Coalition Senators' Additional Comments
Introduction
The Coalition is impressed with the issues raised by the
Committee and believes that they are certainly worthy of consideration.
However, the Coalition are of the opinion that the proposals
listed here can stand on their own and there should be no link to:
- Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2010;
- Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill
2010;
- Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority Bill 2010;
- Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges – Customs) Bill 2010;
- Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges – Excise) Bill 2010;
- Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges – General) Bill 2010;
- Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) Bill 2010;
- Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits)
(Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010;
-
Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill
2010;
- Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill
2010; and
-
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Amendment (Household
Assistance) Bill 2010.
Additionally, any such programme needs to be considered in
light of the Green Loans and Home Insulation Programs
Stand-alone program
As stated in Chapter 5, the Property Council of Australia
pointed out that the existing and proposed programs designed to improve the
energy efficiency of buildings should be tested before additional programmes
are added.[1]
This was elaborated in the hearings.
... The National Strategy on Energy Efficiency and the climate
change action programs which were launched mid last year contain a large number
of specific programs that either address or touch upon improvements in energy
and carbon performance—the greenhouse gas emissions from the built environment.
Indeed, at our last count, adding them all up, there are about 54. I am happy
to table an analysis of all of these bills. My point in raising this issue is
that there is a lot going on in this area which is yet to be tested and which
we believe will result in a substantial improvement in the energy efficiency of
non-residential buildings. So to add a further program at this time before the
other programs have been properly tested does not optimise the public policy
approach to improving energy efficiency in buildings.[2]
Similarly, the Energy Efficiency Council argued that
targeted incentives would really help building owners sit up and notice. [3]
While several submitters claimed that these were
complementary to a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), it is the view of
the Coalition that the proposals before the Committee can be applied
independently of the CPRS. As pointed out by the Energy Efficiency Council:
...Leaders around the world are rapidly turning to energy
efficiency. Obama committed $26 billion to energy efficiency in 2009. Europe
aims to cut its energy demand by 20 per cent by 2020. China is actually one of
the world leaders in energy efficiency and aims to cut its energy use per unit
of GDP. It was 20 per cent by 2020 and they have just upped that target. This
is going to create a huge demand for energy efficiency services and products
around the world. Global revenues ... from climate related businesses have grown
a staggering 75 per cent over the past year. In one year they grew 75 per cent
to reach US$530 billion. That is from HSBC, which is one of the world’s largest
banks. They estimate it could reach US$2 trillion by 2020. As you can see,
energy efficiency currently forms 31 per cent of the pie. That is $164 billion
per year. The German government actually believes there is already over $500
billion in energy efficient services and products. It depends where you draw
the boundary in energy efficiency. We are looking at a sector that could very
easily exceed—even by HSBC’s estimate—$600 billion per year. That is a really
huge opportunity.[4]
The importance of energy efficiency is one that is often
underestimated and has much potential to reduce Australia's carbon emissions.
Green Loans and Home Insulation Programs scandals
Given the recent problems with the implementation of both
the Home Insulation Program and the Green Loans Program, it needs to be noted
that good intentions are not sufficient. There also needs to be competency of
implementation.
Clearly, there needs to be a proper rollout of this program
should this be introduced. With the new Home Insulation program to resume just
three months after the debacle of the previous Home Insulation program, there
is no guarantee that the same problems will not arise. The fact that the
Minister and staff within the Department of the Environment, Heritage and the
Arts were provided with repeated warnings of the risks to installers among
other issues is extremely concerning.[5]
The operations of a program that would require building operators to retro-fit
or new buildings to add additional costs through the measures proposed would
have to be properly operated and the Department does not appear to be able to
handle such a role appropriately.
Similarly, the Green Loans program has been poorly run, with
the Auditor General being called in to investigate the program after just over
six months of the program starting.[6]
Even the industry association charged by Environment Minister Peter Garrett to
accredit the army of green assessors slammed the scheme as poorly managed and
lacking quality checks.[7]
Association of Building Sustainability Assessors chairman
Wayne Floyd said tens of thousands of home owners, eligible for the $10,000
interest-free loans, were now likely to miss out on the Rudd government's new March
22 deadline on the loans.[8]
A further point to make on this issue is that even the banks
started walking away from the scheme quickly.
Although the loan component of the scheme ends on March 22,
Westpac and ANZ have said they are not taking any new applications.[9]
As a result of the introduction of a cap on the number of jobs any individual
assessor can do, several companies have been forced to lay off staff employed
to do the assessments to start with.
[10]
Conclusion
The Coalition understands that energy efficiency is an
important issue and can be used to help combat Australia's carbon emissions.
The fact that the programs being recommended by this Bill
could stand alone needs to be considered as an option for reducing carbon
emissions. Further to that, any such program needs to be carefully considered
to ensure that it is implemented properly, not just thrown together with good
intentions.
|
Senator Alan Eggleston |
Senator David Bushby |
|
Deputy Chair |
|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page