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

Just before question time, in speaking on the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2012, I was making the point that all of us, wherever we live, can take steps to use water more efficiently, and we have seen that extensively in many urban areas. In particular we have seen it in my home state of South Australia, where I have had some personal experience in a number of different schemes in which local communities have engaged in stormwater harvesting and re-use, the establishment of their own recycled water systems and the extensive use of rainwater tanks. In fact recent data from South Australia shows that average daily consumption between 2001 and 2009-10 fell from 756 litres per household to 501 litres per household. In the same period, the state's daily water consumption per person fell from 539 litres to 385 litres. That represents a decrease of 29 per cent. Those kinds of decreases are welcome and hopefully would motivate people right around the country to use or adopt similar methods and ideas in respect of how they might also contribute to water savings.

This legislation, I believe, is critical to all that because this legislation enables people to seek out appliances which use less water. It is my view from my interaction with the community—certainly where I come from—that Australians are becoming more water conscious and would welcome the opportunity to use items or accessories that will enable them to save water. It would seem to me that this legislation, where it provides a star rating to different items that might be available, would be very much a marketing tool for those who market, design or manufacture those very products. I would suggest that this legislation would encourage further investment in the design and manufacture of water-saving products, because the manufacturers would know that there is going to be a demand for their product if it meets the standards. So it is important from the point of view that it will encourage investment, it is important to ensure that the star rating system is applied correctly and is not abused, and it is important because I believe that this legislation will create a mindset of water savings throughout the community.

For those reasons and the other reasons which I have touched on in my comments on this bill, I commend the bill to the House.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to support the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2012—in particular because this builds on an initiative that the coalition brought into being. In 2005 the coalition government created the world's first national scheme of its kind, providing for water efficiency labels on water products such as shower heads, washing machines, toilets, dishwashers and taps, among other things. My recollection is that I had the privilege of being able to introduce the legislation into this very chamber, albeit from the other side of the table. The important thing about the star rating scheme is that it gives consumers the ability to understand, to make choices and to work out what the impact of their purchasing decisions will be on their water consumption. That objective was a good one then, it remains a good one now, and this bill completes that work. So we are supportive of that.

I put this bill into a particular context. It has been part of a dramatic change in the approach to water use over the last decade. It began with the work of John Anderson—and I want to give him credit for that—the now gone Peter Cullen, and many others who helped. To the extent that I was able to play a small role in that process of bringing the issue of water to the federal jurisdiction, that is a source of great joy and pride. In particular, it was the previous government that put into place an approach—a Murray-Darling Basin Plan—which set up the future. Unfortunately, the ball has largely been dropped by a government which at present has sought to grandstand rather than to deliver. We put in place the $10 billion plan, which still sees enormous quantities of funds which were to have been expended on replumbing rural Australia—on water efficiency on a grand scale—waiting in escrow to be applied to purpose.

I look at the Murray Irrigation Area. I look at the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. I look at programs in south Queensland, in the tributaries and headwaters of the Darling, which could have been advanced but which have not been advanced. I look at the Menindee Lakes and see that the beginnings contained within the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act of the day have not necessarily been followed through with the vigour that they should have been in terms of the grand water efficiency schemes which would have had an impact on the carrying capacity and the water efficiency of the Murray-Darling Basin.

Having said that, let me note that what this bill does is make relatively minor amendments to the WELS Act to allow the minister to determine more of the scheme's details, particularly those relating to registration of products and cost recovery. It means the minister, with the fiat of the states, can act at a national level without reference and without having to make changes to, all up, as many as nine different acts. It is a sensible approach, entirely in line with what was put into being from the outset.

The broader context of this particular bill and the predecessor act is about consolidation of environmental programs into single national schemes. We do this across water, we do it across land and we do it across air quality. I specifically want to make reference to land. We want to build a one-stop-shop approach in the same way that this legislation seeks to for environmental approvals. At present, we have systems of environmental approvals across Commonwealth and state jurisdictions which can literally take more than half a decade and which can have thousands and thousands of pages of requirements and then potentially thousands of approval triggers, which in each case will have to be negotiated through a separate licence. So our approach is the same as is contained in this bill, and that is to seek a single one-stop-shop approach. If elected, we want to cooperate with each of the states to establish bilateral agreements.

It is timely the minister arrives here on that note—he who has delayed the Alpha coal project with a shameless abuse of process, in my own respectful submission to the House. My view and our view is that we can have consolidated single national processes. In the case of environmental approvals, we should seek to do this wherever possible through agreements with the states to dramatically simplify the process: one single document lodgement, one single assessment process and clear time lines so we can simplify the process. I have no problem with a red light if a program is a bad one. I have no problem with a red light if a project will result in environmental damage. What I do have a problem with is if we are in permanent amber-light mode. I would respectfully request the minister to take this opportunity to indicate the progress he is making with the stalled Alpha coal project, which should have been a shining example of cooperation.

Finally, I turn to the third area of cooperation, and that is on air quality and, in particular, emissions reduction. Our approach is very simple: to seek to have one single national emissions reduction fund. We want to work away from the multiplicity of state schemes to one single national emissions reduction fund.

This bill does not stand on its own; it is part of a broader context of history. The simplification process is the potential, the possibility, the opportunity we have at this point of time. So I am delighted to support this bill. It completes the work we began in 2005.

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

I cannot begin to say what an absolute pleasure it is to be here in Canberra today to hear the speech from the member for Flinders. It would have been earth shattering had I missed it because—

Mr Hunt interjecting—

Don't interject from out of your seat—that is highly disorderly. I have particularly enjoyed the concept that one of the issues that apparently is pertinent to the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2012 is the Alpha coal project, in the mind of the member for Flinders. He has raised some issues in the course of the debate which I do think are worth me responding to directly. In the first instance, that is the first time I have heard the opposition say that they were opposed to the decisions I took on Alpha coal. They may well have made those comments to the media before, but I have not heard them in the parliament before.

Mr Hunt interjecting—

If it is the case—while the member interjects from out of his seat—that they reject it, they should be very careful what they wish for, because what the member for Flinders is suggesting I should have done was make a decision on incomplete information which would then have been turfed out in court. The member for Flinders is suggesting that the responsible thing to do would have been the opposite of what the proponents wanted me to do. The proponents, the company themselves, actually asked me to complete the process. The Queensland government asked me and agreed that the process should be completed at a Commonwealth level.

The worst outcome for business and the worst outcome for the environment would be to make a decision when the assessment work had not been completed. The risk that is taken to the environment is obvious. It is not a game of pin the tail on the donkey, where you blindfold yourself from the information and just say, 'Look, let's whack the conditions there.' You are dealing with serious issues for the environment and you need to know the factual basis on which those decisions are being made.

Had the Queensland Coordinator-General completed the process, then a decision would have been made by me within the 30-day period. Even Queensland acknowledged that they were not completing the process. What has happened since then—I put this out publicly in a media release which came out early this week or it may have been Friday last week—is there are four specific issues we need further information on. Some of that was information already held by Alpha that simply had not been included within the Coordinator-General's report. Alpha are now getting that information. It will probably be beyond the original 30-day business time line, but we have stopped the clock to make sure that we are within the rules on that. I am not expecting that it is going to be a date that would have any problems for the time line of investment decisions for the company. Obviously, I cannot prejudge what the answer will be, but the issues which need to be raised and are being finalised are simply issues where an assessment is required under national environmental law. To date, to do less than that was not the position of the coalition. My understanding of the position of the coalition has always been that they did not want a lowering of the quality of assessments or of environmental standards but they did want a streamlining of the process. The process would have been streamlined had the Queensland Coordinator-General finished the job. Now, in a good agreement which was signed last Friday by me, the Queensland Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection and the Deputy Premier of Queensland, we have some amendments to the bilateral agreement to make sure as best we can that this sort of problem never arises again.

I have no interest in delays or duplication, but I also have absolutely no interest in lowering environmental standards or making decisions that later on get thrown out in court. If it is the position of the opposition that I should have made the Alpha coal decision on information that was deficient and did not meet the standards of national environmental law, that is a significant shift from their public position and I would simply urge them to correct it at the earliest possible opportunity.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we expect you to do your job.

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

I will acknowledge the interjection because it is a classic. The interjection is: 'We expect you to do your job.' The problem is that they were just telling me a minute ago they did not want me to do my job and they wanted me to simply accept that when Queensland stops short I should jump ahead, make a decision and not fulfil my responsibilities under national environmental law. I am not prepared to do that.

The company is working constructively with us. The relationship with the Queensland government will, I think, be on a better footing because of the amendments we made to the bilateral agreement last week. There may well be times in the future when Queensland decides, perhaps for good reason, that the expertise to provide an assessment is actually better done at a Commonwealth level. That happened, for example, on some of the coal seam gas decisions because we had the availability and expertise of Geoscience Australia. From time to time, even under a bilateral agreement, a state government says, 'Look, we actually think this is something that you would be better placed to do.' So there will be occasions when there is still duplication, but it will occur in a cooperative way and with plenty of notice, rather than us only finding out at the end of the process that the job is in fact not yet finished.

Having dealt with the issues that are in front of us in this debate—but which are a bit of a stretch when it comes to the bill—I say that the bill itself deals with issues that have had bipartisan support for significant periods of time. I am pleased that there has been a constructive debate and pleased and proud to be here to thank everybody for their contributions. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill announced.