Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill 2005.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kemp interjecting—

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scullion was not here for the third reading of the previous piece of legislation; I thought he supported it but I did not actually see him in the chamber and putting his hand up to support it. As Labor supported the last piece of legislation we will be supporting this bill. Mr Martin Ferguson, the member for Batman, is Labor’s resources spokesman and has carriage of this legislation in the House of Representatives.

The bill establishes the mandatory energy efficiency opportunities assessments announced in the government’s energy white paper entitled Securing Australia’s energy future, which I think was launched in June 2004. Labor supports the passage of this bill, but I will move a second reading amendment highlighting the government’s failure to address the urgent need for greater energy efficiency across all sectors of the economy, not just business. There is a pressing need for Australia to generate greater efficiency in our transport fuel use, and this means having a national focus on the long neglected policy area of public transport. Congestion in our cities means hundreds of thousands of Australians waste time—and fuel—just getting to work each day.

Electricity system meltdown due to the escalating use of household airconditioning is now a predictable element of an Australian summer. We cannot pretend any longer that non-business energy use does not matter, nor can we pretend that our energy supplies are infinite or that greenhouse implications can be ignored. We have to become smarter about our domestic and transport energy consumption. These important policy challenges are not addressed in this bill.

The bill also fails to take up the challenge of diversifying our energy supplies. This government is still not doing enough to clean up coal and fast-track the development and uptake of alternative fuels and renewable energy technologies. The government has also missed an opportunity to take up the bipartisan recommendations of the House of Representatives environment committee report on sustainable cities, many of which deal with energy efficiency initiatives that would make our cities more liveable.

Labor welcome the government’s initiatives to address energy efficiency opportunities in the business sector. However, we say they do not go far enough. The bill requires large energy-using businesses to register with the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources; it requires these businesses to undertake an assessment of energy efficiency opportunities; and it requires them to report publicly on the outcomes of the assessments.

The bill is targeted at large energy users to address a perceived energy efficiency gap. In Australia, the level of energy efficiency—and the rate of improvement over the past three decades—is lower than in major industrialised countries. While the relatively lower price of energy in Australia may explain some of the difference, Australia has a lower rate of energy efficiency improvement than countries with similar energy prices, such as Canada and the United States.

Of course, some technically feasible energy efficiency improvements are not yet economically viable, but there is evidence that many businesses do not take up energy efficiency opportunities that are cost-effective. This is known as the energy efficiency gap. The decision to introduce a mandatory assessment measure is aimed at addressing this gap and responds to the fact that previous government programs have shown that a significant number of privately cost-effective energy efficiency improvements have been overlooked by the participating firms.

Based on data from the ABS, around 250 companies are likely to be covered by this measure in a range of sectors, including mining, petroleum and general services. While business use accounts for over 80 per cent of Australia’s primary energy consumption, a relatively small number of businesses are responsible for the majority of this energy use. ABS data suggests that the 250 largest business energy users account for around 60 per cent of all energy used by business. While satisfied with the bill’s initial proposed business coverage, Labor urges this government to consider extending the program, in the longer term, to cover a larger proportion of emitters.

With rapidly rising energy costs, increasing concern about the implications of climate change and the extraordinary expansion of economic activity in China and India, it has never been more important for us to conserve our energy resources. The best way we can do this is by getting the most out of our of existing resources, and that means using better technology and developing cleaner energy sources. Total energy consumption for Australia is about 3,000 petajoules per annum which costs about $A40 billion. Industrial energy consumption is about 40 per cent, representing an energy bill of about $A16 billion a year. While some Australian businesses have embraced efficient energy use and are reaping the benefits, much more can be achieved.

In relation to business energy use, experience in Australia and overseas suggests that energy bill savings in the order of 10 to 15 per cent can be achieved over five years. Savings of up to $2 billion annually could be achieved, with obvious benefits for business and our national economy. There are economic and environmental imperatives driving the push for more efficient energy use by business. Labor support that push, but we do lament the failure of the government to address greater efficiency in relation to other sectors of the economy.

I conclude by moving the second reading amendment standing in my name and commending it to the Senate:

At the end of the motion, add:

“but the Senate:

             (a)    calls on the Government to introduce energy efficiency to all sectors of the community, including transport and housing, as well as business;

             (b)    condemns the Government for failing to support the alternative fuel and renewable energy industries; and

             (c)    condemns the Government for not adopting the bipartisan recommendations put forward by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage in its report on Sustainable Cities”.

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

I rise today to support the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill 2005 but, as Senator O’Brien has just indicated, the bill does not go nearly far enough.

It is quite clear that around the world, for the last 20 years, the growth in energy demand has been escalating way beyond the rate of capacity to produce energy to meet that demand. So the debate seems to have always centred on, ‘How do we provide more energy? How do we build more power stations?’ Hence, we have had the debate about extending the life of Hazelwood, we have been talking about the nuclear debate and so on. The very poor cousin in all this debate has been demand-side management. I can remember in Tasmania, less than a decade ago, Hydro Tasmania was advertising extensively on television encouraging people to use more power.

It is very hard to imagine any energy utility doing that these days, because they are struggling to be able to produce the power that people need, and the more they produce the more people want to use energy. You only have to look at the number of appliances, particularly in the residential context, to see just how many more appliances people are using. The tragedy is that most people do not realise that energy efficiency is the cheapest and the quickest way of reducing energy use and therefore it also cuts down on greenhouse gas emissions—an imperative that is absolutely urgent for the world to respond to.

With regard to the average consumer’s understanding, most people do not know that when they use their electrical appliance in the course of the day it makes a difference to how much they are charged. If people understood that, they would consider putting on their washing machine at 10 o’clock or 11 o’clock at night and not during peak hour, for example. That is why the announcement in today’s media about the introduction of smart meters to cut power use is a good initiative. I support that and am delighted to see it. It was part of the Greens’ policy platform for the 2004 federal election that smart meters be rolled out across the country so that consumers can have a look and see how much power they are using at what cost and adjust their activities accordingly. Just the simple introduction of those meters will be hugely educational for people right across Australia. They will be able to see how much power they are using and how they can reduce their power bills, take away the stress on the existing energy grid and structure and, at the same time, delay the need for the introduction of new energy facilities.

The problem we currently have is that, with all the talk of the greenhouse gas abatement schemes, we still have state governments saying that they want to commit to a national emissions trading scheme and that they want the federal government to go further—and I applaud them for doing that—but at the same time approving brand new coal-fired power stations when we should absolutely not be approving any new coal-fired power stations in this country. In fact, we should be implementing energy efficiency to a degree that means that we can avoid and delay building new infrastructure until we can get to the new generation technology post coal-fired power stations. This is a critical debate for Australia—that is, that we get involved in a massive national effort on energy efficiency.

On the consumer side of things, again, I do not think that most people realise the extent of the active stand-by consumption of power. I do not think that most people realise, when they buy almost all appliances—whether it is heating, airconditioning, TVs, DVD players et cetera—that they are going on active stand-by consumption of power. People are absorbing all that power when they have their television turned off, and I do not think that they are aware of just how inefficient many of those appliances are in terms of energy use. If the government were serious, it would have a proactive strategy to reduce stand-by power consumption in the next few years. In fact, I think we need to establish a one-watt minimum stand-by standard and prohibit the production and import of products that exceed that limit because, unless we have such a standard, we are going to continue to have appliances being sold in Australia that have a high active stand-by consumption of power. I understand that some appliances can use up to 30 watts while they are on stand-by. This is just a ridiculous waste of power. If people knew how much power they were using when their appliances are effectively turned off with the remote, I think we would have a change in behaviour patterns. I am looking forward to the roll-out of smart meters, and I certainly hope that the Commonwealth is going to match the states or make them available so that they can be taken up across Australia. I think that the increased energy literacy that will result from it will be important.

To return to this particular bill, the problem I see with it is that, once again, it asks business to look at energy efficiency but then does not go any further. All that this bill requires is for big business—and we are talking about the huge energy users here; we are not talking about medium- or small-scale businesses—to conduct an audit of energy efficiency measures that might be taken and then publish the report. One of the first lost opportunities of this bill is that it simply goes for those industries that are using 0.5 petajoules, whereas, in my view, there should be a sliding scale over the next few years to bring that down to industries that use, say, 0.2 petajoules so that we incorporate more and more businesses across Australia into the scheme. As I said, all this bill does is ask business to conduct an audit of energy efficiency measures that might be taken and then publish the report. Then it stops. There is no requirement for those businesses to implement the findings of the report. In other words, we have yet another example of the government pandering to big business and saying, ‘Do your energy efficiency audit, publish it and then consider whether you might do something about it,’ whereas the best way to encourage innovation and competition and not hold back progressive businesses is to require that those audits be implemented, provided there is a reasonable payback period. If an industry gets a report to say it can make X amount of savings over four years, it is a no-brainer for it not to implement that. Because of short-termism and externality issues, companies will choose to go and spend money on other things and not necessarily implement the energy efficiency recommendations and reports. In my view, we need to ensure that this legislation not only requires a report but also requires that the findings of the energy efficiency audit be implemented over a period of time where there is a reasonable payback period to that business.

I also think there needs to be a national energy efficiency target. I know that the Productivity Commission has come out and rejected the target. Frankly, I think that is because it is taking the old economic view that anything beyond the production of energy, if you like, is free as an externality. For example, with regard to the use of fossil fuels, it does not take into account the greenhouse gas emission costs to society of producing all that power. It has a view that there is not an economic case to save energy. It should go and talk to all the state governments who are now challenged with having to either put in new supply or somehow achieve energy efficiency. I think the Productivity Commission needs to look at sustainable development, not just development at any cost. Ecologically sustainable development requires that the externalities of the production of energy, as in greenhouse gas emissions for a start, need to be internalised into the cost. I wonder if the Productivity Commission would draw the same conclusions—that it is not economical to save energy—if we had a price on carbon in this country, which is the next thing we should be doing in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

What I am suggesting is that we need a national energy efficiency target and then a strategy to achieve that target which not only goes across big business, as this bill does, but takes into account transport and residential sectors as well. We need to have a national plan. Interestingly, when the first task force for the National Framework for Energy Efficiency looked at this, they explored the idea of a target but they dropped it, and I would not mind betting that they dropped it because they were under some pressure in terms of government policy. But, if you look at what the Europeans are doing, you will find that in fact national efficiency targets are incorporated in greenhouse gas mitigation plans in most countries. The European Commission, for example, asked member states to save nine per cent of the energy supplied to end users in the nine years following the directive’s entry into force, and some of the states in Europe set themselves even higher targets. They are saying that the European target could save Europe 20 per cent in energy consumption by 2020 and slash its energy bill by €60 billion every year.

There are some pretty amazing figures also being talked about in Australia in terms of what could be achieved if we went for a serious energy efficiency policy with a national energy efficiency target. We know that Australia has a very poor record on energy efficiency. For example, energy efficiency improvements in Australia have occurred much more slowly than in other countries—just a three per cent improvement between 1973-74 and 2000-01. In other words, Australia’s energy efficiency has improved at less than half the rate of other countries. That is appalling when you consider what we could achieve: the National Framework for Energy Efficiency issues paper in 2003 said that an investment of $12.4 billion over four years would yield energy savings valued at $26.9 billion, create 9,000 jobs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nine per cent.

So why won’t the government engage energy efficiency and demand-side management just as readily as they seem to be embracing the coal industry’s pleas for ongoing support for the fossil fuel industry? It is an absolute no-brainer for Australia in a world which is saying, ‘We want to reduce greenhouse gases, we want to get away from fossil fuels, we want to move to a low-carbon economy.’ For Australia to be redirecting its major scientific effort at CSIRO away from renewable energy, away from next-generation energy, to one that is almost entirely focused on the coal industry is like saying, in a world that wants to give up smoking, that Australia is going to focus its competitive advantage on healthier cigarettes. It is complete nonsense.

What I am saying is that, whilst I support the government’s initiative in putting forward an Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill that brings in large energy users and requires them to do an audit, it lacks any accountability because it goes along with the government’s priorities—that is, it is all voluntary. It says to business, ‘We’d like you to do this, but we don’t expect you to have any accountability.’ When you ask the government, ‘Where is the accountability?’ the government’s response is, ‘Oh well, these reports will be made publicly available and there will be public pressure for these companies to act in the right way.’ Well, there has been public pressure on Australia businesses to act on greenhouse gas emissions and energy guzzling for the last 20 years and they have taken no notice whatsoever. Look at that appalling performance by Australia—half the rate of equivalent countries. We now have a situation where, over the last few years, even countries like the Philippines, Peru, Colombia and Brazil have all moved on energy efficiency laws which have some level of compulsory requirement, but Australia is still behind the eight ball.

Let us see this bill, which I am happy to support, as the beginning. But I would like to hear from the minister an explanation of why the government is so against requiring companies to implement the findings of these energy efficiency audits within a time frame that has a reasonable payback period for business. That is why I will be moving a number of amendments when we get to the committee stage. The first amendment would incorporate a national energy efficiency target and recommends setting up a task force to work out how that target would be implemented. Secondly, the target would work on a sliding scale to make sure that it captured not only big business but also businesses that produced 0.2 petajoules. My amendments also require the setting-up of an energy savings fund. The purposes of that fund are:

(a)

to encourage energy savings; …

(b)

to address peak demand for energy; …

(c)

to stimulate investment in innovative energy savings measures; …

(d)

to increase public awareness and acceptance of the importance of energy savings measures; …

(e)

to encourage cost effective energy savings measures that reduce greenhouse gas emissions arising from the use of energy; and

(f)

to provide funding for contributions made by the Commonwealth for the purposes of national energy regulation.

So this fund is not about providing money for the development of renewable energy, although that is important and needs to be part of other government programs. This energy savings fund would provide the finance to allow the government to move forward on some of these energy efficiency measures—because what I think we will see with this bill is a degree of window-dressing and yet more corporate reports at the end of each financial year saying: ‘Aren’t we good? We’ve just done our energy efficiency audit. We’ve identified these possible cost savings, but in the scheme of things we are going to move on this expansion’—or that expansion, or whatever else—‘and not necessarily implement those.’

The government cannot say how it is measuring these energy efficiencies. What is the target? What does the government expect to achieve through this bill from big business—what level of savings over what period of time? That is where I think this bill totally fails, and that is why I will be putting before the Committee of the Whole a series of amendments which would put in place a national energy efficiency target, a mechanism for implementing that target, an energy savings fund and a requirement for business to implement the findings of any of their reports on energy efficiency.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to speak to the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill 2005. This is a bill which introduces a program under which Australia’s largest industrial energy users will be required to assess their capacity to make improvements in energy efficiency. They will also be required to report publicly on the assessments that have been made. As the Senate has already heard, the opposition broadly supports the bill—as far as it goes. Labor have moved a second reading amendment to highlight our concerns about the inadequate response of the government in regard to these important policy questions.

Let me enlarge on our concerns and the reasons we have moved this second reading amendment. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee produced a bipartisan report on this piece of legislation. Both opposition and government senators have broadly supported the intentions that underlie this particular bill, which of course will oblige Australia’s largest energy users in industry to focus their minds on energy conservation. Senator O’Brien has already quoted the figures that business and industry use over 80 per cent of the energy consumed in Australia and that 250 of our largest industry users account for 60 per cent of the total business use, which is of course almost half of all primary energy use in the country. Anything that will require large energy users to look at ways to reduce consumption and improve efficiency is a laudable policy goal.

If companies act on the findings of their energy audits, this program will lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and in turn to a reduction in Australia’s contribution to global warming. The program, if successful, will contribute significantly to a change in the mind-sets of key industry decision makers. It will lift energy conservation up the priority list in regard to business investment and business planning. Where the program leads to efforts to reduce energy consumption, it will also benefit companies’ bottom line, adding to efficiency and, in my judgment, to profitability. These are of course outcomes which, in policy terms, are desirable.

What the Senate legislation committee also found, however, was that the bill had some very serious shortcomings. The overriding concern of Labor is simply the fact that this bill does not go anywhere near far enough. For a start, it does not require industry to do anything to actually cut its energy use. All that affected companies will have to do to comply with the new regime is to make periodic assessments of their potential to make reductions and improve efficiencies. They do not actually have to act on the information that they gather as a result of these assessments. Of course, we hope that sensible organisations would so act and obviously take benefit from the decisions that would flow. We hope that that is in fact what they would do. But they do not have to as a result of this legislation. This is in stark contrast to the regime in place in Victoria, for instance, where clear requirements for reduction in consumption are actually specified.

To put it simply, this bill lacks teeth. It does not go far enough in terms of its scope. The bill will do nothing to address the urgent need to cut energy consumption and, with it, greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in the domestic sector. It does not address energy use in Australian homes. Nor does this bill deal with the carbon emissions caused by private cars—the greenhouse gases we belch out into the atmosphere as we drive to work, to school and to shopping centres.

The figures here are again very clear. More than half—almost 53 per cent—of carbon dioxide emissions in Australia are caused by the generation of electricity. These big power stations produce a lot of smoke. Almost 30 per cent of electricity generated by the power stations is actually for domestic use. Transport is another big emitter of carbon dioxide: some 24 per cent of the total. According to an ABS survey back in 2004, over 65 per cent of total kilometres travelled by Australian motor vehicles were by private motor vehicles—mostly by cars. How we use energy in our homes and how we use it in terms of transport, particularly in our cars, has a huge impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

As shadow minister for housing and urban development, these issues are obviously matters of deep concern to me and fall within my bailiwick. The discussion paper that the Labor Party issued last December, ‘Australia’s future cities’, was part of a process the Labor Party embarked on for a public debate about a range of policy options that are open to us as a nation in regard to urban development and housing. The aim of the paper was to stimulate debate and to invite contributions and comments from stakeholders in regard to cities policy.

Since most of us—around 80 per cent of us—live in our 40 largest cities, the stakeholders in this debate are in fact all Australians who participate in those cities. The stakeholders here are Australians as workers, as students, as retirees and as people engaged in recreational and cultural pursuits. They are all of us in our daily lives. For those who live in rural areas, there is plenty at stake as well. People from the bush visit the city or town. They benefit directly from the goods that cities produce. They also directly benefit from good cities policy by a national government. Poor policies on energy conservation in the city, for example, lead to climate change that may well affect country areas and country people even more starkly than those in towns. The cost of inefficient energy use is borne by everybody. In one way or another, we all contribute to the overall level of energy consumption in Australia.

All Australians have a big stake in getting these policies right. And the 80 per cent of us who live in urban areas can and should contribute to getting it right. Given the statistics I have quoted about domestic energy use, it matters how efficiently our homes use electricity, gas and water. Our everyday decisions about transport are equally important. What we have as alternatives to private cars—public transport, bike paths and safe and pleasant walking environments—are matters that contribute as well. They are therefore fundamental issues in regard to urban development.

Labor’s discussion paper looks at all of these things. It is about how we live in cities and ensure that they are pleasant, liveable places while also meeting our economic, environmental and social objectives. It is about urban development and renewal as potent symbols of commitment to social justice and to improving the nation’s economic and environmental health. Therefore, this is a policy that touches daily lives.

Because Labor are well aware of these facts and we have also been very aware that everyone has a keen interest in policies such as this, we do not set out to try to tell people where they should live or in what houses they should live; nor are we about lecturing people about cars versus public transport. We are about finding policy options that will encourage Australians to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. This means looking at policies that will improve housing affordability while at the same time giving priority to energy efficient design. It also means paying attention to the broader issues of urban development and renewal. We are talking about policies that will enable people to make the choice about walking, riding or catching a bus or train rather than driving their motor car. That means increasing flexibility of Commonwealth transport funding, including AusLink. The bottom line here is that Labor believe that the Commonwealth has a role in urban development. Under the Howard government we have seen nothing but 10 years of neglect in housing and urban policies.

Let me talk about this housing question particularly. Under the Howard government, housing costs have spiralled out of control. That is fine if you already own a house but it is bad news for young people and for families trying to enter the housing market. It is also bad news for those whose incomes do not allow them to aspire to owning their own homes at all and for people who rely upon the private rental market. A Labor government would want to ensure that the increased costs of housing are contained by seeking to enforce appropriate energy conservation measures in the building of houses and the use of energy by householders.

I recall that just last December the Australian Building Codes Board made a decision to enhance the existing provisions of the Building Code of Australia to include a nominal five-star energy performance level of housing, a decision which has led to some controversy. Some say that the requirement to meet the five-star standard will increase the cost of new houses by many thousands of dollars. Others say that the costs are, in fact, minimal. I support the decision for the inclusion of the five-star standard in the BCA as a sensible means of promoting national consistency in building regulations while recognising that it is not mandatory for states to adopt the performance level. Queensland has already indicated it will not do so. It is appropriate to understand that we require different housing conditions for different parts of Australia. It is no good trying to build a particular housing estate to meet the conditions of Melbourne or Hobart when we are talking about the tropics. Quite clearly, different standards are required. I believe that the buildings codes allow for that.  However, it is the situation that some states are now seeking to withdraw from that nationally consistent approach.

The Howard government’s response to the ABCB’s decision, by contrast, could only fairly be described as absolutely hysterical. Despite the fact that the Commonwealth government had representation at the meeting and, I understand, voted for the decisions to establish the five-star rating system, Ministers Macdonald, Campbell and Macfarlane issued a joint press statement predicting disaster for the timber industry and even the demise of the Queenslander house. Their hysteria flies sharply in the face of the facts. The standard, in fact, allows for a wide range of construction types. It is also already in place in four states and territories, including in my own state of Victoria, where it is seen as promoting sensible energy conservation. In so doing, the five-star performance levels add to the sustainability and liveability of our cities and towns.

At the same time, households benefit from savings on gas and electricity bills because passive heating and cooling reduce their energy costs. The fact is that electricity generation is responsible for more than half of all carbon emissions in Australia. As I have indicated, that fact alone ought to be something that the government is looking at. Our home airconditioning is a significant factor in domestic electricity use. If domestic electricity consumption falls, everyone stands to benefit. So the question of housing design and urban development becomes critical in these debates.

I turn now to transport, where we can see a similar argument applies. While road transport represents a lower level in terms of the total amount of energy consumed—I understand some 28 per cent of energy use—the majority of kilometres travelled on our roads each year—65 per cent, as I said—is accounted for by trips in private cars. Any sensible policy approach to urban planning and development must tackle this question by encouraging people to use alternative transport modes—not by forcing people out of their cars but by offering them real choices in their modes of transportation. A national government must take a lead on these questions. While several states and territories have made quite laudable gains in all of these areas in recent years, often assisted by local government initiatives, much needs to be done.

As highlighted by the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage titled Sustainable Cities, many new outer suburbs in our largest cities are almost entirely without public transport. The cost of public transport infrastructure is substantial. The bipartisan approach taken in that House of Representatives committee report concluded that a national government should be helping to meet the cost of that infrastructure. The committee recommended that the Commonwealth boost its funding for public transport, particularly light and heavy rail, in Australia’s major cities. It also recommended that the Commonwealth provide funding specifically for public transport infrastructure for new developments on the fringes of our cities.

Unlike the Howard government, Labor remains committed to this type of nation building activity—to building a better future for communities. This means not only public transport but also bike paths, safe and pleasant streets to walk along, and concerted efforts to renew and improve intermodal connections. It also means giving councils greater scope to use Commonwealth transport funding in ways that best suit their communities, rather than restricting the use of this funding to building and maintaining roads.

The Howard government has, in the 10 years of its regime in this country, had a consistent policy of neglect when it comes to the question of housing policy. It has no minister; it has no commitment to national urban development; it has failed to develop any kind of coordinated approach—which is so urgently needed—to the rejuvenation of our cities; and it has not sought to protect the environment but has in fact promoted a series of other policy goals which seem, to me, to actually undermine the policy objectives of environmental sustainability.

My argument is this: we need policies that will lead to cities and towns that are socially just, inclusive and liveable and that encourage and support participation in social, economic, educational and cultural activity. We also need policies that provide for economically efficient cities, which would benefit both businesses and citizens in a globally competitive national economy. Further, we need to ensure that there are policies which are designed to encourage diversity in terms of urban planning and architecture which would cater for the varying and changing needs of all citizens. We also need to be environmentally sustainable in the approach that we take on these questions.

As I said at the outset, this bill does not go anywhere near addressing those questions, and our second reading amendment highlights that fact. This bill concentrates on industrial energy use when a significant proportion of energy use and carbon gas emissions originate in the home and from the use of private transport. I acknowledge that industry and businesses are significant energy users and are, of course, very important with regard to carbon gas emissions. This bill is aimed very largely at those very big consumers of energy and, to that extent, it is a step in the right direction. But what we need is a more fundamental reorientation in the culture and the political priorities of this country and of those companies. If that were to occur, it would be highly desirable.

This is a small, totally inadequate step by a very tired and out-of-touch government. The aims of this bill should be supported, but the bill lacks teeth. This government has not done nearly enough to ensure the sustainability of these policy objectives. When it comes to big business, this government lacks the courage to stand up and insist that big business should come to the party, come to the table, and ensure that the whole community benefits from energy efficiency.

What we have here is like the government’s approach to bank charges. ATM fees are going through the roof, and yet the Treasurer, Mr Costello, refuses to move to regulate the banks in those sorts of areas. We have a Minister for Health and Ageing who, in the face of a crisis in childhood obesity, says no to regulation of children’s television advertisements for junk foods. He is not doing anything to encourage kids to improve their health, because he does not want to take on the vested interests—which would be required to do that.

The government will not ask the big companies the hard questions or move to ensure that they do more than assess their energy use. It will not make sure that they actually do make the changes that are required for them to improve this country. I understand that companies that are good corporate citizens will act, but I say that the government ought to provide much more regulation and incentive to ensure that that occurs.

The Labor Party want to do all in our power to ensure that our kids live in a world where they will be able to enjoy healthy, happy and prosperous lives. Labor are proud of our nation-building tradition; Australia desperately needs that nation building now. This bill is yet another example of how the Howard government has failed to look to the future. (Time expired)

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill 2005 and to put on the record the Democrats’ great disappointment in this bill. We will support it, but we are distressed at the government’s complete lack of action in addressing global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. We welcome the program introduced in this bill, but we are dismayed that business will not be required to implement any measure that is identified in their assessment reports.

This is a lost opportunity, but it is more than that. It is also, I would argue, negligent on the part of the government with regard to climate change. Climate change is the most urgent problem faced by this country—or, in fact, the world. It is bigger than terrorism, it is bigger than Iran’s nuclear weapons program and it is bigger than solving world poverty. There is no more serious problem facing the world at the present time, and I do not think that is being sensationalist; I think that is the reality.

Climate change has been accepted as a reality by the world’s leading politicians and scientists. Just last week, a book entitled Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change was released. It argues that the consensus view among amongst scientists is that large-scale and irreversible disruption to the planet’s climate system will occur if temperatures rise by more than three degrees Celsius above the current level. By all accounts, we are heading well and truly in that direction. In the book’s foreword, the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, adds his voice to the warning. He states:

It is clear from the work presented that the risks of climate change may well be greater than we thought.

…            …            …

It is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialisation and economic growth from a world population that has increased six-fold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable.

Given the hour of the day, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.