HANSARD EXTRACT
|
Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill 2005: Second Reading |
| 2 November 2005 |
Mr HAYES
(Werriwa) (11.15 a.m.)—I
rise in support of the second reading amendment to the
Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill 2005,
moved by the shadow minister for primary industries, resources and
tourism. While I will not be voting against the passage of this
bill, I believe it should go further. There is no doubt that we can
all do more when it comes to energy efficiency. We are no longer
dealing with a situation where there is any considerable doubt about
the impact modern life has on our natural environment. We are no
longer dealing with a situation where only businesses can do
something to reduce their impact on the environment. It is about
time that we all contributed to the need for greater energy
efficiency throughout all sectors of the economy.
Recently I had the opportunity to attend the
Macarthur Centre for Sustainable Living. They held an open day at
Mount
Annan. I was, fortunately, invited to attend. This open day
presented an excellent opportunity for the community to gain a
greater insight into what sustainable living is all about. It gave
people the opportunity to see that by simply changing a few things
in their own lives and lifestyles everyone can contribute to the
general health of their environment. The centre has the stated aim
of promoting ‘sustainability, social equity, cultural diversity and
economic stability’. It does this by providing a number of
interactive displays with working models to demonstrate just how
everything could work and should work in a proactive society. I
point this out simply to say that this is not pie in the sky. These
are real working models, and the volunteers who operate the centre
harbour an ongoing commitment to demonstrating just how simple it
can be to modify our behaviour to help the environment and to reduce
the impacts of our daily lives on our surrounds. I would
particularly like to congratulate
Del Cotter,
a good friend of mine, and the other volunteers at the centre on
their hard work and dedication to this cause.
They are not the only ones seeking to reduce
the impact of modern society on the environment. The south-west of
Sydney is subject to considerable housing growth at present. That
does not seem likely to stop in the foreseeable future. It is not a
bad thing. It certainly creates jobs in my electorate and brings
people to what we consider to be a great part of the world. While
many people have criticised developers in the region for their
approach to construction and what might be commonly referred to as
the ‘McMansions’, there are a number of responsible people out there
putting in a real effort and a commitment to producing energy
efficiency and environmental sensitivity in their developments.
These developers have been able to design and build houses in areas
to provide the best aspects of modern living whilst seeking to avoid
and minimise the worst of it—that being the environmental excesses.
It is an important point, and it is certainly a significant trend
which is now occurring in our society.
A great number of people are disgusted with the
government’s lack of action on environmental management,
particularly in its refusal to ratify
Kyoto.
Consequently, it has fallen upon people to demand more action when
it comes to sustainable living and sustainable development. The
south-west of Sydney is fast becoming an example of how it can be
done. It is fast becoming an example of how modern city living and
sustainable living are not mutually exclusive concepts. Whether it
be through the reticulation of grey water, the processing of waste
water or energy efficient appliances, people are focusing on their
environment and, as a result, energy efficiency.
Even one of the biggest road constructions ever
undertaken has accommodated a growing desire for people to have
alternative forms of transport to the family car. I am referring to
the construction of the Westlink M7 Motorway. Throughout the entire
length of the M7 Motorway there has now been constructed a cycle
clearway. The designers have been able to find an innovative way for
cyclists and motorists to share this significant transport link.
This in itself is an interesting reflection of the views about
sustainable living that influence the daily lives of residents of
the south-west of
Sydney.
While the Macarthur Centre for Sustainable
Living, the approach of developers in the construction of more
efficient residential dwellings and the fact that cyclists and
motorists are able to coexist on a road such as the M7 might not be
directly related to the bill, they nevertheless demonstrate that
there is a strong community desire to reduce the impact of modern
living on the natural environment. Disappointingly, though, the fact
that the community demands it has not necessarily translated into
the government insisting upon it. The community is leading the way
when it comes to sustainability and yet the government is being, in
my opinion, dragged along.
The bill we have before us today is no better
example of this. The purpose of the bill is to establish mandatory
energy efficiency opportunities assessments announced in the white
paper entitled Securing
Australia’s
energy future,
which was released in June 2004. It seeks to establish a program
that will require large energy-using businesses to assess the
potential to improve their energy efficiency and report publicly on
the outcomes. That is a good start but, let us face it, it is not
the most radical or far-reaching suite of activities to address the
need for greater efficiency. Quite frankly, apart from the public
reporting aspects of the requirements of large energy users, most
people would expect large energy users to seek to reduce their
consumption, in their capacity as responsible corporate citizens.
Shareholders would expect managers of these large companies to
examine energy consumption with a view to reducing costs. Many large
organisations are now reporting annually on their triple bottom
line. Some reporting issues may already be well and truly covered.
Australian companies have been slow in the take-up of the cause of
energy efficiency in comparison to those of other countries. There
is a need for a greater effort on the part of businesses to up the
ante when it comes to improving energy efficiency.
Business use of energy accounts for about 80
per cent of
Australia’s
primary energy consumption, and a relatively small number of
businesses are responsible for the majority of energy use. It is
estimated that 250 of the largest energy users account for
approximately 60 per cent of all energy used by business. If
government is willing to demand that these businesses become more
efficient, what about those businesses, including those in other
sectors of the economy, that use the remaining 40 per cent? These
sectors are certainly not insignificant energy users; nor do they
consume energy at an insignificant rate.
Recently I had the opportunity to view an
interesting statistic, one which stuck in my mind given the amount
of new residential developments occurring in my area. It is
estimated that there is at least 70 per cent penetration of
airconditioners in the new residential home market. When I think
about the number of new homes that are being planned in my
electorate in the south-west of
Sydney alone over the coming years and about what that means in
terms of the number of airconditioners and other household
electrical items, I start to wonder what that means for the future
of energy and energy consumption in Australia.
While other levels of government, through their
planning requirements and approval processes, are making efforts to
compel developers to create more energy efficient and
environmentally sensitive dwellings, the federal government is
simply not going far enough with this bill. To say that this bill
stops short of what should be occurring as part of
Australia’s ongoing economic and social development would be an
understatement.
Australia is a nation of energy users, for all sorts of reasons. We
are more inclined to jump into the car to go to the shops than to
walk or catch public transport. The use of the car is becoming an
increasingly discussed topic for many people, particularly in the
south-west of Sydney. As I move through my electorate, I am
continually asked about the level of petrol prices and the impact it
is having on family budgets and, from the business perspective,
about the impact it is now having on business. I have raised these
issues in this place a number of times, and I will not use this time
to again examine the government’s shortcomings on the issue of
petrol prices. But the issue remains that the government and this
bill seem to ignore or to have forgotten the whole concept of the
issues associated with transport fuels. I can assure members
opposite that the public certainly has not forgotten the issue of
petrol prices.
While the bill requires large energy-using
businesses to register with the Department of Industry, Tourism and
Resources—they will have to submit a plan for assessment and there
will be a public report on the assessments—it does not place the
same compulsion on other sectors of the economy or the community. It
is an important piece of legislation that stops short of addressing
the broader agenda. It does not require action from the broader
group other than the largest of our energy-using businesses, and it
does not set a broader agenda to explore our options when it comes
to sustainable energy supplies. While the opposition has taken up
the challenge to examine broader energy issues, with some innovative
thought when it comes to
Australia’s ongoing energy needs, the government seems reluctant to
meet this challenge. Energy efficiency—or, more correctly, energy
inefficiency—affects all of us, and it deserves a proper public
debate and should be the subject of very considered public policy.
The current issues of high petrol prices and
high resource prices are partly the product of an increasingly
competitive global energy market. The emerging economies of
China
and India are energy hungry, and the point about the additional
demands that these economies place on the energy market needs to be
made and considered, particularly in relation to future energy use.
Supplies will not expand by themselves, and growth in the world’s
energy demands seems unlikely to cease, yet the government is hoping
that the issue will simply go away without causing it too much
trouble and without it being required to address the issue. On the
other hand, federal Labor is keen to promote new thinking when it
comes to energy. On transport fuels, the Leader of the Opposition
recently delivered a blueprint speech in which he set down an agenda
for developing Australia’s fuel industry. Labor set out the need for
Australia to diversify its fuel industry and become a more
self-sufficient nation.
Labor set out an agenda in which it set forth
some serious thinking on issues that government members would do
well to examine for themselves. If they examined that agenda, they
would at least see that it is an attempt at bold policy making. They
might then understand that policy development is about dealing with
more than just the immediate issues and they might realise that when
it comes to energy we all have a part to play.
The continuous and certain supply of energy is
necessary to sustain modern life and, while it is necessary to point
the finger at big business and demand more from them, it is also
time we all looked at our energy consumption and considered it in
light of future needs. Energy efficiency should not simply be about
shaming large users. Surely the government can come up with
something a little better in terms of policy development than
something that could be considered as a little tired and old. Why
isn’t the government encouraging the use of building materials that
use energy more efficiently? Why isn’t the government encouraging
the use of more energy efficient building designs throughout
Australia? Why isn’t the government acting to develop alternative
fuels, rather than simply trying to address a quick fix option?
While the extension of the use of ethanol in transport fuels is an
important first step, more needs to be done to develop longer term
solutions for the emerging shortage in transport fuels.
We have already seen what can happen when a
government fails to take issues of resources sustainability
seriously. While serious problems with water emerged clearly earlier
this year, the water issue has not gone away. That situation
provided a little insight into what might happen. Quite frankly,
this government has ignored the issue of water resources security
for years, and the drought brought home the serious nature of this
issue. Of course, the drought also brought the issue home to the
broader community, and people responded positively in the way they
tempered their consumption of our diminishing water resources. As
with recycling over a number of years, people realised the impacts
on them but it took effort from government at all levels to
encourage people within the community. The same applies with energy.
The community will step up. All sectors of the economy, not just big
business, will also step up if there is just a little leadership
from the government on this issue.
The time is right for leadership on energy
efficiency. We cannot delay it until there is an energy crisis. We
cannot delay petrol pricing until transport fuel hits $5 a litre,
for instance. Federal Labor is not seeking to amend the detail of
this legislation. It is not seeking to amend the legislation simply
for the sake of amendment. The amendments proposed by the opposition
are fair, reasonable and driven by the desire to see serious efforts
being made to address the issue of energy efficiency.
Australia has a culture of finding innovative solutions. We are
innovative and we are certainly inventive. If we have the task of
developing new sources of energy and developing new ways of
improving our energy efficiencies, we will develop them. Some solid
research into fuel cells to substitute and eventually replace
current transport fuels is already under way. It is even occurring
in our schools. There are people like Steve Zorbas, who has
developed a teaching program which is being administered to schools
in the south-west of Sydney. Under this program Mr Zorbas is
encouraging students to build hydrogen cells to run model cars. That
is a competitive project which is being embraced by a number of
schools in my area. I say that the bill before us is a good start,
but it does not go far enough. (Time expired)
Return
to Speeches Menu.
