Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) Share this | Hansard source

I will start by presenting a correction to the explanatory memorandum for the Energy Efficiency Opportunities (Repeal) Bill 2014. The correction has been provided to rectify two minor transcription errors. These transcription errors occurred during the development of the supporting regulation impact statement when a departmental officer inputted an incorrect figure from the business cost calculator. These errors are minor and have no effect on the overall cost of the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Program to Australian businesses. Repealing this legislation will save businesses $17.7 million per annum.

The Energy Efficiency Opportunities (Repeal) Bill 2014 terminates the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Program through the repeal of the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act 2006. The bill has a retrospective commencement date of 29 June 2014, in line with the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which announced the removal of the funding for the program from 30 June 2014. Repealing the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act 2006 will save Australian businesses over $17.7 million per year in compliance costs. This is a demonstration of the Australian government's commitment to cut red tape and minimise the regulatory burden on Australian businesses.

Since the introduction of the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Program in 2006 the program has played an important role in improving energy management capabilities across industry, which has strengthened their resilience to rising energy prices. Many of the key elements of the EEO program are now standard business practice for industry, making the program unnecessary.

A good government identifies when there is an issue. A good government engages with industry and stakeholders to put forward a program, legislation or regulation to improve the load. A good government monitors the impact of that legislation. A good government continues the stakeholder engagement and identifies when a piece of legislation or regulation has served its purpose.

On 29 March 2006 I summed up this bill for the government. We accepted amendments that came back from the Senate and which were brought to the House because of the then Howard government's and, in this portfolio, Minister Ian Macfarlane's engagement with industry and their understanding of the impacts on industry and what industry wanted to develop from this, such as the reporting requirements. But the commitment was there and they supported the act. What we are seeing today is a mature government responding to the outcomes of industry where the objective has been achieved.

Those opposite have spoken of the $323 million—a figure taken from the explanatory memorandum to the bill—that is saved every year as a result of the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Program. On this point I will agree with those opposite. The scheme has been a success. When it was introduced in 2006 companies did not think about their energy use. They did not even really know how to make energy savings. We as a government achieved the outcome that we had initially set about to achieve. Now, eight years later, large energy users are acting on their own accord to reduce energy costs and therefore business costs. In fact, if you ask any business, you will probably find out that reducing their energy costs is very, very high on their agenda—and not because the government put it there. Companies are taking comprehensive steps to embed key energy efficiency practices at the very core of their operations. Under such conditions, it is industry and not government that can make the best energy management decisions.

Businesses today will still make $323 million in savings on their electricity bills because of energy efficient activities. But they will make these savings because it makes good commercial sense, not because a government tells them to. As I said earlier, on top of this, businesses will have around $17 million of annual savings as a result of this repeal. That is $17 million that can be funnelled into energy efficiency practices rather than being consumed and wasted in unnecessary red tape compliance.

Back in 2006 the then Howard government saw a market failure, an information gap, that was stopping companies from taking action to reduce their energy use, and the government introduced what even the member for Brand acknowledged yesterday to be a light-touch, low-cost, fit-for-purpose, successful scheme. But, as I said earlier, being part of a good government, adhering to the practices of good governance, is recognising when the government's job is actually done. In fact, Manufacturing Australia has commended the action taken by this government to repeal the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act by saying: 'Rather than asking what should government do to help manufacturers, often we should be asking what should our state and federal governments stop doing in order to help Australian manufacturers.' This government is being mature and accepting that a program that was introduced to address a market failure has seen its day and it is no longer needed.

In the contributions by members opposite, statements have been made questioning this government's support for renewable and energy efficiency schemes. I want to make our position clear and give a couple of examples to the House. The coalition government is investing $1 billion in ARENA funds in nearly 200 renewable energy projects. The member for Charlton criticised me for turning up to open a project at the Wallsend pool. It was a rather unique arrangement with solar energy to heat the pool and create electricity. I think it is a good investment. That is why the government is making sure that that billion dollars is wisely spent, invested and monitored and is delivering the outcomes it was intended to deliver.

There are $288 million to support the development of low-emissions coal and carbon capture and storage technology. There are $2.5 billion to establish the Emissions Reduction Fund. That is a lot of money. It is a lot of Australian taxpayers' money. As we have all found out, the government does not have any money; we have debt but it is not even our debt—it is taxpayers' debt. So it is taxpayers' money and taxpayers' debt and taxpayers demand that they get a solid return on their investment without any waste or indeed forfeiture. The investment I have spoken about shows the government's resolve to assist businesses lower their energy costs, to restore competitiveness and to reduce Australia's emissions.

The young boys and girls from Metford school in my electorate who are up there in the gallery today understand the importance of using energy wisely. I am sure each and every one of those children will commit to turning the lights off in their bedrooms and bathrooms at home for their mums and dads to reduce their contributions to the greenhouse gas footprint. I know it is a lesson I have not been able to teach my children but I am hoping the boys and girls from Metford school are able to adhere to that.

Overall, when it comes to the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Program, this government is getting out of the way so that business can do what business does best—make decisions that make commercial sense. The government will continue to support industry capability by providing information on energy efficiency best practices through the Energy Efficiency Exchange website. The government will continue to collaborate with industry to improve Australia's energy productivity through the energy white paper, the Council of Australian Government energy council and the Emissions Reduction Fund that will support industry to take direct action on emissions and to improve energy productivity.

The repealing of the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act 2006 shows that the Australian government understands the cost associated with the mandatory compliance reporting programs and is continuing to deliver on its commitment to cut unnecessary red tape.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context