Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

In 2005, I had the honour and the privilege to introduce the water efficiency labelling and standards bill into the parliament. It involved a process which had been worked through with industry, with conservation and environment groups, with the bureaucracy and, in particular, with the plumbing and water efficiency sector. I think the bill transformed into legislation which has transformed into a system and a practice that has generally been very positive. It was designed and intended to provide a water efficiency and star rating system for washing machines, urinals, toilets, showerheads, taps—all of the basic water dispensing and water use devices in the household. It was a sensible, common-sense practical approach to efficiency and conservation.

It was always designed and intended to be a low-touch scheme. It began that way, and we support the scheme. There are, however, two operative concerns, which I wish to raise in the presence of minister and those relate to what I would call an increasing use of this legislation for first-strike activities against small operators. I have met with small operators who in good faith have sought to comply with the legislation. They gave me examples of where they had one product with the WELS sticker on it, but the same product elsewhere in the store where it was not, and they had been either threatened or in some cases fined. This legislation is meant to provide a guide to consumers and its implementation has to be done in a way which is sensible and not threatening.

I would request the minister to ask his department for a review on the implementation at the ground level. There ought to be a simple approach where if somebody is inadvertently in breach, they are requested to rectify. Fines should not be a part of that process. It is only when somebody has repeatedly and wilfully breached the notice and notification requirements that you would then turn to enforcement. It should not be a first-strike process. It should not be abused. The member for Dunkley, myself and others have encountered small-business people who felt that this legislation has been misused. It is good legislation, with a good intent, a good purpose and a good design. It is at the coalface where we need to review it to see whether or not there has been a practice of inadvertent over-regulation and inadvertent first-strike misuse.

The second element that I want to raise, and again this has come from directly meeting with small-business participants in the water efficiency industry, is duplication. I think there is a legitimate question at this time to look at the interrelationship between the WaterMark system and the WELS system. Many plumbing and water goods suppliers have said that they feel there is a duplication. I do not come to this with a pre-emptive view as to the outcome. I think that both issues of the first-strike misuse and the potential for simplifying arrangements between the WELS and WaterMark system and any overlap and duplication ought to be considered by the Senate process. Both are genuine and legitimate concerns which have come from the implementation and the practice of the legislation. These are the real world examples provided firsthand to myself which need to be considered.

Against that background we then have the reforms within this legislation. It is a cost-recovery measure. I am cautious about any cost-recovery measures. We will not stand in the way of it through the House. We will look at it with a cautious and sceptical eye. If it appears to be gouging then of course we would reject it. If it is a legitimate, modest cost recovery, and we will let the Senate inquiry take those examples, then we will accept it. We support the legislation. We support the principle. We were the architects and we think that it is a sensible approach to water efficiency.

But there are two genuine legitimate concerns in practice: one being in relation to the first-strike misuse of this legislation—and it may be some rogue inspectors or it might be a more widespread practice that has become overly oppressive. The second area is the potential for simplification and reducing the duplication, or eradicating duplication, in the relationship between the WELS legislation and the WaterMark systems. Against those areas for legitimate inquiry, I thank the minister for his attention. My impression is that he has noted that there are some genuine concerns at the grassroots level from small-business players who feel that what is reasonable legislation could be improved in its practical application.

See this speech in context