Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, I am disappointed that the government’s argument against these amendments is that they would increase compliance costs for business and make it slightly more complex in terms of accelerated depreciation. Because the measure applies to a specific 200 companies across Australia, we are not talking about mega compliance costs; we are talking in terms of those companies that are caught by this act. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, when he gave the second reading speech on the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill 2006, outlined that it was approximately 200 companies. So I suggest that it would not be overly onerous for the government to implement this measure that would force energy efficiency measures.

It will be very interesting at the end of the 12 months to see whether those 200 companies have actually implemented any of the things in the audits, because all this bill does is allow them to accelerate depreciation on equipment of various kinds. I hope that they do it on energy efficiency, because of the increasing costs of energy and the need to reduce the costs of operating. I hope that is the case. These amendments would send a strong signal to the business community that the government is serious about energy efficiency and reducing demand. The next time we have the Prime Minister talking about energy scarcity and energy security or, for that matter, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage talking about climate change, perhaps they can explain to the Australian people why they did not find it necessary to implement measures that would have led to more fuel efficient vehicles, a more energy efficient budget and, on this measure in particular, more energy efficiency in business.

As to Senator Kemp’s challenge on engagement, I remind Senator Kemp that it was my motion for an inquiry into Australia’s future oil supplies and alternative energy that led to the Senate opting to have the Senate inquiry that is currently under way. Through that inquiry, we have had over 150 submissions from around the country. People have overwhelmingly said that this is something that the government ought to have been considering. There is also enormous relief in the business community about the fact that Australia is at last looking into what happens in the future with oil depletion and the development of alternative supplies.

It was with some amusement that I noted in the small print only a week ago that the government has announced that it is now going to have its own inquiry into Australia’s future oil supplies and transport fuels. I was very pleased about that, because it is apparent to me that, until the Greens brought it into this chamber, put it on the agenda and set up the inquiry, the government was reluctant to recognise it as a major issue. But the community is certainly saying that it is a major issue, and increased prices at the pumps are putting increasing pressure on the government to do something about it.

As to your challenge with regard to my colleague Senator Brown, it was the legal advice that Senator Brown got in relation to the sale of the Snowy Hydro that brought the issue to the point where the federal government was forced to change its mind. That was a critical role played in the initiatives that were taken to save the Snowy Hydro. I welcome Senator Kemp’s invitation for me to explain to the Senate the critical role that the Greens played in keeping the Snowy Hydro in public hands. The community is enormously appreciative of the role we played, both here in the Senate and in the upper house in New South Wales. The Greens led the running at the state and community levels in terms of organising people and assisting them to make their views heard in that regard.

Currently, the Greens are again taking a very strong role in engaging with the government on its misguided overruling of the ACT on its current laws in relation to partnerships. It is appalling to see the Howard government move in the middle of the night to try and overrule the ACT. The Greens engage very constructively here in this chamber, and I would argue that the oil inquiry for one is one of the most strategically important initiatives that has been taken by the Senate in the 12 months I have been here.

I hope, Senator Kemp, that you take on board the spirit of these amendments and not only ask companies to engage in energy audits but make them take some responsibility for meeting Australia’s challenge in terms of energy security and future energy supplies. Demand-side management is a lot cheaper and a lot easier than providing new energy sources. If we could influence the 200 companies that use the most energy between them then we would make a significant reduction in both energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and that could easily be tied to this budget measure. What is the point of a windfall gain to business if we are not asking for some responsibility on their side? That is why I strongly recommend these amendments. I recognise that with the government’s opposition they are not going to pass, but I hope that you take them into account and quietly—as has happened with the oil inquiry—implement them in some other form in the next 12 months.