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

I wanted to say first of all that I was disappointed that Senator Carr did not pick up more quickly the import of the question I asked about energy efficiency. It was basically to recognise that we are going to have a carbon price, that a carbon price is going to increase the cost of energy to Australian consumers, and that that will have a disproportionate impact on low-income earners. I think we all accept that that is the case. The Garnaut report out this afternoon on the emissions trading system acknowledges that as well.

The point I was making to Senator Carr was to say that cash payments and low-interest loans do not work and that a far more desirable option is to use money from the auction of permits to pollute to invest in energy efficiency. It is the old saying: if you give people a fish, you feed them for a day; if you teach them how to fish, you feed them for life. The proposal with energy efficiency is this: if you assist people to upgrade their homes to be more energy efficient then their energy bills are going to be less and it is going to be less permanently over time because you have fully insulated their house and you have reduced the cost of their hot water by installing solar hot water. The Greens have thought about this for a long time. We have the EASI policy initiative to upgrade the whole of Australia’s existing housing stock—7.4 million houses—and that takes into account of course all rental accommodation, because there is no incentive at the moment for landlords to upgrade when their tenants are in a position where they have to pay regardless. This would allow us to spend money up-front retrofitting the country and reducing people’s power bills permanently. Do you give them a small amount of cash in their hand, which is inflationary, or do you invest the money in giving them lower power bills permanently?

I am pleased to say that Professor Garnaut in his report today acknowledges that investment in energy efficiency is one of the ways that you can help low-income households. I really welcome the fact that he has said that. I welcome the fact that there is a recognition of the importance of energy efficiency, but now I am delighted that Senator Carr said this afternoon, ‘I would have to agree,’ when I asked him if the government would consider implementing the Greens’ Energy Efficiency Access and Savings Initiative, or EASI, for investment in retrofitting 7.4 million households across Australia. I am very pleased that the minister has said that they will consider implementing it, that they agree in relation to energy efficiency, and I look forward to working with the government to see if we can roll out energy efficiency. The other advantage of it, above cash payments, is that it helps with the structural adjustment to help declining communities. There are going to be some communities that are losers in a low carbon economy, but they can be made winners if you introduce new industries. If we made solar hot water compulsory and if the government paid up-front then there would be a whole new industry, a massive expansion in energy efficiency technology. That would mean rolling out that technology, employing people in those fields, in those jobs. And, of course, that would mean not only the manufacture of those energy efficiency technologies but also their initial installation and their maintenance. There would be jobs around that whole new low carbon economy. It is also a support for public infrastructure, because you would not only do it for private housing but also move into the commercial sector. It has the advantage of being anti-inflationary, it gives you long-term lower energy prices and it assists in new job creation in the new low carbon economy. It is a win all around.

There is no disadvantage to the scheme of using money that you get from selling the permits—and Professor Garnaut is recommending 100 per cent auctioning—and I hope that the government will agree with him and recognise that, for this system to have integrity, auctioning the permits is the way to go. I also welcome it dovetailing with international emissions trading schemes so Australia is not out on its own, that we are ready to dovetail with other schemes. I also recognise the importance of Professor Garnaut saying that we should not be taking agriculture and forestry in straightaway because the data is not good enough to have integrity in the scheme as yet. But I am concerned about shifting the burden to the future. I do not want to have a scheme which is tightened up later. We should be taking the tightening now and tightening further later on. Because the science is moving very fast, I am concerned that if we think we have it right to start with we are going to leave future generations with a terrible burden. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.