Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That bill required sellers commercial office space of over 2,000 square metres to obtain a Building Energy Efficiency Certificate before putting it on the market to lease or sell. This was important because the certificate rates the energy efficiency of the building and gives the potential buyer more information before purchase. That was a huge part of the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act. It gave the buyer more power to make sound judgement. It was also about elevating the importance of energy efficiency in modern buildings. The bill allowed the potential buyer or renter to have a better understanding of the operating costs and environmental impact of the space if they decided to rent or purchase the office space.

It has been three years since Commercial Building Disclosure program began to administer the legislation passed under the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act. This program is important because there are a number of incentives for both building owners and tenants. For building owners, their energy-efficient office space is more marketable, increases future capital, lessens the need for upgrades later on and lowers operating costs. For tenants renting energy efficient office spaces, their operating costs are drastically reduced.

In fact, for every one-star increase in the NABERS energy rating, a tenant can expect to save 15 per cent in energy costs. That is a significant saving that can be used to expand or reinvest in the company. While all of these aspects of the CBD program are of great benefit to Australians, there are always ways in which it can be improved. The program needs to be streamlined in order to reduce costs, cut out unnecessary bureaucracy and make processes faster. The truth about government bureaucracy and regulation is that it is a self-enervating thing.

The coalition of which I am a part promised at the last election to deliver $1 billion worth of savings through red tape reduction. With only 13 months of the term gone, I am proud to report that the government has not only met but doubled that target with $2.1 billion in savings achieved to date through red tape reduction. This continues to grow every day. This is because there has been a paradigm shift. The modus operandi of every agency and individual in government now clearly understands that 'one in, one out' clearly means 'one in, one out'. These savings have been from common sense measures that should have been enacted years ago. Liberals know, quoting Ronald Reagan, that the most terrifying words in the English language are 'I am from the government, and I am here to help.'

Deloitte estimates that one million Australians are employed in compliance. If Labor is all about bringing government into business, then the coalition is about bringing business into government. Tenets of modern business, such as e-tendering, are finally being facilitated. Not only will this single measure save millions in direct costs, but the associated indirect efficiencies are innumerable and incalculable—not least of which include better, quicker decision outcomes. Time is money.

This government knows this first principle of business, because our people have been in business and continue to talk to business. There is a genuine desire on the part of the government to have a dialogue with business, especially small business. Small business is the engine of growth of our economy. The core of liberal philosophy is fewer forms and more reforms. In Tangney, my constituents have one clear message: please make things simpler. We need to reduce the footprint of government to enable the community to get on with creating jobs and building a stronger society for all.

Our government is aware that we operate in a global marketplace. There are global opportunities, but also concomitant global challenges. As much as individuals have rights and responsibilities, so too do governments. By harmonising our reporting standards and our import standards for certain goods and services against international benchmarks, we recognise the reality of the global marketplace. It is the responsibility of government not to unduly disadvantage any business operating within the Commonwealth. The fundamental recipe for economic success that so underpins the basic functioning of our social contract is not rocket science.

Regulation, while necessary in certain and restrained circumstances, should be the last resort and never the quick fix solution. The focus of this bill needs to be about what is the best way to achieve a certain specific outcome—namely, more energy efficient buildings. When it comes to regulation, I fall back to my default liberal belief system. That system says to me that the most effective, most efficient and most innovative way to achieve a desired outcome or change is not to punish but to incentivise.

Let us be all about carrots and less about sticks. The market is remarkably adaptable. It will innovate new ways of doing business and evolve, if government does not block its progress. The key is that the market will naturally evolve or grow in a certain more efficient direction. That is a logical, rational assumption. However, if one wants to achieve greater efficiency in building standards and household construction, one must look to incentives. Incentives are the only long-term, low-cost sustainable solution. We, as a society, need to reward our risk-takers and reward creativity. We can do this through an adequately tweaked incentives system—not by way of the rod, as Labor is wont to do. Labor has always been sceptical of capitalists' 'creative destruction', to quote the noted business cycle analyst Joseph Schumpeter. Efficiency was never, and is still not, a watchword of Labor. Red tape is Labor's love and is kryptonite to efficiency and innovation. On the issue of efficiency, let me briefly speak to an egregious omission in the drive for greater efficiency in spend and service delivery—that is, let me go nuclear for just a little bit.

The politics of fear all too often override good policy and the desire of the majority of the community. The nuclear debate is a classic example of this. I led the debate with a speech to parliament in March 2005, advocating at the very least for critical examination of the merits of nuclear generated power. In fact, McNair Ingenuity's research between 1979 and 2009 shows support for nuclear power increasing from 34 per cent to 49 per cent in favour of the construction of nuclear power stations, with around 10 per cent undecided. More people are in favour of nuclear power than opposed to it, yet Greens' support for nuclear power still sits at around 22 per cent. We continue to get fearmongering from Labor and the Greens, despite critical power generation infrastructure issues. Nuclear power is the least carbon intensive of methods of generating power. The fact is that a nuclear decision can be made regardless of the policy framework on carbon dioxide. The reality today is similar to the USA, South Africa and other markets with abundant cheap coal—that is, nuclear is competitive with any other method of generating power. The only thing counting against it is a nonsensical ban on generating power using nuclear energy.

Labor and the Greens cannot continue to say that anthropogenic global warming is the most important issue to confront our society, but then say that the one method capable of making a massive dent in carbon dioxide emissions should have a legislative ban associated with it. They also cannot continue to argue for this ban as it is 'economically too expensive'. If they really believe this, they would allow the repeal of section 10 of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998, knowing that power generators would not build a nuclear power plant if it were economically uncompetitive. But there is further hypocrisy. Labor believes in selling uranium overseas—but not in using it here. That is hypocritical and unethical. If it is too dangerous to use here, we should not be selling it overseas.

It is time to move past the politics of fear, in the national interest. It is time for politicians of conviction, with the foresight to look at the national interest and the future of our nation, to push for a repeal of this legislation. Let us ensure we do what is best for the nation and not hamstring one of our most important industries for the simple expedient of gaining votes using the politics of fear.

Repealing section 10 would be a worthwhile step forward. It would remove the prohibition on a Commonwealth body operating a power reactor, and allow nuclear energy to be one of the options explored for most efficiently conserving and producing cleaner energy for Australia in the longer term.

It is hard to imagine that any such reactor would be built without much of the building standards and operating safeguards being set out in legislation. To simply keep a ban in place based on old fears is bad policy.

In sum, I support greater efficiency, less red tape and more results based policy. I support more hope, reward, and opportunity. I support this bill, and commend it to the House.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 31 March 2007, 2.2 million Australians flicked the switch to mark the beginning of what would become a world-wide movement in energy conservation. Designed to encourage individuals, communities and businesses to turn off their non-essential lights for an hour every year, Earth Hour quickly became a symbol for humanity's commitment to the planet. In fact, so popular was the movement in 2014 that Earth Hour was celebrated in over 162 countries and over 7,000 cities and towns worldwide—a great Australian export. The hour has grown into the world's largest grassroots movement for the environment, with beyond-the-hour projects and initiatives happening throughout the year. One of the reasons for Earth Hour's success was the tangible experience of conserving energy and the size of the impact that such a simple act can have on the environment.

Speaking at the launch of the International Energy Agency's Energy efficiency market report 2014 in October, IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven put it beautifully when she said: 'Energy efficiency is the world's first fuel. It is the invisible powerhouse working behind the scenes to improve our energy security, lower our energy bills and move us closer to reaching our climate goals.'

Energy efficiency represents the most important plank in efforts to decarbonise the global energy system and achieve the world's climate objectives, the IEA's report found. In the IEA scenario consistent with limiting the long-term increase in global temperatures to no more than two degrees Celsius, the biggest share of emissions reductions—40 per cent—comes from energy efficiency.

Labor takes seriously the need to conserve and promote energy efficiency and to protect our environment for future generations. This is evidenced in our support for the Commercial Building Disclosure Program. This is a program that was rolled out under the previous Labor government in 2011, aimed at ensuring energy efficiency ratings for commercial office spaces over 2,000 square metres were disclosed to potential buyers and tenants. At the time, there were more than 21 million square metres of commercial office space in Australia's major urban areas, spread across more than 3,900 buildings, with commercial buildings accounting for 10 per cent of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions.

Energy efficiency directly impacts running costs for the occupiers of buildings. Disclosure of this information before sale or lease will greatly assist potential buyers and tenants make informed decisions.

They were the words of the then Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Mark Dreyfus, when this scheme was introduced in 2011. The energy efficiency information disclosed is in the form of a Building Energy Efficiency Certificate, and one of these certificates includes a star rating of the building's energy efficiency, an assessment of tenancy lighting, and additional guidance on how the energy efficiency of the office may be improved.

The commercial building sector is responsible for around 10 per cent of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions, and the figure is rising. Energy efficiency represents one of the cheapest and fastest ways that we can reduce our nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Credible energy efficiency information helps parties to make better informed decisions and take full account of the economic costs and environmental impacts associated with operating the buildings they are intending to purchase or lease.

This bill proposed by the government, the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Bill 2014, is, in many respects, a housekeeping measure in response to changes that have been proposed in stakeholder forums, and are changes that will reduce red tape. Importantly, the property industry is supportive of the Commercial Building Disclosure Program, with the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council stating in November that: 'The CBD Program facilitates transparency of energy efficiency information, using a robust methodology. This is an important program that addresses the vast number of office accommodations in cities around Australia, using market forces to drive better performing, energy efficient buildings.'

Raising awareness of a building's performance creates a market incentive for tenants to look for higher-performing buildings and for building owners to upgrade their stock and to improve their energy efficiency over the longer term. This leads to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, improved industry capacity and can act as an ongoing industry stimulus. Aside from the benefits in reduced greenhouse gas emissions, the CBD program has a broader range of impacts which are not always captured and easy to quantify, such as increased industry capacity and potential building upgrades that go beyond improving just the energy efficiency of a building but may also improve water use, indoor environment quality and other elements.

The World Green Building Council's report Health, wellbeing and productivity in offices: the next chapter for green buildings represents overwhelming evidence that office design significantly affects the health, wellbeing and productivity of staff. The report found that a range of factors, from air quality and lighting to views of nature and interior layout, can affect the health, satisfaction and job performance of workers. Staff costs, including salaries and benefits, typically account for 90 per cent of a business operating costs. It follows that the productivity of staff, or anything that affects and impacts their ability to be productive, should be a major concern for any organisation. The report also found that even the smallest of differences can have a large affect. What may appear to be a modest improvement in employee health or productivity can have a significant financial advantage and implication for employers.

Labor supports this bill as a continuance of a program that we put in place in government—a program that promotes greater awareness of energy efficiency for potential buyers and tenants in the commercial sector in Australia, promotes energy efficiency and, ultimately, is effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Support for the encouragement of energy efficiency as the world's first fuel and an invisible powerhouse move us closer to reaching our goals when it comes to reducing emissions and improving our environment.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise on the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Bill 2014. I have just been for a quick walk outside and I noticed there is some fantastic soaking rain here in Canberra. I hope that many other parts of our country which are experiencing drought at the moment and doing it a bit tough are sharing some of the rain that we are getting here in Canberra.

This bill amends the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act 2010. That particular act requires energy efficiency information to be disclosed in most cases when a commercial office space of 2,000 square metres or more is offered for sale or lease. I support both the amendment and the original bill because they provide the informational remedies to help the market work more effectively and allow someone that is considering to lease or to purchase office space to compare not only the cost of the rental per square metre but also much it will actually cost to operate so they can make a good comparison—apples for apples.

One thing I would note is that, from many of the contributions from members of the opposition, it would seem that they think that this energy efficiency would not have come about unless it was for government coming in and interfering and making all these rules and regulations. A decade before the original act was passed in 2010, one of the jobs that I did before coming to this House was to design decorative lighting fixtures, and one of the things I had to consider was energy efficiency. I would work with interior designers and we would work out how we could make a particular light fixture more energy efficient, especially in commercial buildings and hotels. Where we had lighting in public areas and corridors—where those lights were on 24-hours a day, often seven days a week, 365 days of the year—it was a very simple equation to work out that, if we could change that particular fixture from an incandescent fixture to a compact fluorescent fixture, there would be substantial energy savings to the operator not only in electricity costs but also in changing the bulb, because compared to the relatively short span for an incandescent bulb the span for a compact fluorescent bulb is substantially longer.

So this is something the market itself was doing many years in advance—and not just here in Australia. I also did a couple of projects over in America where I had the same situation. We had to design light fixtures for a project in the USA, a hotel in California. They had to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, where you had to have special things. The fixture had to be less than four inches out from the wall and you had to fit your compact fluorescent lamp in there—so you could actually come up with energy efficient savings. This was not something that was mandated by government; this was something that the market was delivering at the time. As I said, this is simply an informational remedy that adds to it.

I would like to make one comment on the compact fluorescent lamps. Yes, they save in energy costs between 60 and 80 per cent of our old incandescent bulbs. They also have much greater longevity. But there is an issue, because those bulbs contain mercury. Some numbers I have looked at indicate that, around Australia, those compact fluorescent bulbs currently being dumped in landfill release into our environment 1,100 kilograms of mercury, because when the bulb breaks the mercury is released. In New South Wales, just as a rough estimate, I worked out that that is about 340 kilograms of mercury through compact fluorescent globes.

In comparison, when all our coal-fired power stations in New South Wales burn coal they release 164 kilograms of mercury. So we are actually releasing double the amount of mercury into the atmosphere through compact fluorescent globes going into landfills, as opposed to what is released from our coal-fired power stations. In fact, the US Environmental Protection Agency produced a document that talks about what to do if a compact fluorescent light bulb breaks in your home. If the bulb, a very thin filament of glass, breaks, it says, firstly:

It goes on:

DO NOT VACUUM. Vacuuming is not recommended unless broken glass remains after all other cleanup steps have been taken. Vacuuming could spread mercury-containing powder or mercury vapor.

It notes:

If a glass jar is not available, use a sealable plastic bag. (NOTE: Since a plastic bag will not prevent the mercury vapor from escaping, remove the plastic bag(s) from the home after cleanup.)

So there are great advantages in compact fluorescent bulbs, but we also need to consider, as we do with all legislation, the unintended consequences.

I would also like to make a few comments in response to some of the other things raised in this debate. The member for Newcastle went on about the importance of the RET, the renewable energy target. I believe if we look at this matter, using common sense and logic, anyone who believes in a truly renewable energy solution will realise that mandating the RET at this stage of time where technology stands today will actually send us backwards. It will be counterproductive.

An article was written a couple of weeks ago by two Google engineers: Ross Koningstein and David Fork. They worked for several years on a project that Google called RE>C—which means RE, renewable energy, cheaper than coal—to see how they could produce electricity from renewable energy cheaper than from coal.

I would just like to quote a few things that they said. Remember that these people are no sceptics. I quote:

At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …

They continued:

As we reflected on the project, we came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work …

Those are not my words; they are the words of Google engineers. They continued:

… even if we shut down every fossil-fueled power plant today, existing CO2 will continue to warm the planet.

Even if every renewable energy technology advanced as quickly as imagined and they were all applied globally, atmospheric CO2 levels wouldn’t just remain above 350 ppm—

that is, parts per million—

they would continue to rise exponentially due to continued fossil fuel use …

So to mandate the use of a form of inefficient technology that will not result in significant reductions in CO2 emissions is simply counterproductive and will send us backwards. And, if there is no change to that renewable energy target, $17 billion of our nation's precious and limited resources will simply be wasted. That will make us poorer. If we are going to solve the issues by coming up with a technology whereby we can actually produce electricity cheaper that we can from coal, gas or nuclear, then the last thing we should be doing is investing money in inefficient technologies that will simply not achieve that goal.

The member for Moreton talked about China and how China was taking great action on renewable energy. I say to the member for Moreton: come in spinner! Either he did not read the agreement or he simply does not understand it. If you look at the agreement you will see that, between now and 2030, China will continue to increase their use of coal every single year for the next 16 years, up 2030. They will roll out more and more coal fired power stations. When they get to 2030, the agreement is not that they will wind back anything; the agreement is that they simply will not increase their CO2 emissions. I cannot understand how anyone could be so deluded, to think China are doing all these things on renewable energy and taking steps to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. It is absolute nonsense; it is the complete opposite.

The member for Moreton also went on about jobs. He said the carbon tax could create jobs and that we need government planning. I would recommend to the member for Moreton that, over Christmas, he read a book entitled Uncle Sam Can't Count. I will read the introduction. It says:

… government investments have failed dismally. They not only drain the Treasury of cash but also impede economic growth, and they hurt the very companies they try to support.

Why does federal aid seem to have a reverse Midas touch? Simply put, federal officials don't have the same abilities or incentives as entrepreneurs. In addition, federal control always produces political control of some kind.

I highly recommend that the member for Moreton read this book over the holidays. The member for Kingsford Smith came in here and greatly praised Earth Hour and about how we turn off our lights. I would suggest to the member for Kingsford Smith that, if he thinks it is good that we should turn off our lights to somehow celebrate something, next time Earth Hour rolls around he should perhaps go to North Korea. Because there they celebrate Earth Hour every night, not for one hour but for the entire time of darkness. If you look at one of those satellite maps you will see North Korea at night-time, in complete darkness and, next to it, South Korea completely illuminated. Perhaps that is what the member for Kingsford Smith should look at.

Finally—and this could be my last contribution for the year—this bill actually helps reduce red tape. That is one of the goals that the coalition has. But it is not just by itself. We can look back over the year and think of the wonderful successes that we as a government have had, something we can all be very proud of. We have seen with the repeal of the carbon tax the biggest fall of electricity prices on record. I remember a member of the opposition in the last parliament, sitting here and saying that it could not be done, it wouldn't be done and we wouldn't and couldn't repeal it. We have repealed it and, from that, we have seen the biggest fall in electricity prices in our nation's history.

Also, there has been success when it comes to stopping the boats and, more importantly, stopping the deaths at sea and regaining control of our borders. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you were to go back 12 months and frame a market on how many boats would come in this 12-month period and you wanted to bet just one boat in 12 months, I think you could almost write your own ticket.

That achievement has been remarkable. Again, it is something that the Labor Party, when they were in government, said could not and would not be done. Well, it has been done, it has been achieved.

After 50 years of indecision we have made a commitment to a second airport for Sydney at Badgerys Creek. The great news is that this will not be Sydney's second airport, it will be the first international airport for Western Sydney. Western Sydney itself is now strong enough, economically powerful enough, that it deserves its own international airport. After 50 years we have made that decision.

We have repealed the mining tax. That absolutely absurd tax was complete nonsense, completely counterproductive. It caused more harm than good. It raised hardly any revenue but it destroyed confidence in that sector.

We have started building the roads of the 20th century. We have started work on WestConnex in Sydney. Over the next four years we will see a 50 per cent increase in spending on New South Wales public schools. I see that the member for Grayndler is at the table. He, like me, comes from a public school background, so I am sure he will celebrate that 50 per cent increase in spending.

We have also seen a trifecta of free trade agreements—with South Korea, Japan and China. This will provide untold opportunity not only for Australians today but also for our children and grandchildren in the future. We have also restored relations with Indonesia and broken new ground on our relationship with India. And I would hope that, before the end of this parliament, we will also see a free trade agreement with India.

We have seen something like 120,000 new jobs created. We have seen an uplift in consumer confidence and business confidence. We have seen strong retail trade figures. Australians can go to Christmas confident about our future, confident that they have a responsible government in charge that is trying to get on with the job of repairing the budget deficit. We have to do that. If we continued to spend in the way the previous Labor government did, we would be betraying our children and stealing from our grandchildren. That is why bills like this are important. I commend the bill to the House.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a brief contribution on the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Bill 2014. This is about the ability to disclose the energy performance of commercial buildings above 2000 square metres that are offered for sale or lease. As a tradesman, as an electrician, as an electrical engineer who has had something to do with quite a number of pieces of legislation and compliance over many years, I think it is good that we are acting to streamline some of the red tape. While energy efficiency is important, it is challenging in an environment where you keep changing tenants or a building is offered for sale multiple times. Energy efficiency is predominantly around lighting; that is typically where you gain the most efficiency. I would like to speak a bit about that. I concur with a number of the comments made by the member for Hughes, particularly around energy efficient lighting.

I commenced work as an apprentice on 13 January 1987. At that time we still had tungsten lamps, incandescent lamps, and there were many of them. What I recall about them is that they were incredibly cheap. They were constructed from glass, tungsten and brass—all naturally occurring elements. Even with inflation and everything else, you would expect that you could still purchase those types of lamps for $1 or even $1.20. However, energy efficient lamps are incredibly expensive. They are between $6 and $11 per fitting. That adds an enormous amount of cost to building houses and commercial buildings. But it does reduce electricity use; there is no doubt about that. It certainly reduces the amount of energy used for lighting. Lighting is one of the biggest consumers of energy in commercial buildings.

The National Electricity Market report in August 2014 indicated that there is enough generating capacity in Australia connected to the NEM to last for the next decade. We will need no additional generating capacity for another 10 years. And that is in all economic circumstances—low, medium and high growth and low, medium and high risk. So why is it that we are looking to invest more money in generators of renewable energy at a time when we certainly cannot afford it? I am sure that 10 years is ample time for technology to improve—and it is improving rapidly.

But it is time to consider the nuclear debate—and I note the previous contributions about nuclear energy. As an electrical engineer, I can tell you that nuclear energy needs to be considered. But I note that the scare campaign from those opposite has already commenced. In recent days I have received on my Twitter account a report from 2007 about how coastal towns in Queensland are likely locations for a nuclear plant. My seat is based on Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. This is an area in Australia that is more likely to have some type of volcanic activity, so I think it is highly unlikely that it will be considered for the construction of a nuclear plant. Given that we will not need any additional generating capacity for another decade, this is something which I believe we can take time to consider.

The other thing we need to think about is that power consumption in this country is falling like a stone. We are using less electrical energy now than we were 10 years ago—far less—and our usage continues to fall. We are using less power, so why do we need to build more generating capacity when we are oversupplied to the tune of 135 per cent? It makes no sense to me at all. As a practical person from a practical background, I do not see the sense in spending the taxpayers' money for no purpose.

The comments from the member for Hughes around the disposal of energy efficient lighting are bang-on. Crompton, one of the largest producers of lamps in the world, has advised that mercury levels are of concern—and this is something we need to consider. In fact, their advice is that those lamps should never be disposed of in landfill at all. You can imagine how many lamps in Australia go straight into the bin and then to landfill. So we really need to consider what it is that we are trying to achieve.

I also note the contribution from the member for Moreton and his comments around China. Having been to Guangzhou and Shanghai, I can say in all honesty that they have the worst pollution I have ever seen. I have travelled all over the place but I have never seen anything as bad as the pollution in those towns. So Australia's contribution is good. This is a great country to live in. Certainly the air is clean, and we are doing the right thing in terms of the environment. I congratulate Minister Hunt on his activities. However, this is all about the energy efficiency scheme, and it is a scheme that I support, of course, and I support the amendments. I said my contribution would be brief. Thank you.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to start by thanking the many members for their contribution to this debate. Some of them even managed to talk about the content of the bill! It was a wide-ranging debate, but I would like to thank them for their attention and contribution.

The Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Bill 2014 will streamline and improve the efficiency of the Commercial Building Disclosure Program, which is underpinned by the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act 2010. I would point out that the legislation underpinning that was passed with bipartisan support back in 2010. In fact, the background work on the Commercial Building Disclosure Program was initiated back in 2004 under the Howard government's national framework for energy efficiency.

The Commercial Building Disclosure Program is helping to improve Australia's building stock by encouraging all parties in a purchase or lease transaction to consider energy efficiency. Disclosing energy efficiency information provides everyone with access to consistent and meaningful information about the building's energy performance and makes it easier for companies to buy or rent more energy-efficient office space. Electricity is money, and businesses need to make sure that they spend their money wisely, effectively and efficiently. Reductions in consumption of electricity help the bottom line.

The amendments proposed in this bill are sensible measures designed to streamline the operation of the Commercial Building Disclosure Program and respond to industry suggestions for improvement—because, after all, they are the people with the skin in the game. The bill I introduced in the House of Representatives on 22 October reflects the government's commitment to not only reduce the regulatory burden on businesses but also support business flexibility and productivity. Key amendments, coupled with complementary changes to the regulations, will remove the need for energy efficiency assessments for transactions that are not market visible, such as between wholly owned subsidiaries or in the case of unsolicited offers from a single party. A further amendment will introduce the ability to determine a commencement date for a Building Energy Efficiency Certificate—a BEEC—that is later than the date of issue. This will help large property businesses who are wishing to proactively maintain current BEECs for their property portfolios where synchronising annual certification across a portfolio has become an efficient business practice. These amendments will improve the operation and effectiveness of the Commercial Building Disclosure Program and result in regulatory savings of around $600,000 annually.

In addition to this, the government has commissioned an independent review of the Commercial Building Disclosure Program, and I advise the House that a final report will be provided to the Minister for Industry in the first quarter of next year. In the interim, this bill will ensure that there is a streamlined process to provide consistent and meaningful information about building energy performance to the market to allow companies to make more informed decisions when buying or renting buildings. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.