Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Hansard source

I want to respond to Senator Abetz’s point and also hopefully cover off—if I can use the expression—on the curtains issue. Senator Abetz, you were at the hearing. Looking at the transcript of the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, pages 41 and 42 is where the explanation was given. In summary, because I do not want to go right through the exchange that occurred, Treasury noted to the committee that the $97 million should not have been included in the table so that the appropriation bills were correct.

On the curtain issue, I have requested some information from Treasury. Do we have studies on curtains versus insulation? Yes, Treasury does. We have information on different types of energy efficiency treatments for households including draught-proofing, curtains and insulation. Consultants and latest industry advice confirm that insulation and solar hot water are the most cost-effective treatments across the board to decrease household energy use.

I think Senator Collins is quite right: there is only so much you can do, certainly theoretically. If we wanted to have totally energy-efficient homes in Australia, many would have to rebuild their entire homes. There is only so much government can do. We have put forward what has been identified as the most effective energy efficiency treatment that is practical in the circumstances—and that is insulation.

On this issue of energy efficient homes, there were three other questions posed by senators to which no response was given at the committee hearings and I will give a response now. Senator Abetz and Senator Milne, there is a question each here, and Senator Joyce also asked a question about insulation matters, so I can provide answers to those questions.