Chapter 2

Chapter 2

Key issues

2.1        As mentioned in Chapter 1, the Committee received two submissions to the inquiry: one from the Clean Energy Council (CEC) and the other from the Lighting Council of Australia. Both submissions were supportive of the intent of the bills.[1]

2.2        The CEC, a peak body representing Australia's clean energy and energy efficiency industries, welcomed the government's commitment to establish a national legislative framework for regulating the energy efficiency of products supplied within Australia and to allow for the program's future expansion.[2]

2.3        The CEC stated:

Energy efficiency remains one of the most important policies that governments can deliver to both reduce emissions and to protect consumers from rising electricity prices.[3]

2.4        The CEC was particularly supportive of the establishment of a single national regulator and the harmonisation of standards, registration processes and fees.[4] According to the CEC, the national scheme proposed in the bills would replace a '...confusing and uncertain environment for business and their consumers...' with a well-coordinated and nationally consistent approach that would '...reduce regulatory burden on businesses and provide certainty to industry and end users'.[5]

2.5        The CEC was also supportive of the scheme's expansion to cover a greater range of products and the closing of loopholes in state law that currently allow imported products to enter Australia without meeting minimum efficiency standards.[6]

2.6        The Lighting Council of Australia, a peak body representing Australia's lighting industry, supported the intent of the bills, '...namely, to achieve nationally consistent regulation of equipment energy efficiency by transferring responsibilities from the states to the Commonwealth'.[7]

2.7        The Lighting Council was, however, concerned with two elements of the bills: the application of criminal sanctions and the mandatory provision of sales data to the regulator.

2.8        The Lighting Council argued that the proposed criminal sanctions for failing to comply with energy performance standards and the labelling regime are '...disproportionate to the nature of offences'.[8] According to the Lighting Council, the criminal sanctions in the bill are more onerous than for Australia's electrical safety regime. The Lighting Council stated:

Transgressing a [Minimum Energy Performance Standard] and labelling regime surely is far less serious than avoiding electrical safety regulatory requirements where lives could be at risk.[9]

2.9        The Lighting Council suggested that civil penalties would be adequate enforcement for the labelling and minimum energy performance standards.[10]

2.10      The Lighting Council also objected to the requirement for industry to supply sales and import data to the regulator. The Lighting Council was particularly concerned that sensitive commercial data may not be kept confidential.[11]

2.11      In response to the concern raised by the Lighting Council regarding enforcement, the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) stated:

The range of enforcement mechanisms in the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Bill 2012 ensures the Australian Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards (GEMS) Regulator can adopt a response to contraventions of energy efficiency laws that is proportionate to the circumstances. Lesser remedies to contravention, such as administrative action or infringement notices, allow an appropriate response to minor contraventions of the law. More serious remedies like potential criminal penalties, in the form of fines rather than imprisonment, ensures a deterrence and response to more serious contraventions.

A proportionate approach to contravention is important because the impact of contravention will be proportionate to the circumstances. Contraventions relating to products with low energy intensity are likely to have a comparatively lower impact while products with high energy intensity, or supplied in large quantities, may have a higher negative impact. Deterrence is also important given it often will be unfeasible to recall non-compliant products once they are supplied to end users...[12]

2.12      With respect to the provision of commercial data to the regulator, the department informed the committee:

The Australian Government will institute legal and administrative safeguards to prevent improper disclosure of information obtained under the Act. These safeguards will apply to all potentially sensitive information obtained under the Act, not only sales and import data obtained under section 56.

...

The legal safeguards in the GEMS legislation will be supported by an information handling policy, which will be released by the Australian GEMS Regulator. This policy will govern the treatment of all potentially sensitive information obtained under the Act but will pay particular attention to the protection and use of data obtained under section 56.[13]

Committee comment

2.13      Improving the energy efficiency of products is one of the easiest and most cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed legislation will help Australia meet the government's commitment to reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by at least 5% on 2000 levels by 2020. The legislation will also help Australia meet its international obligations under the UNFCCC.

2.14      By transforming the existing E3 Program currently administered by the states and territories into a single national framework for regulating the energy efficiency of products, the proposed legislation will reduce the regulatory burden on business and harmonise standards, fees and registration processes.

2.15      Despite the small number of submissions received for this inquiry, the Committee notes that the government has undertaken consultation on the proposed energy minimum standards and labelling scheme over a number of years. The Committee is therefore confident that stakeholders are supportive of the bills.

2.16      Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the bills be passed.

Recommendation 1

2.17      The Committee recommends that the bills be passed.

Senator Doug Cameron
Chair

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page