Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is good to rise on another bill, the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Bill 2014, which implements the government's commitment to reducing red tape, but in this case potentially green tape, in consultation with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that we have better best practice regulation in place in Australia. I thank the member for Brand, the shadow minister and the opposition for supporting what is a common sense measure. The member for Brand is one of the rare members of the shadow ministry who understands the importance of consulting with industry, listening to them and working with them and not against them, unlike many of his colleagues.

Whilst the member for Brand made some compelling arguments, I do not necessarily agree with his view that you need to have legislation in place in all of these areas and that it is absolutely necessary. The biggest incentive in commercial buildings is, of course, the commercial incentive—that is, to operate them at the lowest cost possible and to operate them in the best way possible. That is good business. It may not require a law. Having a review to understand this—whether this is now necessary—is a very worthwhile endeavour and something we should continue as a commitment to governments of all persuasions in order to reduce the burden of regulation, the number of laws and the unnecessary laws.

It is the case today with the price of electricity and the way buildings are invested in and structured that you of course have to consider energy efficiency—not because the law says so and not because it is the good intention of any particular government but because there is a prime commercial incentive. You would not have a business in this country not considering energy efficiency when investing in a commercial building at the moment. For the member for Brand to say we need these acts of parliament often without any real backup is unnecessary.

The particular changes in this bill that provide exemptions to building owners who receive unsolicited offers for the sale of their office space are going to lead to about $300,000 in estimated reduction of regulatory burden on businesses—about half a million dollars, as the shadow minister noted. We ask the questions, 'Do we need this? Can this be improved? Can this legislation be reduced?' These are the kinds of real-world savings that will produce great productivity benefits to business. That half a million dollars can be spent in other ways by these businesses that will produce a greater return and will allow them to have more time and more space to do more productive activity in our economy. This process can be continued.

It is absolutely starkly obvious that we need a disclosure scheme in general. I am very happy to have a look at it. I am very happy to see whether we need to have it in the future. The commercial incentives are there now for this to happen automatically and for the market to function without having to have a regulation in this space.

The other provisions are also very important. We remove the requirement for six pages of standard energy efficiency guidance text on the building energy certificates. Instead, live interactive online information about energy efficiency for office buildings will be put in place. This is just a contemporary updating of legislation to take advantage of online mechanisms. It meets the need for new owners and lessors to pay the application fee for a fresh exemption if there is a valid one in place. Again, they are common sense measures. Too often with these pieces of legislation that are passed by this parliament, especially when they deal with energy or environmental concerns, there are too many restrictions and too many penalties and too many requirements that really do not have a practical, environmental or energy benefit. These are very sensible measures. The requirements cost industry time, energy, effort and money without producing any real benefits. Again, they are sensible proposals that both sides of the chamber can support.

Other things can be looked at, particularly regarding the defunct Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act and scheme. In particular, we heard evidence in open committee, through my chairmanship of the Standing Committee on the Environment, that there have to be yearly or annual inspections of light fixtures in commercial buildings by law, even though these energy efficient fixtures can sometimes only be replaced every five years. Why you would require them to be inspected annually is beyond me. It is another area that of course has to be changed. Things can be improved. Obviously, the energy efficiency act is the subject of another move from this government.

This is what I am getting at: these pieces of legislation are well-intentioned at the time—sometimes they have a positive effect—but quickly you get to a point where they are too prescriptive and too onerous in their requirements without looking at the benefit produced by the particular regulations themselves. There is no doubt that, when you look at the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act, there is too much of that going on. That has been recognised and agreed to by both sides with the passage of this bill. Of course, in the future we will be looking for further savings in areas where this act can be improved, so that there is more flexibility for business and, of course, more opportunity for people to get on with what they should be getting on with. Energy efficiency is very important; there are savings to be made. There are reasons why you would do it, but, given the fact that there are good commercial reasons—in fact, it is the prime imperative for most businesses who are acting on their building and other investments at this point in time—it is not obvious that we need to have in place so many of these regulatory mechanisms.

All up, of course, the government is very committed to supporting business through the reduction of red tape in improving energy productivity. The bill is going to lead to close to $600,000 worth of reductions in regulatory burdens. It is yet another step in our ongoing red- and green-tape reduction. I look forward to seeing more of these amendments being supported by both sides of the House in the future to ensure that we are moving with the times and not allowing pieces of legislation, such as the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act, to become out of date, and to put a regulatory burden on business with no real return for the environment or of energy efficiency.

(Quorum formed)

See this speech in context