Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to speak to the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill 2005. This is a bill which introduces a program under which Australia’s largest industrial energy users will be required to assess their capacity to make improvements in energy efficiency. They will also be required to report publicly on the assessments that have been made. As the Senate has already heard, the opposition broadly supports the bill—as far as it goes. Labor have moved a second reading amendment to highlight our concerns about the inadequate response of the government in regard to these important policy questions.

Let me enlarge on our concerns and the reasons we have moved this second reading amendment. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee produced a bipartisan report on this piece of legislation. Both opposition and government senators have broadly supported the intentions that underlie this particular bill, which of course will oblige Australia’s largest energy users in industry to focus their minds on energy conservation. Senator O’Brien has already quoted the figures that business and industry use over 80 per cent of the energy consumed in Australia and that 250 of our largest industry users account for 60 per cent of the total business use, which is of course almost half of all primary energy use in the country. Anything that will require large energy users to look at ways to reduce consumption and improve efficiency is a laudable policy goal.

If companies act on the findings of their energy audits, this program will lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and in turn to a reduction in Australia’s contribution to global warming. The program, if successful, will contribute significantly to a change in the mind-sets of key industry decision makers. It will lift energy conservation up the priority list in regard to business investment and business planning. Where the program leads to efforts to reduce energy consumption, it will also benefit companies’ bottom line, adding to efficiency and, in my judgment, to profitability. These are of course outcomes which, in policy terms, are desirable.

What the Senate legislation committee also found, however, was that the bill had some very serious shortcomings. The overriding concern of Labor is simply the fact that this bill does not go anywhere near far enough. For a start, it does not require industry to do anything to actually cut its energy use. All that affected companies will have to do to comply with the new regime is to make periodic assessments of their potential to make reductions and improve efficiencies. They do not actually have to act on the information that they gather as a result of these assessments. Of course, we hope that sensible organisations would so act and obviously take benefit from the decisions that would flow. We hope that that is in fact what they would do. But they do not have to as a result of this legislation. This is in stark contrast to the regime in place in Victoria, for instance, where clear requirements for reduction in consumption are actually specified.

To put it simply, this bill lacks teeth. It does not go far enough in terms of its scope. The bill will do nothing to address the urgent need to cut energy consumption and, with it, greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in the domestic sector. It does not address energy use in Australian homes. Nor does this bill deal with the carbon emissions caused by private cars—the greenhouse gases we belch out into the atmosphere as we drive to work, to school and to shopping centres.

The figures here are again very clear. More than half—almost 53 per cent—of carbon dioxide emissions in Australia are caused by the generation of electricity. These big power stations produce a lot of smoke. Almost 30 per cent of electricity generated by the power stations is actually for domestic use. Transport is another big emitter of carbon dioxide: some 24 per cent of the total. According to an ABS survey back in 2004, over 65 per cent of total kilometres travelled by Australian motor vehicles were by private motor vehicles—mostly by cars. How we use energy in our homes and how we use it in terms of transport, particularly in our cars, has a huge impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

As shadow minister for housing and urban development, these issues are obviously matters of deep concern to me and fall within my bailiwick. The discussion paper that the Labor Party issued last December, ‘Australia’s future cities’, was part of a process the Labor Party embarked on for a public debate about a range of policy options that are open to us as a nation in regard to urban development and housing. The aim of the paper was to stimulate debate and to invite contributions and comments from stakeholders in regard to cities policy.

Since most of us—around 80 per cent of us—live in our 40 largest cities, the stakeholders in this debate are in fact all Australians who participate in those cities. The stakeholders here are Australians as workers, as students, as retirees and as people engaged in recreational and cultural pursuits. They are all of us in our daily lives. For those who live in rural areas, there is plenty at stake as well. People from the bush visit the city or town. They benefit directly from the goods that cities produce. They also directly benefit from good cities policy by a national government. Poor policies on energy conservation in the city, for example, lead to climate change that may well affect country areas and country people even more starkly than those in towns. The cost of inefficient energy use is borne by everybody. In one way or another, we all contribute to the overall level of energy consumption in Australia.

All Australians have a big stake in getting these policies right. And the 80 per cent of us who live in urban areas can and should contribute to getting it right. Given the statistics I have quoted about domestic energy use, it matters how efficiently our homes use electricity, gas and water. Our everyday decisions about transport are equally important. What we have as alternatives to private cars—public transport, bike paths and safe and pleasant walking environments—are matters that contribute as well. They are therefore fundamental issues in regard to urban development.

Labor’s discussion paper looks at all of these things. It is about how we live in cities and ensure that they are pleasant, liveable places while also meeting our economic, environmental and social objectives. It is about urban development and renewal as potent symbols of commitment to social justice and to improving the nation’s economic and environmental health. Therefore, this is a policy that touches daily lives.

Because Labor are well aware of these facts and we have also been very aware that everyone has a keen interest in policies such as this, we do not set out to try to tell people where they should live or in what houses they should live; nor are we about lecturing people about cars versus public transport. We are about finding policy options that will encourage Australians to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. This means looking at policies that will improve housing affordability while at the same time giving priority to energy efficient design. It also means paying attention to the broader issues of urban development and renewal. We are talking about policies that will enable people to make the choice about walking, riding or catching a bus or train rather than driving their motor car. That means increasing flexibility of Commonwealth transport funding, including AusLink. The bottom line here is that Labor believe that the Commonwealth has a role in urban development. Under the Howard government we have seen nothing but 10 years of neglect in housing and urban policies.

Let me talk about this housing question particularly. Under the Howard government, housing costs have spiralled out of control. That is fine if you already own a house but it is bad news for young people and for families trying to enter the housing market. It is also bad news for those whose incomes do not allow them to aspire to owning their own homes at all and for people who rely upon the private rental market. A Labor government would want to ensure that the increased costs of housing are contained by seeking to enforce appropriate energy conservation measures in the building of houses and the use of energy by householders.

I recall that just last December the Australian Building Codes Board made a decision to enhance the existing provisions of the Building Code of Australia to include a nominal five-star energy performance level of housing, a decision which has led to some controversy. Some say that the requirement to meet the five-star standard will increase the cost of new houses by many thousands of dollars. Others say that the costs are, in fact, minimal. I support the decision for the inclusion of the five-star standard in the BCA as a sensible means of promoting national consistency in building regulations while recognising that it is not mandatory for states to adopt the performance level. Queensland has already indicated it will not do so. It is appropriate to understand that we require different housing conditions for different parts of Australia. It is no good trying to build a particular housing estate to meet the conditions of Melbourne or Hobart when we are talking about the tropics. Quite clearly, different standards are required. I believe that the buildings codes allow for that.  However, it is the situation that some states are now seeking to withdraw from that nationally consistent approach.

The Howard government’s response to the ABCB’s decision, by contrast, could only fairly be described as absolutely hysterical. Despite the fact that the Commonwealth government had representation at the meeting and, I understand, voted for the decisions to establish the five-star rating system, Ministers Macdonald, Campbell and Macfarlane issued a joint press statement predicting disaster for the timber industry and even the demise of the Queenslander house. Their hysteria flies sharply in the face of the facts. The standard, in fact, allows for a wide range of construction types. It is also already in place in four states and territories, including in my own state of Victoria, where it is seen as promoting sensible energy conservation. In so doing, the five-star performance levels add to the sustainability and liveability of our cities and towns.

At the same time, households benefit from savings on gas and electricity bills because passive heating and cooling reduce their energy costs. The fact is that electricity generation is responsible for more than half of all carbon emissions in Australia. As I have indicated, that fact alone ought to be something that the government is looking at. Our home airconditioning is a significant factor in domestic electricity use. If domestic electricity consumption falls, everyone stands to benefit. So the question of housing design and urban development becomes critical in these debates.

I turn now to transport, where we can see a similar argument applies. While road transport represents a lower level in terms of the total amount of energy consumed—I understand some 28 per cent of energy use—the majority of kilometres travelled on our roads each year—65 per cent, as I said—is accounted for by trips in private cars. Any sensible policy approach to urban planning and development must tackle this question by encouraging people to use alternative transport modes—not by forcing people out of their cars but by offering them real choices in their modes of transportation. A national government must take a lead on these questions. While several states and territories have made quite laudable gains in all of these areas in recent years, often assisted by local government initiatives, much needs to be done.

As highlighted by the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage titled Sustainable Cities, many new outer suburbs in our largest cities are almost entirely without public transport. The cost of public transport infrastructure is substantial. The bipartisan approach taken in that House of Representatives committee report concluded that a national government should be helping to meet the cost of that infrastructure. The committee recommended that the Commonwealth boost its funding for public transport, particularly light and heavy rail, in Australia’s major cities. It also recommended that the Commonwealth provide funding specifically for public transport infrastructure for new developments on the fringes of our cities.

Unlike the Howard government, Labor remains committed to this type of nation building activity—to building a better future for communities. This means not only public transport but also bike paths, safe and pleasant streets to walk along, and concerted efforts to renew and improve intermodal connections. It also means giving councils greater scope to use Commonwealth transport funding in ways that best suit their communities, rather than restricting the use of this funding to building and maintaining roads.

The Howard government has, in the 10 years of its regime in this country, had a consistent policy of neglect when it comes to the question of housing policy. It has no minister; it has no commitment to national urban development; it has failed to develop any kind of coordinated approach—which is so urgently needed—to the rejuvenation of our cities; and it has not sought to protect the environment but has in fact promoted a series of other policy goals which seem, to me, to actually undermine the policy objectives of environmental sustainability.

My argument is this: we need policies that will lead to cities and towns that are socially just, inclusive and liveable and that encourage and support participation in social, economic, educational and cultural activity. We also need policies that provide for economically efficient cities, which would benefit both businesses and citizens in a globally competitive national economy. Further, we need to ensure that there are policies which are designed to encourage diversity in terms of urban planning and architecture which would cater for the varying and changing needs of all citizens. We also need to be environmentally sustainable in the approach that we take on these questions.

As I said at the outset, this bill does not go anywhere near addressing those questions, and our second reading amendment highlights that fact. This bill concentrates on industrial energy use when a significant proportion of energy use and carbon gas emissions originate in the home and from the use of private transport. I acknowledge that industry and businesses are significant energy users and are, of course, very important with regard to carbon gas emissions. This bill is aimed very largely at those very big consumers of energy and, to that extent, it is a step in the right direction. But what we need is a more fundamental reorientation in the culture and the political priorities of this country and of those companies. If that were to occur, it would be highly desirable.

This is a small, totally inadequate step by a very tired and out-of-touch government. The aims of this bill should be supported, but the bill lacks teeth. This government has not done nearly enough to ensure the sustainability of these policy objectives. When it comes to big business, this government lacks the courage to stand up and insist that big business should come to the party, come to the table, and ensure that the whole community benefits from energy efficiency.

What we have here is like the government’s approach to bank charges. ATM fees are going through the roof, and yet the Treasurer, Mr Costello, refuses to move to regulate the banks in those sorts of areas. We have a Minister for Health and Ageing who, in the face of a crisis in childhood obesity, says no to regulation of children’s television advertisements for junk foods. He is not doing anything to encourage kids to improve their health, because he does not want to take on the vested interests—which would be required to do that.

The government will not ask the big companies the hard questions or move to ensure that they do more than assess their energy use. It will not make sure that they actually do make the changes that are required for them to improve this country. I understand that companies that are good corporate citizens will act, but I say that the government ought to provide much more regulation and incentive to ensure that that occurs.

The Labor Party want to do all in our power to ensure that our kids live in a world where they will be able to enjoy healthy, happy and prosperous lives. Labor are proud of our nation-building tradition; Australia desperately needs that nation building now. This bill is yet another example of how the Howard government has failed to look to the future. (Time expired)