Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme, known as the WELS Scheme, was established by the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005. The scheme’s objectives are to conserve water supplies by reducing water consumption, to provide information for purchasers of water-use and water-saving products and to promote the adoption of efficient and effective water-use and water-saving technologies. The scheme requires that specified products offered for sale be registered and labelled to indicate their assessed water efficiency. This efficiency is indicated by a star-rating system of up to six stars, with six stars being awarded to the highest-performing products. The labels inform purchasing decisions in the same way as do energy rating labels on electrical appliances.

Since the scheme was introduced in 2005, there has been good evidence that it is positively influencing consumer preferences. Studies have estimated that, by 2021, 800 gigalitres of water will have been saved through the scheme. That is more water than is in Sydney Harbour. The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities determines which products will be included in the scheme and the standards they must meet. Currently, WELS products are showers, toilets, urinals, taps, dishwashers, clothes-washing machines and flow controllers. The plumbing products currently covered by the scheme are also subject to the WaterMark certification scheme, which operates under state and territory plumbing regulations.

WaterMark testing and certification is intended to ensure that plumbing products are fit for use and will not threaten the safety of the reticulated water supply. WaterMark certification is required before a plumbing product can be legally installed, while registration and labelling is required before a product can be offered for sale. This regulatory difference means that in some cases consumers may unknowingly purchase WELS plumbing products which, while legally available, cannot legally be installed. In addition, the presence of WELS labels on products which are not WaterMark certified may be misconstrued by consumers as suggesting that the products are government endorsed as fit for use.

The proposed change to the scheme in the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment Bill 2010 will remove these concerns by enabling additional plumbing requirements, such as those established by the states and territories, to be included as requirements in the WELS Scheme by ministerial determination. There is industry support for this amendment, which will enable the provision of positive outcomes for consumers and for plumbers. The plumbing industry is a vital component in driving a sustainable future. Water is the key. Plumbers are involved in almost every aspect of water delivery and have in their hands the ability to advocate energy- and water-saving devices and strategies to both domestic and commercial applications.

As I have mentioned in the parliament before, in my own electorate of Wills the Plumbing Industry Climate Action Centre is undertaking great work to train and skill tradespeople in energy efficient and green-collar jobs. At the opening of this facility, the former Victorian Premier John Brumby commented:

Green plumbing is the number one skills issue for Victorian plumbers, with a recent report estimating that no more than 10 per cent of the State’s 20,000 plumbers have sufficient green skills to meet the growing demand for environmentally sustainable plumbing. To date, 3,000 Victorian plumbers have attended Green Plumber’s courses. This number will grow considerably as the Plumbing Industry Climate Action Centre rolls out its programs to the broader plumbing workforce. The centre will play a leading role delivering sustainability skills for the Victorian plumbing industry and will be critical for driving growth in the Victorian green plumbing sector and creating jobs.

The Plumbing Industry Climate Action Centre will provide plumbing training to practising plumbers with a focus on sustainability, energy saving, waste reduction and water conservation. The training centre’s facility is a five-star Green Star rated building that will trial and promote new technologies. It is a working example of innovative design and sustainable plumbing. The centre is helping people reduce their energy and water consumption around the home and playing a vital role in helping us combat climate change at the grassroots level.

Some of the training programs include providing recommendations and advice on effective plumbing solutions to improve energy usage and reducing the use of water in domestic and commercial properties, on the selection and installation of solar heated water systems, on the use of on-site natural wastewater treatment systems to improve environmental sustainability and on alternative sources of water available for urban use to reduce demand on the drinking water supply. Environmental plumbing inspections and inspection reports for domestic buildings are also provided.

Another service is determining pump systems suitable for suburban applications, planning the system pipe work and sizing the pump to meet client requirements. This unit applies specifically to simple systems used to pump rainwater and greywater in suburban areas. Plumbers have a huge role to play in making our environment cleaner. Over 70 per cent of all energy consumed in the home is related to work carried out by plumbers. In commercial buildings, the greenhouse gas emissions are principally due to cooling, lighting and heating, and over 60 per cent fall under the watch of the plumber. So industry will expect that the sector be able to provide the best advice and processes to comply with government targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

The centre’s website points out that there is general consensus that buildings produce 40 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The Plumbing Industry Climate Action Centre offers a solution to deal with this issue swiftly and economically. I want to congratulate the Plumbing Industry Climate Action Centre on their fantastic work and look forward to working with them and the wider community to help the Wills electorate reduce its carbon footprint.

Another important example of a commercial building demonstrating water efficiency is the Australian Conservation Foundation’s headquarters, known as the 60L Green Building. The 60L Green Building provides the fundamentals of smart design, an open-plan layout, natural ventilation, lighting and energy efficiency, and the Australian Conservation Foundation has followed through with green furniture, fittings and materials for the office.

When it was built, the 60L building set a significant new benchmark for water efficiency in commercial buildings with an approach to water conservation that minimised the demand for water by providing water efficient fixtures and fittings, including waterless urinals and low-flush volume toilets; by the use of collected rainwater to replace 100 per cent of normal mains water consumption whenever possible; and by 100 per cent on-site treatment and reuse of greywater through basins and sinks and blackwater, sewage, streams to produce reclaimed water for flushing toilets and irrigating the roof garden and landscape features.

There are three basic subsystems which make up the 60L water system. Firstly, there is the potable water system—harvesting, collection transfer and sterilisation of water for use by tenants and building systems. Then there is the sewage treatment system involving biological breakdown, membrane filtration and clarification of waste water for use within the building and transport of treated waste to the city system. Finally, there is the reclamation system—reclaimed water, treated to appropriate standards, is used on 60L’s roof garden, in toilets and in the final part of the system there is a reed-bed water feature in the atrium which filters water before it returns to the city system.

In an average rainfall year, the only water that must be sourced from external, mains water is that required for testing the fire sprinkler system. 60L uses 90 per cent less mains water when compared to a traditional commercial building of similar size and function. The building relies principally on rainwater. This is collected from the roof, stored in two 10,000-litre tanks on the ground floor, filtered and then sterilised prior to use by tenants in taps and showers.

Three stages of microfiltration remove any particulate material and large organisms and an ultraviolet sterilisation unit kills any residual bacteria and other organisms. This treatment plant has automatic monitoring for conductivity and is subjected to routine monitoring and testing for microbial activity. UV sterilisation makes it possible to kill potentially hazardous organisms and bacteria without the need for chemicals such as chlorine. Ultraviolet light destroys the cell structure of pathogens making it impossible for them to reproduce and pose a risk to water users. UV systems have become widely accepted for drinking water sterilisation. More than 500 kilolitres of rainwater will be collected in an average rainfall year and despite lower than average rainfall over previous years 60L has been able to collect and use about 400 kilolitres every year.

Water is of course an incredibly important issue in Australia and I am very pleased that the ACF decided to place this system on show for tenants and visitors to 60L. Thus the two 10,000-litre storage tanks and ancillary pumping, filtration and water sterilisation equipment are clearly visible on the ground floor. Throughout the construction process, wherever possible, it was decided to make water use a prominent aspect of the built environment. Pipes that collect and transport water are clearly marked. Some collection pipes have transparent panels that enable tenants to see the flow of water into the rain tanks when it rains.

I am told that the siphonic rainwater collection system is a highly efficient way of moving water into the storage tanks via gravity and siphoning; it minimises downpipe sizing and saves on materials usage. The rooftop garden is designed to be watered with reclaimed water from the on-site waste water and sewage treatment plant.

As the ACF has outlined, from a construction viewpoint, it was important to have a completely integrated design from the outset, so that synergies in saving, both during construction and afterwards, could be realised. This is basic sustainability theory—plan, design, specify and build with the avowed intent of using less resources at all stages.

Water is a precious asset which we should never take for granted. It has been heartening to see water storages in Victoria increase over what has been a bumper period for rainfall. However, we should not allow this to diminish our awareness of the need for continued water conservation vigilance. I commend this bill for its intention to deliver a heightened awareness for consumers.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my brief speech in the second reading debate for the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment Bill 2010 I want to touch on a couple of matters. Firstly, I commend the member for Wills for his comments that he has just made to the House. He gave some excellent examples of how communities are becoming far more water efficient—a matter that I will touch on briefly. One of the positive fallouts of the prolonged drought was that we saw communities around the country, whether individual householders, industries, irrigators or broader communities generally, not only become much more water wise but truly acknowledge the value of water.

Water became a tradeable commodity. We saw it become a marketable product and we also saw the consumption of water around the country fall quite markedly not only in households. I commend the work that households around the country have done to achieve that decline in consumption not only because water restrictions were imposed but because people quite genuinely understood the importance of conserving water and the value that it should have always had. Along with that change came the use of products that saved water.

This bill specifically deals with providing consumers with clear information about the water efficiency rating of a product. It also ensures that that same product with the water efficiency rating is linked to the WaterMark certification. This is important because, prior to this, we could have had a product that was rated for its water efficiency but in fact was not allowed to be installed within homes, businesses or wherever because it had not been WaterMark certified.

One of the areas where we have seen the most efficiencies in water use in recent years has been across the irrigation sector. That is, of course, where most of the water is consumed. But I have to say as a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia that as I toured the many communities throughout the Murray-Darling Basin I was indeed impressed with the level of investment, the local knowledge and the efforts being made by irrigators across the country to use less water, whether it was through their investments in efficient irrigation systems or through the different varieties of crops they used or simply the way they managed their farms. It was wonderful to see, and I commend them for that. In fact, I suggest that many of them probably survived the drought because of their innovation.

We know that a lot more needs to be done if we are going to ensure we get the best use of our water, certainly across our irrigation sectors. In that respect I applaud the government’s commitment of $5.8 billion for investment in water efficiency measures. Water efficiency investment can and should also be linked to strategic water buybacks. I want to comment briefly on this matter because it was raised in the course of this debate by the member for Murray, who is also a member of the regional Australia committee. She was somewhat critical of the government because it had not adopted some of the interim recommendations the committee had put to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. I will touch on those three interim recommendations, which were brought to the attention of this House only this morning by the member for New England, the chairman of that committee, when he was reporting on the work of the committee.

The three matters we brought to the minister’s attention were: firstly, the water buyback itself; secondly, the management of overbank flows; and, thirdly, the tax treatment of government investment in efficiency schemes. The minister has acknowledged each of these as legitimate concerns and has in fact taken them on board. In a speech to the Murray Darling Association in Dubbo on 18 February this year he outlined what the government response to each of those matters was. I want to start with the question of water buybacks.

The regional Australia committee supports the strategic buyback of water. It is an important component of restoring the balance within the Murray-Darling Basin system. To date, the federal government has bought back 863 gigalitres of water. The issue that has been raised is one that has been referred to as the Swiss cheese effect of buying water indiscriminately. What this effectively means is that if you buy water in an ad hoc way throughout the basin you create an inefficiency within the distribution system for those growers who are left. There are a number of matters that need to be taken into account when you start talking about the Swiss cheese effect. Firstly, the government is not the only buyer in an open market where water has become a tradeable commodity. The market continues with or without government intervention, and the choice as to where water is bought from is not under the control of the market in that open system. In fact, I suspect that the Swiss cheese effect has been caused as much by private buyers as it has been by the government. Also, the water purchased by the government has been predominantly water that has been surplus to the licence requirements of the individual landholders—surplus because those landholders have probably invested in irrigation efficiencies themselves and as a result have surplus water to sell or because they have changed their farming practices and, again, have surplus water to sell. In fact, two-thirds of the water bought by the government has been from sellers who have sold what you would refer to as their surplus water.

The government recognises the importance of the buyback program and that it needs to be strategic, it needs to be targeted and it should not distort the market. In response to all of that, the government has announced with regard to funding in the future—and this is the matter that the member for Murray was critical of—that the government will buy water on the basis, firstly, of rolling tenders. That means that the tender process continues and you do not get hikes in the price of water because the government comes in at one time and then disappears from the market for a long period of time. As I said, it will be on the basis of a rolling tender. Secondly, the government will buy back water in smaller quantities at a time. It is interesting to note after the announcement made by the minister, who I see is in the House today, that for the next round the allocation is $40 million. Contrast that with the $200 million used in the previous round, before the new policy came in. It is a clear distinction in the process under which the government will buy back water. It will mean that there will be a much more level market and that a lesser amount of money will be put into the market by the government at any one time. It will also mean that anyone who, for one reason or another, has missed out on being able to sell their water to the government because they missed out in a particular tender will have a continuing opportunity to put their water on the market. The rolling tender process will ensure there is much more evenness and fairness in the market for everybody concerned.

The buyback process will be led by the irrigation authorities. It is important that that is the case because the irrigation authorities best understand how to manage the water in their area. They best understand where the inefficiencies are and what needs to be done to correct those inefficiencies, so the process must be led by them. It will also ensure that there will not be exploitation of the government and inefficiencies will not be created as a result of the government coming in wanting to buy water and in effect being put in a situation where it needs to pay much more than it should for that water. The local authorities clearly understand the best schemes that need to be supported. I would expect that, on the basis of their recommendations, the minister and the department will take advice as to where the water buybacks take place.

That, in my view, shows that the minister and the government are taking on board the views of the regional Australia committee and, I suspect, others that have been having discussions directly with the minister on this matter. So clearly it is the case that the water buyback program must be a program that is targeted, and that is exactly what the government is doing.

I will just say very briefly in respect of the other two matters that were put to the minister by the committee—the taxation treatment and the overbank flows—that I was pleased that the minister also announced that the anomaly in respect of taxation deductions will be fixed up by this government. My understanding is that any legislation that will need to go through the parliament will be backdated to April 2010 to ensure that those farmers who were supported by way of government grants or similar investments made by the Commonwealth will not be disadvantaged in their tax treatment. In the past—or up to date—what was happening was that, if they got any form of grant and there were a tax liability associated with that, that would have to be paid for in the first year of the grant, whereas their tax deductions would not apply until after the first year. That meant that they were effectively disadvantaged. That anomaly, I understand, is to be rectified, and again I commend the minister for that.

The last matter that I will very briefly touch on is the question of overbank flows, which was also raised with the committee on several occasions by different authorities and by members of the communities as we took evidence around the country. The minister has announced that in April of this year there will be a forum of the basin states’ ministers to discuss this very matter. We understand that there are some engineering solutions which could be adopted to ensure that we much more efficiently manage our environmental waters. Again, it is up to each individual state, each individual locality and the particular catchment management authorities to come up with the solutions that need to be adopted in order to do that, and it is good to see that that will happen in April this year.

As I said from the outset, this bill is all about water efficiencies. Water efficiencies can take many forms in many areas of community life, but certainly, in respect of the work being done across the Murray-Darling Basin, I believe that we are on the right track. What this bill does to individual householders is that it empowers them with the knowledge of which products they ought to buy if they want to save water. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment Bill 2010. There have been areas of agreement and areas of extreme disagreement. Fortunately, in this debate all the areas of agreement have been the ones about the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 and the amendment that is before the House, and the disagreements that have been part of the debate have been about entirely different issues. The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme, or WELS Scheme, is making a valuable contribution to conserving water and informing consumers about the water efficiency of products. This bill will foster greater confidence in the products covered by the scheme. I want to thank all members for their considered remarks on this matter, and I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.