Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | Hansard source

The Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Bill 2014 is an important one, and it is supported by the opposition.

I quote from the second reading speech of the parliamentary secretary on the introduction of this important bill:

The Commercial Building Disclosure Program, supported by the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act 2010, continues to represent one of the most cost-effective opportunities to reduce the use of energy in commercial buildings and improve productivity across the sector.

Since its commencement in November 2011, the CBD Program has transformed the commercial property market. Office buildings with better energy efficiency ratings consistently deliver greater returns for investors, and energy efficiency is now considered a normal part of commercial property transactions.

Commercial building and energy efficiency stakeholders have been actively engaged in the CBD Program and continue to support its important role in driving energy productivity across Australia's property sector.

The commercial building sector is responsible for around 10 per cent of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions, and this figure is rising. That is why it is extremely important that we have a bipartisan approach to energy efficiency, and, on this occasion, to energy efficiency in commercial buildings and that we understand that there is a direct link between energy efficiency and commercial advantage to building owners and to tenants from these initiatives. Energy conservation, energy efficiency and demand management are very important tools of the new age in managing higher electricity prices, and, importantly, in managing the greenhouse impact of our very large commercial buildings.

Energy efficiency of course represents one of the fastest and cheapest ways that we can reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions. The amendments bill proposed by the government is simply a set of housekeeping measures in response to changes that had been, properly, proposed by stakeholders through stakeholder forums. They are changes that will reduce red tape. They are changes that will make this act function better, and they are changes that are supported not just by the stakeholders but by both sides of this House.

I have spoken to the Energy Efficiency Council, the Clean Energy Council and the Green Building Council—all of them accept and support these important changes. We have also had interaction with the Property Council. It would be fair to say that the Property Council has a range of different views around the CBD program. On the one hand, they have indicated that the program is a good program, but they would like to see changes. On the other hand, at times they have called for the CBD program to be scrapped. We on this side of the House do not think this would be a prudent move. We do think that the appointment of ASIL Tasman to review the program by March 2015 is something about which we are concerned. We look forward to receiving that report. But we are concerned that a review that may be directed to remove the CBD program would not be a prudent way to support energy conservation and bring about all the great advantages that come through this program, which the parliamentary secretary referred to in his second reading speech in October this year.

Energy efficiency is not just the national agenda. It binds all levels of government in a virtuous cycle. In this, the role played by all state governments dovetails with initiatives that the Commonwealth has put in place to support energy efficiency. High energy prices help to focus our minds on energy efficiency. Householders do not care what their unit price for energy is—they care what their regular bill is.

Importantly, in the context of energy efficiency, the International Energy Agency's Energy efficiency market report of 2014found that energy efficiency is rapidly becoming the world's first fuel. It is a terrific and very sensible idea. Energy and efficiency improvements in 11 countries, including Australia, delivered more capacity than any other source of energy in 2014. It is a remarkable fact that more energy was saved by conservation than by oil, coal or gas in 2014. Energy efficiency saved those countries 56 exajoules of energy in 2012, which is more than the final energy delivered by oil, electricity or natural gas—indeed, it is more than the total energy consumption of the European Union.

What does that mean for the development of policies that have energy efficiency at the core? We can remove the supply-side bias that exists traditionally in the energy markets. The purpose of network companies is to provide affordable and reliable connection between an energy consumer and an energy supplier, but sometimes the most affordable way to boost reliability is to manage peak demand and put in place sensible energy-efficiency measures.

Our regulations often mean that network companies face incentives to keep energy demand high and therefore build more kit. We have seen this in electricity, and we have seen a pretty good draft decision, in the last week, on energy network, prices and costs. That decision—we hope—will drive a better profile of costs for consumers, industries and customers.

In electricity, in recent years, the lack of cost-reflective tariffs for peak demand has meant that Australians have installed lots of poorly-performing air conditioners—driving up peak demand, adding to problems and making markets unstable. Cross-subsidies meant that households without air conditioning paid, effectively, a $700-a-year cost to subsidise households with air conditioning. Politicians, energy producers and consumers can no longer afford to underestimate the importance of energy efficiency and efficient energy markets. There are some simple energy-efficiency measures that should be encouraged, like more efficient space and water heating, tariff reforms and price reflectivity.

This bill and the way in which it works, in commercial office space, is particularly insightful. The measures in this amendment that make it work more smoothly and make it work better for stakeholders are to be supported. I flag, again, my concern—and the opposition's concern—about any move to remove the CBD. We see the CBD program itself as delivering substantial benefits. Those benefits, as I began in my presentation this morning, were largely and accurately identified by the parliamentary secretary when he introduced this bill.

Major changes proposed in this bill provide for exemptions to building owners who receive unsolicited offers for the sale or lease of their office spaces. That, we believe, will lead to around a $300,000 estimated reduction in the regulatory burden on businesses. That reduction of the cost burden on businesses is important and is wholly supported by this place. Allowing transactions between wholly-owned subsidiaries to be excluded from disclosure obligations will again lead to around a $300,000 reduction in the regulatory burden on businesses. In total, we look forward to in excess of half a million dollars in savings delivered directly to commercial office-space owners and people who rent those spaces in the CBDs of our cities.

Addressing ambiguity in the main act, in relation to the status of assessments undertaken by assessors accredited under the National Australian Built Environment Rating System, the NABERS program, but not accredited under the CBD program, is important. Introducing the ability to determine a commencement date for building energy-efficiency certification, which is later than the date of issue, is also important. It provides greater flexibility for businesses wishing to proactively maintain their current building energy-efficiency certificates for their property portfolios. It removes the need for new owners and lessors to reapply or pay the application for fresh exemptions if there is an existing one in place for a building. This is also important.

We find ourselves at the point, with this bill, where we are wholly in support of its objectives and of the streamlining that has been introduced in these measures. We are extremely cautious at the possibility of the CBD program itself being called into question in the first quarter of next year, and the opposition would like to flag at this moment its great concern. The CBD program itself should be maintained and the commercial benefits that are so profound and so obvious should be maintained.

The BEED Act requires energy-efficiency information to be disclosed. In most cases, when commercial office space of 2,000 square metres or more is offered for sale or lease the BEED Act aims to ensure that credible and meaningful energy-efficiency information is given to prospective purchasers and lessees of large commercial office space. This information helps purchasers or lessees to make more informed decisions and to take full account of the economic costs and environmental impacts associated with operating buildings when they are intending to purchase or lease.

It is really about market information providing a market signal that can be properly understood in a properly functioning market. In that context, this program works. It should be made to work as efficiently as it possibly can. These amendments are insightful in that they do that—they reduce the cost of the application of this act. They are supported, not just by the opposition and the government—that, of course, is critically important—but by the industry that deals in this space. Therefore, this bill is to be supported by this House, supported by the opposition, with the caution that we remain very concerned about the future of the CBD itself. We hope that the government takes on board those concerns. Should the government, at any time, be considering changes to the CBD itself, please be aware that the functioning of that program is extremely important. It provides valuable market processes for ensuring that building owners and future tenants are best informed, it provides an incentive for building owners to make their buildings as energy efficient as they can be, and it allows tenants themselves to take spaces in buildings that are well built, well managed and maintained to the highest energy efficiency standards.

I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context