Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

That bill required sellers commercial office space of over 2,000 square metres to obtain a Building Energy Efficiency Certificate before putting it on the market to lease or sell. This was important because the certificate rates the energy efficiency of the building and gives the potential buyer more information before purchase. That was a huge part of the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act. It gave the buyer more power to make sound judgement. It was also about elevating the importance of energy efficiency in modern buildings. The bill allowed the potential buyer or renter to have a better understanding of the operating costs and environmental impact of the space if they decided to rent or purchase the office space.

It has been three years since Commercial Building Disclosure program began to administer the legislation passed under the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act. This program is important because there are a number of incentives for both building owners and tenants. For building owners, their energy-efficient office space is more marketable, increases future capital, lessens the need for upgrades later on and lowers operating costs. For tenants renting energy efficient office spaces, their operating costs are drastically reduced.

In fact, for every one-star increase in the NABERS energy rating, a tenant can expect to save 15 per cent in energy costs. That is a significant saving that can be used to expand or reinvest in the company. While all of these aspects of the CBD program are of great benefit to Australians, there are always ways in which it can be improved. The program needs to be streamlined in order to reduce costs, cut out unnecessary bureaucracy and make processes faster. The truth about government bureaucracy and regulation is that it is a self-enervating thing.

The coalition of which I am a part promised at the last election to deliver $1 billion worth of savings through red tape reduction. With only 13 months of the term gone, I am proud to report that the government has not only met but doubled that target with $2.1 billion in savings achieved to date through red tape reduction. This continues to grow every day. This is because there has been a paradigm shift. The modus operandi of every agency and individual in government now clearly understands that 'one in, one out' clearly means 'one in, one out'. These savings have been from common sense measures that should have been enacted years ago. Liberals know, quoting Ronald Reagan, that the most terrifying words in the English language are 'I am from the government, and I am here to help.'

Deloitte estimates that one million Australians are employed in compliance. If Labor is all about bringing government into business, then the coalition is about bringing business into government. Tenets of modern business, such as e-tendering, are finally being facilitated. Not only will this single measure save millions in direct costs, but the associated indirect efficiencies are innumerable and incalculable—not least of which include better, quicker decision outcomes. Time is money.

This government knows this first principle of business, because our people have been in business and continue to talk to business. There is a genuine desire on the part of the government to have a dialogue with business, especially small business. Small business is the engine of growth of our economy. The core of liberal philosophy is fewer forms and more reforms. In Tangney, my constituents have one clear message: please make things simpler. We need to reduce the footprint of government to enable the community to get on with creating jobs and building a stronger society for all.

Our government is aware that we operate in a global marketplace. There are global opportunities, but also concomitant global challenges. As much as individuals have rights and responsibilities, so too do governments. By harmonising our reporting standards and our import standards for certain goods and services against international benchmarks, we recognise the reality of the global marketplace. It is the responsibility of government not to unduly disadvantage any business operating within the Commonwealth. The fundamental recipe for economic success that so underpins the basic functioning of our social contract is not rocket science.

Regulation, while necessary in certain and restrained circumstances, should be the last resort and never the quick fix solution. The focus of this bill needs to be about what is the best way to achieve a certain specific outcome—namely, more energy efficient buildings. When it comes to regulation, I fall back to my default liberal belief system. That system says to me that the most effective, most efficient and most innovative way to achieve a desired outcome or change is not to punish but to incentivise.

Let us be all about carrots and less about sticks. The market is remarkably adaptable. It will innovate new ways of doing business and evolve, if government does not block its progress. The key is that the market will naturally evolve or grow in a certain more efficient direction. That is a logical, rational assumption. However, if one wants to achieve greater efficiency in building standards and household construction, one must look to incentives. Incentives are the only long-term, low-cost sustainable solution. We, as a society, need to reward our risk-takers and reward creativity. We can do this through an adequately tweaked incentives system—not by way of the rod, as Labor is wont to do. Labor has always been sceptical of capitalists' 'creative destruction', to quote the noted business cycle analyst Joseph Schumpeter. Efficiency was never, and is still not, a watchword of Labor. Red tape is Labor's love and is kryptonite to efficiency and innovation. On the issue of efficiency, let me briefly speak to an egregious omission in the drive for greater efficiency in spend and service delivery—that is, let me go nuclear for just a little bit.

The politics of fear all too often override good policy and the desire of the majority of the community. The nuclear debate is a classic example of this. I led the debate with a speech to parliament in March 2005, advocating at the very least for critical examination of the merits of nuclear generated power. In fact, McNair Ingenuity's research between 1979 and 2009 shows support for nuclear power increasing from 34 per cent to 49 per cent in favour of the construction of nuclear power stations, with around 10 per cent undecided. More people are in favour of nuclear power than opposed to it, yet Greens' support for nuclear power still sits at around 22 per cent. We continue to get fearmongering from Labor and the Greens, despite critical power generation infrastructure issues. Nuclear power is the least carbon intensive of methods of generating power. The fact is that a nuclear decision can be made regardless of the policy framework on carbon dioxide. The reality today is similar to the USA, South Africa and other markets with abundant cheap coal—that is, nuclear is competitive with any other method of generating power. The only thing counting against it is a nonsensical ban on generating power using nuclear energy.

Labor and the Greens cannot continue to say that anthropogenic global warming is the most important issue to confront our society, but then say that the one method capable of making a massive dent in carbon dioxide emissions should have a legislative ban associated with it. They also cannot continue to argue for this ban as it is 'economically too expensive'. If they really believe this, they would allow the repeal of section 10 of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998, knowing that power generators would not build a nuclear power plant if it were economically uncompetitive. But there is further hypocrisy. Labor believes in selling uranium overseas—but not in using it here. That is hypocritical and unethical. If it is too dangerous to use here, we should not be selling it overseas.

It is time to move past the politics of fear, in the national interest. It is time for politicians of conviction, with the foresight to look at the national interest and the future of our nation, to push for a repeal of this legislation. Let us ensure we do what is best for the nation and not hamstring one of our most important industries for the simple expedient of gaining votes using the politics of fear.

Repealing section 10 would be a worthwhile step forward. It would remove the prohibition on a Commonwealth body operating a power reactor, and allow nuclear energy to be one of the options explored for most efficiently conserving and producing cleaner energy for Australia in the longer term.

It is hard to imagine that any such reactor would be built without much of the building standards and operating safeguards being set out in legislation. To simply keep a ban in place based on old fears is bad policy.

In sum, I support greater efficiency, less red tape and more results based policy. I support more hope, reward, and opportunity. I support this bill, and commend it to the House.

See this speech in context