Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise on the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Bill 2014. I have just been for a quick walk outside and I noticed there is some fantastic soaking rain here in Canberra. I hope that many other parts of our country which are experiencing drought at the moment and doing it a bit tough are sharing some of the rain that we are getting here in Canberra.

This bill amends the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act 2010. That particular act requires energy efficiency information to be disclosed in most cases when a commercial office space of 2,000 square metres or more is offered for sale or lease. I support both the amendment and the original bill because they provide the informational remedies to help the market work more effectively and allow someone that is considering to lease or to purchase office space to compare not only the cost of the rental per square metre but also much it will actually cost to operate so they can make a good comparison—apples for apples.

One thing I would note is that, from many of the contributions from members of the opposition, it would seem that they think that this energy efficiency would not have come about unless it was for government coming in and interfering and making all these rules and regulations. A decade before the original act was passed in 2010, one of the jobs that I did before coming to this House was to design decorative lighting fixtures, and one of the things I had to consider was energy efficiency. I would work with interior designers and we would work out how we could make a particular light fixture more energy efficient, especially in commercial buildings and hotels. Where we had lighting in public areas and corridors—where those lights were on 24-hours a day, often seven days a week, 365 days of the year—it was a very simple equation to work out that, if we could change that particular fixture from an incandescent fixture to a compact fluorescent fixture, there would be substantial energy savings to the operator not only in electricity costs but also in changing the bulb, because compared to the relatively short span for an incandescent bulb the span for a compact fluorescent bulb is substantially longer.

So this is something the market itself was doing many years in advance—and not just here in Australia. I also did a couple of projects over in America where I had the same situation. We had to design light fixtures for a project in the USA, a hotel in California. They had to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, where you had to have special things. The fixture had to be less than four inches out from the wall and you had to fit your compact fluorescent lamp in there—so you could actually come up with energy efficient savings. This was not something that was mandated by government; this was something that the market was delivering at the time. As I said, this is simply an informational remedy that adds to it.

I would like to make one comment on the compact fluorescent lamps. Yes, they save in energy costs between 60 and 80 per cent of our old incandescent bulbs. They also have much greater longevity. But there is an issue, because those bulbs contain mercury. Some numbers I have looked at indicate that, around Australia, those compact fluorescent bulbs currently being dumped in landfill release into our environment 1,100 kilograms of mercury, because when the bulb breaks the mercury is released. In New South Wales, just as a rough estimate, I worked out that that is about 340 kilograms of mercury through compact fluorescent globes.

In comparison, when all our coal-fired power stations in New South Wales burn coal they release 164 kilograms of mercury. So we are actually releasing double the amount of mercury into the atmosphere through compact fluorescent globes going into landfills, as opposed to what is released from our coal-fired power stations. In fact, the US Environmental Protection Agency produced a document that talks about what to do if a compact fluorescent light bulb breaks in your home. If the bulb, a very thin filament of glass, breaks, it says, firstly:

It goes on:

DO NOT VACUUM. Vacuuming is not recommended unless broken glass remains after all other cleanup steps have been taken. Vacuuming could spread mercury-containing powder or mercury vapor.

It notes:

If a glass jar is not available, use a sealable plastic bag. (NOTE: Since a plastic bag will not prevent the mercury vapor from escaping, remove the plastic bag(s) from the home after cleanup.)

So there are great advantages in compact fluorescent bulbs, but we also need to consider, as we do with all legislation, the unintended consequences.

I would also like to make a few comments in response to some of the other things raised in this debate. The member for Newcastle went on about the importance of the RET, the renewable energy target. I believe if we look at this matter, using common sense and logic, anyone who believes in a truly renewable energy solution will realise that mandating the RET at this stage of time where technology stands today will actually send us backwards. It will be counterproductive.

An article was written a couple of weeks ago by two Google engineers: Ross Koningstein and David Fork. They worked for several years on a project that Google called RE>C—which means RE, renewable energy, cheaper than coal—to see how they could produce electricity from renewable energy cheaper than from coal.

I would just like to quote a few things that they said. Remember that these people are no sceptics. I quote:

At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …

They continued:

As we reflected on the project, we came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work …

Those are not my words; they are the words of Google engineers. They continued:

… even if we shut down every fossil-fueled power plant today, existing CO2 will continue to warm the planet.

Even if every renewable energy technology advanced as quickly as imagined and they were all applied globally, atmospheric CO2 levels wouldn’t just remain above 350 ppm—

that is, parts per million—

they would continue to rise exponentially due to continued fossil fuel use …

So to mandate the use of a form of inefficient technology that will not result in significant reductions in CO2 emissions is simply counterproductive and will send us backwards. And, if there is no change to that renewable energy target, $17 billion of our nation's precious and limited resources will simply be wasted. That will make us poorer. If we are going to solve the issues by coming up with a technology whereby we can actually produce electricity cheaper that we can from coal, gas or nuclear, then the last thing we should be doing is investing money in inefficient technologies that will simply not achieve that goal.

The member for Moreton talked about China and how China was taking great action on renewable energy. I say to the member for Moreton: come in spinner! Either he did not read the agreement or he simply does not understand it. If you look at the agreement you will see that, between now and 2030, China will continue to increase their use of coal every single year for the next 16 years, up 2030. They will roll out more and more coal fired power stations. When they get to 2030, the agreement is not that they will wind back anything; the agreement is that they simply will not increase their CO2 emissions. I cannot understand how anyone could be so deluded, to think China are doing all these things on renewable energy and taking steps to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. It is absolute nonsense; it is the complete opposite.

The member for Moreton also went on about jobs. He said the carbon tax could create jobs and that we need government planning. I would recommend to the member for Moreton that, over Christmas, he read a book entitled Uncle Sam Can't Count. I will read the introduction. It says:

… government investments have failed dismally. They not only drain the Treasury of cash but also impede economic growth, and they hurt the very companies they try to support.

Why does federal aid seem to have a reverse Midas touch? Simply put, federal officials don't have the same abilities or incentives as entrepreneurs. In addition, federal control always produces political control of some kind.

I highly recommend that the member for Moreton read this book over the holidays. The member for Kingsford Smith came in here and greatly praised Earth Hour and about how we turn off our lights. I would suggest to the member for Kingsford Smith that, if he thinks it is good that we should turn off our lights to somehow celebrate something, next time Earth Hour rolls around he should perhaps go to North Korea. Because there they celebrate Earth Hour every night, not for one hour but for the entire time of darkness. If you look at one of those satellite maps you will see North Korea at night-time, in complete darkness and, next to it, South Korea completely illuminated. Perhaps that is what the member for Kingsford Smith should look at.

Finally—and this could be my last contribution for the year—this bill actually helps reduce red tape. That is one of the goals that the coalition has. But it is not just by itself. We can look back over the year and think of the wonderful successes that we as a government have had, something we can all be very proud of. We have seen with the repeal of the carbon tax the biggest fall of electricity prices on record. I remember a member of the opposition in the last parliament, sitting here and saying that it could not be done, it wouldn't be done and we wouldn't and couldn't repeal it. We have repealed it and, from that, we have seen the biggest fall in electricity prices in our nation's history.

Also, there has been success when it comes to stopping the boats and, more importantly, stopping the deaths at sea and regaining control of our borders. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you were to go back 12 months and frame a market on how many boats would come in this 12-month period and you wanted to bet just one boat in 12 months, I think you could almost write your own ticket.

That achievement has been remarkable. Again, it is something that the Labor Party, when they were in government, said could not and would not be done. Well, it has been done, it has been achieved.

After 50 years of indecision we have made a commitment to a second airport for Sydney at Badgerys Creek. The great news is that this will not be Sydney's second airport, it will be the first international airport for Western Sydney. Western Sydney itself is now strong enough, economically powerful enough, that it deserves its own international airport. After 50 years we have made that decision.

We have repealed the mining tax. That absolutely absurd tax was complete nonsense, completely counterproductive. It caused more harm than good. It raised hardly any revenue but it destroyed confidence in that sector.

We have started building the roads of the 20th century. We have started work on WestConnex in Sydney. Over the next four years we will see a 50 per cent increase in spending on New South Wales public schools. I see that the member for Grayndler is at the table. He, like me, comes from a public school background, so I am sure he will celebrate that 50 per cent increase in spending.

We have also seen a trifecta of free trade agreements—with South Korea, Japan and China. This will provide untold opportunity not only for Australians today but also for our children and grandchildren in the future. We have also restored relations with Indonesia and broken new ground on our relationship with India. And I would hope that, before the end of this parliament, we will also see a free trade agreement with India.

We have seen something like 120,000 new jobs created. We have seen an uplift in consumer confidence and business confidence. We have seen strong retail trade figures. Australians can go to Christmas confident about our future, confident that they have a responsible government in charge that is trying to get on with the job of repairing the budget deficit. We have to do that. If we continued to spend in the way the previous Labor government did, we would be betraying our children and stealing from our grandchildren. That is why bills like this are important. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context