignificant, in addition to all the other regulatory burdens that we are seeking to remove. The Emissions Reduction Fund that I mentioned before will help businesses and industry to take direct action to reduce emissions and improve their energy efficiency even further. The resources developed over the life of the program will continue to be made available to companies to assist them to build their energy management capacity.

The Energy Efficiency Exchange website will continue to support energy efficiency implementation by providing best practice information and other resources, so resources and knowledge are still there and still accessible for companies to utilise.

The government will continue to cooperatively explore options for improving energy productivity through the current energy white paper process. We have an ongoing series of looking at ways of doing things better, and this is one of them.

This program has done its job. It is now just an unnecessary regulatory burden on businesses for something that businesses already have market incentive to do and have as part of their core business. Repealing the bill will save $17 million, as I mentioned before, in compliance costs each year. This is important for our ongoing focus on reducing the regulatory burden and giving businesses more time to do what they do best.

See this speech in context