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

I will add to those remarks. I am interested to hear the government’s explanation as to why Australia’s energy efficiency has improved at less than half the rate of other countries—that being that we have a large number of companies that are big energy users and we attract others. It interests me because the European Union includes countries like Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Cyprus, Estonia, Poland and Slovenia. These eastern European countries that have joined the European Union are way behind the eight ball compared with Australia in the level of energy efficiency of their companies and where they are coming from. Yet all the countries in the European Union are required to abide by the European Union directive on energy efficiency. So I do not accept for a moment the excuse that Australia attracts companies that use a lot of energy and therefore we go soft on them. The European Union does not go soft on the eastern European countries; it requires the whole of the European Union to meet the energy efficiency targets and to follow the directives that give effect to those targets.

What about Australia? That does not answer the question at all. Senator Colbeck has said that we cannot have it both ways—that we say industry is ahead of the government and then we say industry will not implement these measures. It is not inconsistent at all. I am saying that industry is way ahead of the government in recognising that a price signal is needed for carbon, and it is crying out for one. I am saying that it is the government that is actually holding up investment—because there is no certainty in the investment climate because it does not know what the regulations are going to be.

But the issue with companies then not doing the right thing is that the progressive companies are disadvantaged because of the implementation costs of energy efficiency relative to companies that are not prepared to act under voluntary schemes. Of course there are going to be some companies that do not want to act, but that does not negate the view that companies generally, good and bad, are way ahead of the government in requiring investment certainty in regard to a carbon signal and price, emissions trading and energy efficiency. But the good companies are the ones that are disadvantaged by the government’s refusal to act.

Why am I not surprised? You only have to look at the delegations that Australia takes to the climate change conferences. That will tell you which companies in Australia have clout with this government and why we have this proposal for voluntary schemes and not mandated implementation. Look at who went to Montreal. Look at who went to Nairobi. You find the aluminium industry fair, square and central to what goes on in the negotiations. Do they support mandatory targets? No. They use the whole time on the government delegation to try to undermine global efforts to get mandated targets, particularly for the post-2012 period. Not one of those companies supports mandated targets on energy efficiency or stringent targets post-2012. They are the companies the government is listening to. They are the companies the government is responding to by saying, ‘Okay, we’ll require you simply to report on what you could do. We will not require you to implement those things that you identify you could do.’ I am not seeing progressive companies on the government delegations to the conferences on climate change. The companies are there to support the government’s view. It and the United States want to undermine, water down, blow up and destroy any effort by the rest of the world to get a stringent post-2012 regime on climate change.

Regardless of the efforts of those companies and the efforts of the Australian government, we are going to have a post-2012 emissions reduction treaty for the world. What Australia does will be relatively irrelevant. What the US does will be significant, and the US is already moving very fast. It is quite clear that, regardless of who wins the next presidential election in the US, the US will move rapidly and is already moving. Look at the Chicago Climate Exchange. Look at the north-eastern states of the US and their trading scheme. Look at what Arnold Schwarzenegger is doing in California: requiring 20 per cent renewable energy to be purchased by the utilities. That is why, thanks to this government, Solar Heat and Power has left Australia—bye-bye!—and has gone to California. Those utilities are desperate to sign contracts with anybody who can produce renewable energy to meet their 20 per cent target supplying renewables. They could sign up immediately in California, whereas they have 300 megawatts out at Moree waiting to be implemented and they cannot do it because the government will not put a price on carbon. It is because of the cheap price of coal-fired energy that they cannot establish their concentrated solar thermal at Moree.

So let us not have this talk about crippling Australian industry. In fact, to put some figures on it, the economic modelling for the Ministerial Council on Energy in 2003—four years ago—showed that a 50 per cent penetration of a low-energy efficiency scenario over a 12-year period would deliver the following substantial economic benefits. It found that real GDP would be $1.8 billion higher, employment would increase by about 9,000, stationary final energy consumption would be reduced by nine per cent and greenhouse gas emissions from stationary energy would be reduced by nine per cent. Why would you not want that to happen—improvements to GDP, improvements to employment, a reduction in stationary final energy consumption and a reduction in greenhouse gases? That was in 2003. Why would you not do it? That is the question that the government must answer.

It is clear to me that the pressure that the government comes under from the self-titled ‘greenhouse mafia’—that is, the coal industry, the oil industry and the large energy consumers—means that that is where the effort is put in. That was revealed by Four Corners last year and it is revealed daily by the efforts of the spin doctors and the sceptics. That is why the government will not do it. But I would like to hear that from Senator Colbeck. When your economic modelling for the Ministerial Council on Energy in 2003 identified that if you went with even a 50 per cent penetration of a low-energy efficiency scenario over a 12-year period you would get a $1.8 billion increase in real GDP, employment figures increasing, stationary final energy reduced and greenhouse gases reduced, why will you not do it?

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Milne’s) be agreed to.