Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2012. As you and I both know, Deputy Speaker Scott, water is not only an essential commodity in our day-to-day lives, and particularly for those from rural industry, but it is a finite resource, and anything that we can do here in this parliament as the overseers of water in Australia to improve the efficient use of that water is a challenge that we must step up to. Those of us who have used appliance in houses that are run by tank water—and I particularly refer back to the days when I was an active farmer—know the importance of preserving every drop. It is not just about using a glass when you are cleaning your teeth or making sure you turn the tap off; it is about ensuring that you put in place in your household the most water-efficient appliances you can buy. There is an incredible range of water-efficient appliances available on the market. It is not just washing machines and dishwashers; it is things like an addition that I made to my house—in fact, I put two of them in—on each of my instant gas heaters. When you turn on the instant gas hot water system, which has a five-star energy rating and in one case boosts my solar system, there is a flow of water through that appliance before the water actually gets hot, and that water is in fact wasted. As I say, those of us who have known all our lives that water is a precious commodity are keen to rectify that. I have installed these new appliances that are currently available that can be fitted after that hot water system which actually holds a small amount of hot water ready to be used while the other system heats up.

This bill allows the Commonwealth minister to determine changes to the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme without changes being required in state and territory legislation. What that means, of course, is that this legislation will allow far more efficient operation of the WELS Scheme, which of course was a proud achievement of the previous coalition government under Prime Minister John Howard. As I say, it is important that consumers know the efficiency of their appliances when they are using water.

Town water these days is a commodity which we no longer take for granted. If I look back at the history in Queensland and going back to the 2005, 2006 and 2007 period, we saw South-East Queensland almost run out of water. In my home town of Toowoomba we had a fairly controversial debate about whether or not we should recycle sewage into the drinking system. Whilst there are certainly some strong arguments for that, I believe that debate was badly mishandled by the then mayor, Di Thorley, who went for far too large a proportion of recycled water, despite my advice to her to perhaps start with 10 per cent and work forward from there. She was determined to push through 30 per cent or more. The community, whilst they were keen to play their part in saving water, simply rejected that proposal. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight it would have been a significant white elephant, being about halfway or perhaps just completed by the time the floods hit Toowoomba and the surrounding region. Our dams in that region have been at about 104 per cent capacity ever since.

The story is not so good for South-East Queensland, of course. The previous Beattie Labor government went for a rolled gold, gilt edged, water recycling system and water grid which I understand cost around $9½ billion. I am not saying that something should not have been done in that case but I am saying that there were far, far more economical ways to achieve the outcomes we needed. Yes, South-East Queensland and Brisbane were running out of water and, yes, something had to be done. But the reality is that a lot of that work was simply done in an unsupervised economic sense. Contractors were just given blank cheques. Things like even base metal gravel for the pipeline was being supplied at exorbitant cost. So little wonder that we now have an extraordinary white elephant in terms of the southern Queensland water grid and a desalination plant at Tugun that is not only rusting but posing an enormous cost to taxpayers.

Rather than get ourselves into a position where we need to make these almost panicked decisions about what we do about providing water to our community, a far more rational way to do it is firstly have a program of ensuring that, as the population grows, we build dams that the community needs. This, again, was one of the problems we had in Toowoomba and is one of the problems in South-East Queensland, because the previous Prime Minister when he worked for Premier Wayne Goss killed off the Wolfdene dam, a dam which would have provided extra water for Brisbane and would have prevented this situation we had a few years ago. In the case of Toowoomba, Toowoomba did nothing to address the fact that no dam had been built in the time that its population doubled, and Toowoomba is the largest inland provincial city in Australia. But what makes it more complicated is that we sit right on top of the Great Dividing Range, so we can rely on no-one else but ourselves for our water and we need to ensure that we have capacity to catch water virtually at its source.

Along with building adequate water storage facilities we need to do two other things. We need to remind the community of the preciousness of water. As I say, Deputy Speaker Scott, you and I and perhaps others in this chamber who have grown up on tank water know that every drop is precious. Since that water crisis and particularly in Queensland, people now have a far better understanding. That is the first thing we need to do in terms of education of the community. The second thing we need to do is ensure that consumers when they go out to buy appliances have more than adequate information to buy an appliance which is very water efficient.

If I could go back to the WELS Scheme and to the amendments that we are looking at today, the scheme was originally introduced by the coalition in 2005. It was at the time—and this showed the vision of the Howard government—the world's first national scheme of its kind, providing for water efficiency labels on showerheads, washing machines, toilets, dishwashers, urinals and taps. Having been a minister for innovation I should just mention that Australia was the country that invented the dual-flush toilet. Our consciousness of water usage has now been raised, and the use of dual-flush toilets in modern housing developments in cities is saving a huge amount of water. It is part of that and part of identifying those water-saving devices and giving them a star rating that this legislation seeks to address. These labels have given consumers an easy to understand star rating, and water consumption information on the water efficiency of different products is contained within this system. Consumers generally look for three things when they buy an appliance. The first thing, obviously, is that the appliance works. They also look at its energy efficiency. That is covered by a star rating. Consumers understand that; they know how that all works. Also, for washing machines, dishwashers and showerheads, they look at their star rating in respect of water consumption. Given that information, and perhaps provided with some incentives from time to time, consumers do want to do the right thing when it comes to saving water.

This bill amends the WELS Act and allows the Commonwealth minister to determine more of the scheme's details but equally those relating to the registration of products and cost recovery. It differs from the current position in that some aspects of the scheme, such as the five-year period for product registration, cannot be changed without changing nine sets of legislation. So it makes sense to give the minister those powers and to ensure that the level of bureaucracy, red tape, paperwork and, of course, cost associated with simply trying to get the scheme to work better is eliminated—and these amendments go towards doing that.

Under these amendments the minister will make changes by disallowable legislative instrument, the terms of which must be agreed to by the majority of states and territories. It is an important facet of the scheme that we actually involve the states and territories in it. If this legislation is passed it is expected that the minister will make a number of changes to the WELS scheme, including revising registration fees to meet the cost recovery target of 80 per cent recovered from the industry. Further amendments are proposed in the bill to enforce provisions of the WELS Act, and civil penalty provisions have been added to provide a more cost-effective enforcement response.

The bill will also apply strict liability to more provisions, because it is currently difficult to prove intent in relation to breaches of the act—for example, for not labelling a product properly. Dare I say that whilst Australian manufacturers do their utmost to comply we have seen examples in this system and also in the energy star rating system where some unscrupulous importers have incorrectly labelled their product. That is not only bad for the scheme and bad in terms of trying to save water and encourage the efficient use of water, but it also creates an unfair situation in terms of Australian manufacturers who are doing the right thing. We want to make sure that within this legislation there is the ability to penalise those people who deliberately do the wrong thing.

Some other changes of an administrative nature have also been made through this amendment, including removing the requirement for gazettal of registration of decisions and instead requiring decisions to be published on the WELS website, and providing further reviews of the operation of the WELS scheme at five-yearly intervals. Even though each time we look at the scheme we make it a little better, who knows what technologies there will be and what efficiencies can be gained from this scheme as innovation takes its part? We want to be sure that we go back and look at the scheme every five years, not just to take up innovation but also to improve the efficiency of the scheme. We are also looking at a number of other ways we can improve consumer information.

The coalition supports this bill, as it builds on and improves a successful scheme which, as I said, was introduced by the previous Howard government. We all need to be mindful of the commodities that we use in our day-to-day life, and there is no more essential a commodity than water. It does not matter whether you are an irrigation farmer at St George or in one of the valleys in northern New South Wales such as Narromine or working off a large dam system such as the Fairbairn up at Emerald: water is important to farmers. But as we found three or four years ago, perhaps to our surprise, people who live in the city see water as an inexhaustible commodity. Much of our water is now consumed by residents in urban situations. Not only do we need to ensure that we have the infrastructure to supply water on a reliable basis—and, let's face it, the Romans did it over 2,000 years ago, so I am not sure why we cannot do it in Australia—but it is imperative that we have a set of arrangements and an information system and a ratings system that allows consumers to use that water efficiently and make sure that we preserve this very vital commodity.

I commend the bill to the House.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to commence my contribution to this debate on the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2012 by congratulating the member for Groom on his contribution on this very important issue and acknowledging the point that he made about the preciousness of water and how we must ensure that we preserve water because it is so vital not only to agriculture but also to very survival of those of us who live in this country—and, for that matter, throughout the world.

The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2012 builds on the previous legislation, the WELS Scheme, and is to apply to all national water efficiency labelling and minimum performance standards to specific water use and water saving products, such as showers, toilets, urinals, taps, dishwashers, clothes washing machines and dryers and flow controllers. Specific products must be registered and labelled under the scheme and meet minimum water efficiency standards. The scheme is a national regulatory scheme, administered by the Australian government on behalf of the participating states and territories.

This bill amends the act by allowing the minister to determine details of the WELS Scheme, particularly those relating to the registration of products and cost recovery to ensure the ongoing sustainability of the scheme through a disallowable legislative instrument. Further, civil penalty provisions have been added for contraventions of the act as well as additional enforcement options. I like to this of this legislation as streamlining and providing some flexibility so that the minister can make decisions. It brings together nine separate pieces of legislation and puts them all in one place and also looks at compliance.

The WELS Scheme has been very successful, and this legislation improves on the WELS Scheme. The WELS Scheme has required water-using products to be labelled for water efficiency. As the member for Groom pointed out, consumers not only look at the star rating as far as energy is concerned but also look at the star rating in relation to water usage. The WELS Scheme actually helps Australian households to save water, and by saving water they are also of course saving money. It also allows industry to showcase its most water efficient products. The scheme was established in July 2006 by the Commonwealth in cooperation with the states.

I previously mentioned the product suppliers and the products that are covered by the scheme. The industry registers these products with the WELS register at the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Eighty per cent of the scheme is funded through industry and 20 per cent is funded by government.

This bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts by the Selections Committee, and the department briefed the committee. I was confident that there had been wide consultation on the proposed legislation, that this legislation was going to deliver benefits to Australia as a whole and that it was legislation that should be supported by the parliament. It is very pleasing to note that all members of the committee supported the recommendation that the legislation come to the House, be debated and be supported. I could find no reason whatsoever for not supporting the legislation.

As we know, we have had many problems in this country with water—not only in recent times but throughout our history—and anything that we can do to improve our consumption of water should be supported. But this is not just anything that we can do; this is water-proofing Australia for the future. It is allowing each and every person to make a commitment to being more efficient in the way that they use water.

The WELS water rating labels provide water efficiency information for water-using household products. That is very important. I know from consultation with in my community that this is the kind of information that my constituents are looking for—to be able to go along and choose an appliance that will actually deliver them water efficiency as well as energy efficiency and, at the same time, obviously undertaking the job it is supposed to do.

The labelling carries two important pieces of information. As I mentioned, there is the star rating for water efficiency—that is one to six. The label shows a one to six star rating for a quick assessment of the model's water efficiency. The more stars on the label the more water efficient the product is, and a number showing the water consumption per use—for whitegoods and sanitary ware—or the water flow per minute based on laboratory tests. This is really important information. The information that I find most useful is the star rating, and it has been reported to me that that is the information that constituents look for when they are purchasing an appliance.

In 2010 an independent review found that the WELS Scheme was good policy and it had the support of industry—and I might add that it also has the support of the community. The review made a series of recommendations in relation to governance, compliance, administration and fund management. In November 2011, in response to the review, the Standing Council on Environment and Water—which includes the Commonwealth, state and territory governments—approved a three-year strategic plan for the scheme and agreed that 80 per cent of the scheme's costs between 2012 and 2015 should be recovered from industry, with the remaining 20 per cent being provided by government. The bill amends the act by allowing the minister to determine details of the WELS Scheme. The proposed amendments made through this bill and subsequent legislative instrument will also deliver improvements and efficiencies for participants in the scheme. Examples include simplifying and streamlining product registration processes so that it is easier for people registering a product, and providing a common expiry date for all registrations so that retailers will know when the registrations of products they supply are due to expire. This is all about providing information to the retailers, to the consumers and to the purchasers. It is about ensuring that people are aware of the water efficiency of a product while at the same time knowing the expiry date of that efficiency rating.

The bill will introduce a broader range of compliance and enforcement options. It introduces civil penalties to match existing and criminal offences, and remakes some of the existing Criminal Code offences for clarity. The bill also provides opportunities for orders to be given to a person that they remedy their noncompliance with the act. An example is an order for the replacement of an inaccurate WELS-rating label with a correct one. As the member for Groom pointed out, sometimes equipment or an appliance comes from overseas and the energy rating is incorrect. Under this legislation it can be ordered that the rating be replaced with the correct one.

This bill implements the key recommendations of the WELS Scheme 2010 independent review. It is legislation that I am sure members of both sides of the parliament will support. As I mentioned, when the department briefed the climate change committee, I was convinced that there had been adequate consultation with stakeholders as to the nature of the changes and the proposed changes. I felt that consultations had been widespread. As part of the inquiry, when the department visited the committee, it was pointed out that submissions could be viewed on the website. The committee was made aware during the process that the department had researched this well, and the overwhelming majority of stakeholders supported the legislation.

What we have before us today is legislation that is supported by the government and by the opposition, and which the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts unanimously supported. It is legislation that has been put out into the community for widespread consultation with stakeholders and it has the support of the stakeholders. The department has worked through all the issues that relate to this legislation. As a consequence, I feel that this legislation is going to be well received by the communities that we represent. This legislation will lead to a more efficient use of water in Australia. It will mean that we are better able to conserve water, remembering that water is one of the most precious resources and, as such, we need to make sure that we use it wisely. This legislation is going to make it much easier for us to conserve water and use it efficiently.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Water use efficiency is a critical issue in Australia given the high variability of our seasons. We have a high per capita consumption and we have one of the highest levels of water storage per head of population anywhere in the world. We have needed that, and we need that storage capacity to continue into the future. We have tried to improve the efficiency of water use by better storage, labelling, better measuring, pricing strategies and improved technologies. Labelling is one of the strategies that can really assist in water use efficiency. This, of course, is the focus of the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2012, the subject of this debate.

The coalition began this strategy years ago. We were one of the world's innovators when it came to making sure that when a consumer wanted to know how whitegoods would perform with water consumption they could rely on a label which told them what water consumption would occur. This bill will improve the Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme, or WELS Scheme as it is known, and it is a bill that the coalition supports. We have just survived 10 years of drought in Eastern Australia. The coalition has responded to this by, amongst other things, a careful analysis of the potential for new dams for drought-proofing. Our new dam policy will be announced before the next election and stands in stark contrast to the Greens and the Labor Party who have a no-dam policy no matter what, if, or when.

Water use efficiency is also top of mind for irrigators who grow most of the nation's fine food and fibre. They grow it reliably, which means from them can come the food manufacturing sector—and food manufacturers employ the biggest number of workers of any manufacturing sector across Australia. The drive for more efficient water use should be a cause for celebration. It should not be controversial. And it certainly should aim to be achieved at the same time as improved productivity and environmental sustainability if we are talking about water use efficiency in rural and regional areas, particularly in irrigated agriculture.

Unfortunately in northern Victoria a tragedy is unfolding disguised as a drive for water use efficiency. I am referring to the Goulburn-Murray irrigation system. It all began with Melbourne's water shortages during the last drought, the 10-year drought that many think was even worse than the Federation drought that occurred just as we were becoming a nation. Instead of considering recycling or stormwater harvesting, the state Labor government of the day decided on a desalination plant, which is yet to deliver any of its promise but has delivered a lot of extra debt. It also decided that a pipeline to take water out of the Goulburn River and over the Great Divide to Melbourne was a way to drought-proof its citizenry.

To justify taking this water from the irrigating food producers of the Goulburn-Murray region, it declared that there had to be over 200 gigalitres of water saved in the Goulburn-Murray irrigation system. After a few false starts it was finally decided that one of the ways to guarantee that these savings would be found annually would be to reduce the water use of irrigators by halving the footprint of the huge irrigation system itself. The system has over 6,000 kilometres of channel, 900 kilometres of pipes and over 3,000 kilometres of drains. There are over 14,000 water consumers. Together the irrigators' product supports over 23 food factories and produces over $2 billion in agricultural production annually. They are in fact the biggest producers of agricultural output in Victoria.

Reducing irrigation to find that extra water for Melbourne, Ballarat and Bendigo was unfortunately not the only reason for the so-called reconfiguring or shrinking of the irrigation system of northern Victoria. Officially this project was called the Food Bowl Modernisation Project and a special agency was set up to oversee it: the Northern Victorian Irrigation Renewal Project, commonly called NVIRP. No-one denies that the state had long neglected the maintenance and proper planning of its state-owned water authority and state-owned irrigation system. The system has over 700 employees whose jobs, you would think, would be to make that system efficient, cost-effective and equal to any in the world. Unfortunately, as the Auditor-General of Victoria's report and the Victorian Ombudsman's report into NVIRP show, the opposite is the case. The Food Bowl Modernisation Project is characterised by a horrific lack of planning and inefficient business model development. It has been very poorly executed. Options have not been considered. There have been breaches of proper tendering practice. Privacy provisions have been overlooked. There is a lack of transparency. Communications with stakeholders have been appalling. The recommendation of the Ombudsman's report was in fact to roll NVIRP from an independent authority into the Goulburn-Murray Water authority.

Meanwhile, irrigators have had the cost of their water increase to such an extent that many cannot pay and many doubt that they can extract enough productivity out of their properties to justify the cost of irrigation water itself. But it gets worse. The plan to halve the irrigation footprint is not just about shrinking water consumption across northern Victoria. The original plan was for some of that water to go to Melbourne but a lot of it was also to go to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, which is part of the Murray-Darling Basin proposal, in order to make sure that we have a sustainable environment throughout the Murray-Darling system.

The other part of the agenda in shrinking the footprint of the Goulburn-Murray irrigation system is to save the state the cost of continuing to manage such a big system—a big system that does produce very substantial amounts of food in the form of dairy product; fruit product; cereals, particularly oil seeds; and sheep and beef meat. These sectors are, as I said before, contributing to some of the biggest outputs of agriculture in the state, including the biggest exports of milk powders through Geelong, but that has not been considered. The consideration and the key driving force behind the Food Bowl Modernisation Project tragically now is how to save the state the costs of running the big system and also how to keep their over 700 employees in business or salaried.

In the northern Victoria area 425 gigalitres have already been recovered from irrigators for the environment. There are another 200 gigalitres shortly to be found. The difficulty for irrigators are self-evident. If you have a system being halved then how is that being achieved? It is being achieved by identifying two parts of the system: the backbone or main channels and then the spurs. The spurs are the smaller channel systems which might have five, 10, 15 or 20 farmers along them and they are supplied water off the backbone or what used to be called the main channels. Goulburn-Murray Water, via their lawyer John Adams based in Kyabram, have come up with a plan where syndicates or 'pods' will manage all of the spurs by themselves. That includes the maintenance as well as the ordering and distribution of the water amongst the various farmers on the spur. It also includes deciding what and if and how they might in the future make any changes or efficiencies in their particular spur. That might all sound fairly reasonable except that you have to understand that a spur might include a dairy farmer and a wheat grower or a cereal producer of some sort or a fruit grower. It might include a big property, a small property, a hobby farmer and a third- or fourth-generation farmer. The tragedy of all of this is that these pods, as they are now called, cannot be insured. They are not subject to unlimited liability. If someone refuses to pay their fees and charges, the rest of the pod are liable. They have to pool all of their water together into one account. It does not matter how many of them there are or what the difference is between their enterprises. If a child falls into the channel and drowns or the pipeline is broken by a rampaging bull, they are all liable. There is no capacity for them to develop a sinking fund for their future maintenance and, if they do not maintain their spur, the water authority can choose not to keep supplying water to them.

The way these things are being proposed and planned is a moral hazard. In fact, as we speak people are being pressured into becoming a part of one of these pods. At the moment, if you refuse to do as the Food Bowl Modernisation Project intends for your part of the system—perhaps it is insisting that you go from irrigation to a stock and domestic system only—you are able to uphold your rights within the law and still be supplied with water. Unfortunately, we have now been told by the Minister for Water in the state of Victoria that the legislation is to change and an irrigator who chooses or would prefer to continue to operate an 800-cow dairy farm with irrigation to support that enterprise can be forced to relinquish their water and become part of a stock and domestic supply system only.

This is a serious problem, of course, for the irrigators who, in my part of the world, are still trying to recover from the 10-year drought and the floods that occurred first in the west of the electorate and last year in the east of the electorate. At a time when our food manufacturers are wanting to reinvest, as herds rebuild and farmers are trying very hard to adjust so they can survive the new carbon tax coming on 1 July, we have this incredible attack, as I call it, on the production of food in northern Victoria and on the economy, which in turn translates into an attack on our way of life and our communities themselves. There has been no consultation on this decision to halve the irrigation system or on its impacts on the 52 towns across this area. There has been no stakeholder agreement that this is the best option and the way to go. I believe there are now significant reasons to very seriously consider the governance of the irrigation system itself. I believe that, like all other states in Australia, Victoria should consider the establishment of an irrigator owned cooperative, just as there is in New South Wales, with the Coleambally, Murray or Murrumbidgee irrigation systems, and in Western Australia, with the Harvey and Ord systems. All of those systems are irrigator owned and managed and stakeholder driven. These coops are responsible for every aspect of irrigation system maintenance, including the costs, policies and practices which keep them viable and able to produce food and fibre for the nation.

We are now, quite evidently, in a situation of total policy failure and governance collapse in Victoria in relation to the Goulburn-Murray Water irrigation authority. The minister understood the problem when he became the minister and immediately replaced the board, having called on the previous board to resign, which they all did. The CEOs and CFOs resigned. The NVIRP CEO resigned 24 hours before the ombudsman's report became public. There is a well-understood problem in this part of regional Australia. It has to be addressed with an irrigator cooperative. It must be urgently examined before we lose for all time an investment of four generations in food production in Australia.

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

I speak in support of the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2012. Yesterday, I also spoke on this bill because it was referred to the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts. The committee looked at the legislation and heard from the department about it. As a result of that, yesterday I made a statement to the House reporting back on the findings of the committee having reviewed the legislation. The findings were that the committee unanimously supported the passage of this bill. It did so because this is good legislation. As other speakers have quite rightly pointed out, the original legislation was introduced by the previous government and has been in operation for some six or seven years. The bill we are dealing with is in fact an amendment bill which I believe improves the existing legislation.

The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 provides for the operation of a scheme known as the WELS scheme, as other members have mentioned, to apply national water efficiency labelling and minimum performance standards to specified water use and water-savings products. These products can include showers, toilets, urinals, taps, dishwashers, clothes washing machines and flow controllers. This is done through a rating system that gives products a water efficiency rating of between zero and six stars.

The act was originally introduced at a time when Australia was facing a devastating water shortage. One good thing that came out of that water shortage during that drought period is that, throughout Australia, Australians learnt how to better use their water resources. I think for the first time in many years we have come to appreciate the real value of these water resources. The act was originally introduced at the time we were facing those devastating water shortages. Specific products were selected that could be registered and labelled under a scheme if they met minimum water efficiency standards at the time. The scheme is a national regulatory scheme administered by the Australian government on behalf of the states and territories. The bill amends the act by allowing the minister to determine details of the WEL scheme, particularly those relating to registration of products and cost recovery, to ensure ongoing sustainability of the scheme through a disallowable legislative instrument whereby a majority of the states and territories are required to agree to the terms of the scheme before the legislative instrument is made. In effect, it means that the minister will be able to get on with making changes that ought to be made without having to go through the very cumbersome process that currently applies. That does not, however, deny the states and territories the opportunity to agree or disagree with those changes and they need to agree. But it will be a much more efficient way of dealing with the system and so it should be because today there is no doubt that the kinds of products that will come onto the market to comply with this legislation will come on in the years ahead very quickly. There will be companies out there constantly looking for ways of devising, developing and manufacturing products that will form part of these provisions. Further civil penalty provisions have been added for contraventions of the act, as well as additional enforcement options so that a tailored and appropriate response can be provided in every instance.

In 2010, an independent review found that the WEL scheme was good policy which had the support of industry but it could be improved. The review made a series of recommendations in relation to governance, compliance, administration and funding arrangements. That is the very point, that it was good policy but it could be improved. I have no doubt that is why the industry totally supports the changes that are being made. While most of these changes also provide for better regulation and governance of the current legislation, they also provide more opportunities for industry.

In November 2011, in its response to the review, the Standing Council on Environment and Water—incorporating all environment ministers from Commonwealth, state and territory governments—approved a new three-year strategic plan for the scheme. It was also agreed that 80 per cent of the scheme's costs between 2012 and 2015 should be recovered from industry with the remaining 20 per cent to be provided by governments. The proposed amendments through this bill and subsequent legislative instrument will also deliver improvements and efficiencies for participants in the scheme. Examples include simplifying and streamlining product registration processes, so that this is easier for registrants, and providing a common expiry date for all registrations so that retailers will know when the registrations of products they supply are due to expire.

The bill introduces a broader range of compliance and enforcement options. It also introduces civil penalties to match existing criminal offences and to remake some of the existing criminal offences for clarity. This bill will, therefore, insert penalty provisions that will complement the existing offences. Inserting penalty provisions will improve compliance with the scheme and they will more closely reflect the nature and circumstances of the breaches. The offences in part 7 are not all new but are being modified. Strict liability offences are considered necessary so that a person cannot escape liability by demonstrating that he was not aware of the requirements or was reckless as to the requirements.

Water conservation is overwhelmingly in the public interest. That is why it is reasonable to impose strict liability and significant penalties for the offences under the scheme. This will strongly discourage any actions that lead to excessive urban water consumption. However, the bill also provides opportunities for orders for persons to remedy their non-compliance with the act. An example of this would be to order the replacement of an inaccurate WELS rating label with the correct one. In this way, the act's objective of providing information for purchasers of water using products may be better achieved.

Australia has quite rightly been referred to as a nation that is very dry. Throughout this country, 65 per cent of our water is used by the agricultural sector, 23 per cent is used by the manufacturing sector and 11 per cent is used by households. All three of those sectors can improve their water use. We saw considerable evidence of that in the Murray-Darling Basin inquiry where, when speaking with irrigators throughout the system, we saw how they had invested in water efficiency measures right throughout. They showed that you can do much more with much less water.

The same applies with domestic water consumption in this country. In respect to the urban sector, total domestic consumption over the last 40 years has increased as a consequence of population increase. Australians use about 290 litres of water per person per day, although this significantly varies across the country. Despite significant reductions in per capita consumption over the past decade, overall demand is gradually increasing, mostly because of an increasing population. Based on growth forecasts of a population of around 33 million by 2050, using current annual per capita water consumption, we will need at least an extra thousand gigalitres of water to meet urban household, business and industrial needs. A thousand gigalitres of water is the amount that we would dearly like to find to put it back into the Murray River right now. That exercise alone just demonstrates how difficult it is to find a thousand gigalitres of water, yet that is exactly what we are looking at down the track in terms of the projected population growth and our water needs for 2050.

Certainly some capital cities have invested in desalination plants as an alternative supply of that water. But the reality is that desalination plants come at considerable costs, not only costs to establish the plant but also ongoing costs to take the salt out of the water and then supply it to the homes. So it is not the preferred option. It has been a necessary option but it is also a very costly option. So we ought to be looking at other ways to ensure that we have the water that is required for home use and urban use in years to come. Some states have done that by investing in a whole range of products, by actively managing their water demand, by improving regulatory measures, by applying incentives or by using locally collected water supplies such as rainwater tanks, recycled domestic water or even recycled stormwater. In my home state of South Australia, we have already taken many of these steps.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker AE Burke – Order! It being 2pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.