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

I move amendment (1) on sheet 5179:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A  Section 3

Repeal the section, substitute:

3  Objects

        (1)    The objects of this Act are:

             (a)    to facilitate the establishment of a national energy efficiency target; and

             (b)    to promote the identification and implementation of measures to reduce energy consumption through energy efficiency.

        (2)    In order to achieve its objects, this Act requires:

             (a)    the Minister to establish a taskforce of experts to report on the implementation of a national energy efficiency target; and

             (b)    corporations to undertake an assessment of their energy efficiency opportunities to a minimum standard in order to improve the way in which those opportunities are identified and evaluated; and

             (c)    corporations to publicly report on the outcomes of that assessment in order to demonstrate to the community that those businesses are effectively managing their energy; and

             (d)    corporations to implement identified energy efficiency measures contained in their energy assessment; and

             (e)    establishment of an Energy Savings Fund.

This is an eminently sensible amendment because it addresses the lost opportunity in this energy efficiency ‘lost opportunities’ amendment bill. It recognises the lost opportunity to require corporations to implement the findings in their audits. It goes further by requiring the minister to set up a task force to develop a national energy efficiency target. The problem is that the government refuses to set climate change and greenhouse gas reduction targets and time frames. It is working with an open-ended process even though the real world is working with very clear processes and time lines in response to daily reports about the adverse impact of climate change. By refusing to set national energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction targets that are realistic within the time frames, the government is condemning future generations to appalling lifestyles and climate consequences. Government members will live long enough to see that reality.

The parliamentary secretary did not respond to the question I asked him during the last debate on this legislation and I would like an answer. Why has Australia’s energy efficiency improved at less than half the rate of that of other countries? Is it because we do not know how to do it, because our corporations are not smart enough or because governments have failed to regulate to require corporations to do it? Please, let me have an answer. Why is Australia failing so badly? Why has our energy efficiency improved at less than half the rate achieved in other countries if voluntary schemes work? It is a simple question and I will keep asking it until I get an answer from the government. It is an unacceptable situation given the global crisis that we must deal with.

First, we need a national energy efficiency target. We must then identify and implement measures to reduce energy consumption and establish an energy savings fund. That would then generate the investment we need to be able to roll out the energy efficiency technologies that will effectively deal with the crisis we have at the moment and enable us to achieve the identified 30 per cent energy efficiency savings. As I indicated in my speech in the second reading debate, those savings will buy us the time to leapfrog the old technologies and enable us to meet increased demand through energy efficiency, reduction of use and increased supply using new renewable energy technologies.

I cannot for the life of me see why the government will not take this opportunity. It is not enough for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources to talk about banning light globes when he and this government are refusing to require action from the 250 corporations that use 40 per cent of Australia’s energy. The minister insulted the community when he said that those corporations must simply register by March of this year. That will be followed by a five-year process to see how they go after they have registered and have done their audits. At the end of that process, we will assess whether they have actually done anything. If they have not done anything, presumably the government may then regulate. We do not have that time; we do not have five years. Sir Nicholas Stern said that we have less than 10 years to deal with this issue.

The Labor opposition’s support for this legislation is an abrogation of its responsibility. It is time that this duplicitousness stopped. Members cannot tell Australians that they support greenhouse gas reductions and not take the necessary measures to achieve that. I put the same challenge to Labor. A minute ago I heard Senator Evans say that the opposition is not prepared to require companies to implement the findings of the audits. How will we achieve a 60 per cent reduction by 2050 without requiring that? It is not enough to write op-ed pieces for newspapers. What will Labor do to achieve the target? We are approaching crunch time. European Union directives require its members to achieve targets, but nothing is required in Australia. That is completely unacceptable.

The government supports the clean coal fund and the Labor opposition wants to spend $1.5 billion on unproven clean coal technology. We want to set up an energy savings fund to support energy efficiency measures in Australia. No doubt that will be voted down today, just like the Democrat amendment was voted down. This amendment is designed to change the objects of the legislation to give it some teeth, to require compliance and to provide some vision to take this beyond an unlimited vacuum. It says that we need an energy efficiency target in Australia. It will come, but probably not until 2010, when the world is facing an even greater and more urgent crisis. The problem with not acting now is that it will make it a lot harder and a lot worse for future generations when they are forced to act.

So I now put to the parliamentary secretary: why is Australia’s energy efficiency improving at half the rate of other countries if the government’s voluntary arrangements work so well? Perhaps he can answer that. Secondly, what is wrong with establishing a national energy efficiency target? I am not saying what the target should be; I am setting up an intention to have a target and a process to get one. Why wouldn’t we have a national energy efficiency target if we are serious about tackling climate change? Thirdly, why wouldn’t we require these companies to implement the savings that they have identified? Finally, how are we going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Australia if the 250 companies that use 40 per cent of our energy are not mandated to do anything?