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

I continue my remarks on the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill 2005 and point out that there has been a multitude of climate records broken in 2005 which starkly illustrate how global warming is already affecting many parts of the planet. Despite the fact that reducing wasteful energy is the cheapest and quickest way to address global warming and make Australia more competitive, unless companies are required to implement savings there is no incentive for them to change and the vast majority will continue to ignore efficiency in favour of quick bucks elsewhere.

The library’s Bills Digest notes that the Warren Centre study found that total energy consumption for Australia is 3,000 petajoules per annum and is estimated to cost $A40 billion annually. Industrial energy consumption is 40 per cent of that, giving an energy bill of $16 billion a year. Although many firms are achieving impressive economic returns by using energy more efficiently, numerous studies continue to point out that there is significant potential for doing better. In fact, experience in Australia and overseas has demonstrated that it is possible to save 10 to 15 per cent of this over a five-year program. Such savings would result in reduced costs of up to $2 billion a year, strengthening Australian industry and making it more competitive in world markets. But it requires investment in infrastructure to do so. Business needs to be actively encouraged to achieve these targets, or else there is no guarantee that Australia will achieve them.

The Democrats note that the Victorian government has conducted a program for greenhouse gas emission and energy efficiency in industry. Unlike the Energy Efficiency Opportunities program that we are discussing in this bill, the Victorian program requires certain operations that operate under the Victorian Environment Protection Agency statutory approvals to examine and implement measures to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse emissions. Victorian companies will achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions of approximately 1.15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually.

So it seems odd that the government would require business to undergo a cost based exercise to identify potential measures to improve energy efficiency and then not have some expectation that businesses should implement them. Presumably the government is assuming here that business is just ignorant and that it has not thought about energy efficiency or the prospect of saving energy and that if it did think about it it would see the light. I think that is rather insulting and also a little naive. It is also quite unlikely. Even the Energy Users Association, who in its submission opposed legislative non-commercial obligations on large users, recognises that implementation is critical and suggested that an incentive should be provided to implement opportunities identified by the Energy Efficiency Opportunities program.

As noted in our minority report to this bill, a viable approach the government could take is to require business and the Australian Greenhouse Office to reach an agreement on individual binding targets as a way of ensuring that measures are introduced. Individual binding agreements would provide the flexibility to take into account business circumstances. The Democrats are disappointed that this program does not do this, and also that it only extends to roughly 250 companies. While ABS data suggest that the 250 large energy users account for 80 per cent of energy used by business in Australia, this is no reason—in our view—why we should not be targeting all of business; clearly the imperative is there to do so.

Before I turn to the ALP’s second reading amendment, I would like to briefly express concerns on behalf of the Democrats at the failure of the minister to take into account a number of the recommendations made by the majority government report to the Senate inquiry into this bill. The bill provides for the enactment of unspecified regulations and, potentially, for unspecified and unlimited additions to the regulations in the future. In our minority report, the Democrats urged the government to either delay the passage of the bill until regulations were drafted and appropriate consultation and scrutiny had occurred or, as the majority report recommended, include this information in the statute itself. We are disappointed that neither of those recommendations has been taken up. Also put aside were concerns about the lack of safeguards with respect to the exercise of power under part 8. Again, concerns were ignored. The failure of the government to implement recommendations made by its own members is concerning although perhaps consistent with a government that has the numbers.

Turning to the ALP’s second reading amendment, I would like to put on the record our support for that amendment. As Labor points out, more needs to be done to introduce energy efficiency in all sectors of the community and to encourage greater use of and access to alternatives fuels and renewable energies. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has indicated that, to stabilise the earth’s climate, we need to cut emissions by between 50 per cent and 60 per cent from ‘business as usual’ by the end of the century. Australia’s chief scientist recommends that Australia cut its greenhouse emissions by 80 per cent by the end of the same period.

In May 2001, the Democrat-chaired inquiry report entitled The heat is on: Australia’s greenhouse future reported on the progress and adequacy of the Australian government’s policies to reduce global warming. The report was critical of the lack of action to date and made 106 recommendations in the areas of transport, emissions trading, carbon and the land, energy use and supply, climate change and Kyoto. Three years later, the government released its energy white paper, which set out the government’s strategy for Australia’s future energy development, or lack of it. As with white papers in general, it was a declaration of intent, or a blueprint, on how future energy goals will be met. However, it did not contain effective planning for the future needs of the Australian community in energy supply. It did not contain anything that will deal with greenhouse gas emission reductions, especially on the sort of scale required, or with alternative renewable energy development. Specifically, it argued that energy related emissions are increasing at an alarming rate, yet there are no express policies in the white paper that will address this issue and rein in emissions. The report made a small number of achievable recommendations none of which, again, have been implemented.

Four months later, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage tabled a bipartisan report on sustainable cities, outlining 32 recommendations covering such themes as transport, water, building design and management and energy research and development, but, again, the government has yet to adopt any of those measures. So, rather than heed the warnings, this government is embarking on a go-slow strategy with a ‘she’ll be right’ attitude, which is leaving many scientists and environmentalists perplexed. Let’s talk about what needs to be done and set about doing it.

The recent announcement by the CSIRO that it will have a greater focus on cleaner coal-friendly technologies at the expense of renewable energy research is alarming, as is the report I read this morning, Minister Campbell, about your delay in supporting a number of wind farms around the country—one is at Bald Hills in Victoria—under the EPBC. The government is not using the EPBC to protect the environment, except when it comes to renewable energy projects it seems. The so-called alternative to Kyoto is a farce. The six-country Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate is focused on developing cleaner methods of power using the world’s existing coal resources. The only aim, as we all know, is to prop up the coal industry to protect our export dollars. But, at the end of the day, the world are not going to want our coal; they are not going to be able to use it if there are sensible measures in place to get massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Minister Nelson recently announced that he wants to see the government investigate nuclear power generation in Australia, knowing that nuclear power production results in very substantial greenhouse emissions—much more than with renewable energy. I think it is a great shame that this government has failed to urgently act in the face of overwhelming evidence, upon the presentation of achievable solutions that are very well thought through, and upon very carefully considered and articulated suggestions that have been made in at least three reports that I have mentioned, which have been ignored. It is time, we say, for the government to act to protect Australian citizens from economic and environmental disaster that we are facing as a result of climate change. We call on the government to make the 2006 budget about the future of Australians and Australia, and to invest in energy efficiency schemes, renewable energy, water and so many more areas in which energy efficiency can be found.

Question put:

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