Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith) (12.47 pm)—I welcome the comments from the member for New England. Indeed he is right to identify the impacts on human health, amongst many others, that not moving rapidly to both energy efficient and non-polluting productive capacities and processes means for us. I notice that the member for Pearce earlier referred to the necessity for low-cost measures to be applied to urge and move business towards considering energy efficiency, and certainly in the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill 2005 they are low-cost measures. A little more than $3 million, perhaps, per year is about as low cost as it can possibly get.

But I think the member for Pearce missed what really is the more important point: that is, what are the costs to us if we fail to enact robust measures across a range of areas in relation to energy efficiency? Not least of these is the issue that the member herself referred to: what are the consequences for us in terms of global warming? The member said that global warming was a ‘tough call’. It is certainly that, and more. One of the things that I have witnessed in the short period of time that I have been in the House as a member of parliament is the fairly profound change in attitude that has come from the government—government members and government ministers— on the issue of global warming; and I welcome that change. Having been pilloried for the view that there was such a thing as global warming and that climate change may be a consequence of it—pilloried by, amongst others, former Deputy Prime Minister Mr Fischer, who I have a close and convivial relationship with, I have to add—it gives me no joy to be joined by members on the other side of the House in the recognition that this is indeed the most fundamental challenge that we face. There is no question about it.

We face big challenges in terms of terrorism. We face big challenges in terms of managing this country in an equitable and sustainable fashion into the long term. We face big challenges, ones that members present are going to refer to, in getting our fuel industry on a slightly more sustainable basis. We face big challenges in making sure that we have healthy and productive natural landscapes. But global warming is the biggest challenge that we face. It is to the government’s great discredit that it has taken so long to recognise the scope of this challenge and that, having in a halting way started to recognise it, the measures it proposes are so paltry and insignificant.

The Larsen B ice shelf has come down to the sea. The prospects for the increase of transmission of diseases, including dengue, are greatly increased. A recent report by the Australian Medical Association and the Australian Conservation Foundation found that likely health impacts of climate change would include transmission of airborne viruses and diseases—and so it goes on. The question really is: how robust, how comprehensive and how effective will the government’s measures be? They really ought to be judged in many ways by world’s best practice. It is to that that I will confine my remarks later on in this speech.

But, firstly, this bill does emerge from the energy white paper of June 2004. Since that time two things have become very clear: first, the original criticisms of the government’s approach in the white paper, which were significant, were well founded; second, the need for us to have a comprehensive and robust approach to addressing what I describe as the collision point of increasing energy demand, where the prospects of likely climate change as a consequence of global warming have been reached. Once that collision point is reached then measures that are incremental, measures which are essentially small scale, measures which do not go to the core of what we are doing here in relation to greenhouse emissions, will not have that much effect at all.

Added to this question of the collision point is a lurking issue. It is an issue that I think the Treasurer has addressed within the last six months, but he has chosen not to return to it. I do invite the Treasurer and the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources to return to this issue, because we have certainly returned to it. It is the issue of the price and future scarcity of oil and the likelihood that we will be deriving a significant amount of our energy use in terms of oil for our motor vehicle industry and for other industrial uses from imports over the longer term. What is clearly going to happen is that over time the price is going to go up. Scarcity will demand that that should happen and we will be faced with the consequences of our vulnerability in our energy policy as a result.

This bill notes that primary energy consumption, to confirm that point, has grown at an average rate of 2.4 per cent per annum between 1973-74 and 2001-02. Our appetite for energy is undiminished. At the same time that our appetite is undiminished we keep on producing more greenhouse gases. On a per capita basis, as members present would know, our production of greenhouse gases is amongst the highest, if not the highest, in the world— certainly, in relation to equivalent countries. Once you discount land clearing it clearly is the highest. So after 9½ years the Howard government still has world’s worst practice in our production of greenhouse gas emissions. You often hear the argument from the government that we are a small country with a small population. In fact, it is a per capita track record that we have. If you compare us to countries like Italy, for example, which is significantly larger in population—I am not exactly sure of the population of Italy; it must be close to 40 million—you find that we exceed them greatly in our production of greenhouse gas emissions on a per capita basis. That is not good enough.

We welcome the fact that the government has started to address the issue, particularly the issue of spiralling energy consumption, because the demand for stationary energy services looks like going to about 50 per cent growth by 2020. The majority of this is produced by business energy users. This bill is seeking to address itself to those business energy users. Whilst it is quite modest—‘paltry’ is perhaps too strong a word, but I think it really is paltry— and welcomed, it clearly does not go far enough. I would call these tentative but necessary steps.

They are tentative because, in the political context, the government are fixated on other ideological agendas. We have seen that in the House today with Australian traditions of collective bargaining. Pursuing an agenda through the House and applying their energies to it have become a key focus for the government. But, on the critical focus of determining what measures are going to address greenhouse gas emissions—which continue to increase— and the likely impacts upon us of climate change, there is very little to be seen.

This bill refers the registration of company details to the department, which undertakes assessments. Energy efficiency opportunities are assessed. Companies will report publicly on the outcomes of assessment and compliance, and there will be enforcement arrangements. So far, so good, but so much more could be done. The Solar Cities initiative to which the government has committed itself, again, is to be welcomed, but again it is so minor. We talk about tens of millions of dollars; other countries spend hundreds of millions of dollars.

I spoke in the House yesterday about the CSIRO report indicating that they were considering removing and scaling back their research on renewables. I pointed out to the House that at one stage an Australian scientist led the world in research on solar energy. We even have the situation to date—

Mr Katter—Yes, that is true. They have all gone overseas.

Mr GARRETT—The honourable member makes the very good point that, in fact, we now have a situation where, in the most recent adaptation by Australian industries—and particularly the solar industry—to the challenge of producing energy efficiency, they have had to go overseas. I think the last company went to Czechoslovakia in order to produce Australian solar systems, which are actually being produced and sold in Europe. Let us face it: the climate in comparative terms is not as beneficial to the use of solar energy as that of Australia. It is plainly obvious to everybody, both those listening to and reading these speeches and those in the public, that Australia should be a solar nation. That is clearly our future energy path.

The lack of capacity of the Howard government both to recognise and embrace our solar industries and to develop both an investment and a legislative framework to enable us to become a solar nation is to be sorely regretted. A number of the CRCs that did solar and renewables research have been closed down. The emphasis on the other side of the House by the government is towards clean coal. I have a strong view about what our likely solutions and sources of energy are in relation to the looming greenhouse gas problem and the collision point that I referred to. I think that, because of our natural resource gifts, coal clearly has a role to play, and I hope that we do end up with something that approximates clean coal. I have my own reservations about it.

But the most important and significant issue is that, at the same time, we ought to be moving rapidly and comprehensively towards developing a suite of renewables that will assist us to meet the gap. In Alberta they have actually set up a solar bank. Alberta, as you would know, is one of the provinces of Canada, somewhat to the northern latitudes. If Alberta can set up a solar bank, why can’t Australia? The fact is that without a substantial commitment to developing a suite of renewable energy sources, without a substantial commitment to a decent sized mandatory renewable energy target, we end up with bills which, whilst welcome, go a very short distance towards dealing with the kinds of issues that we have in front of us.

It is not as though the parliament has not had an opportunity to consider it, and it is not as though members on both sides have not come out with some extremely good and I think very productive suggestions. I am referring to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage report Sustainable cities. This report, which had bipartisan support, produced 32 recommendations, which encompassed governance and policy, planning, transport, water, building design and energy, as well as research and feedback.

I call on the government to implement those recommendations. There is no reason whatsoever that the government should not move, as a matter of urgency, to considering and implementing those recommendations. I will take this opportunity to identify several of them here. I understand that the member for Wentworth, amongst others, is going to speak to this committee report, and I commend him for doing that. I think he and other members of the committee have come up with something which they believe would address the collision point that I have referred to, but now the onus is on the government to do something about it.

In terms of governance and policy frameworks, those recommendations included, amongst other things, establishing a sustainability charter that would be adhered to by all levels of government and establishing a sustainability commissioner to monitor this charter. The idea of a sustainability commissioner is very close to my heart. In my previous life as president of the ACF I pushed very strongly to premiers and to opposition leaders, prime ministers and treasurers in this House that we ought to reform the COAG process entirely and put it on a footing which included sustainability. I have been very pleased to see that some of those earlier suggestions—I do not take credit for them; I am just noting this—have been taken up by diverse groups, including the Property Council of Australia, the Royal Institute of Architects and others. In fact they are reflected in the House of Representatives standing committee report Sustainable cities and are starting to be reflected in work that has been done by the competition watchdogs, the Productivity Commission and Treasury. I cannot stress more significantly how important I think this work really is. Until we start to deliver a sustainability agenda into the policy processes, through cooperative federalism, we will continue to have piecemeal bits of legislation come through the House which will not deal with the real problem.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage further recommended, in relation to planning and settlement patterns, that the Department of Transport and Regional Services invite representatives from the Department of the Environment and Heritage and CSIRO to join the development assessment forum. That is a sensible recommendation. There is a recommendation to investigate sustainable modes of transport, including investment in public transport. On water, building design and management and energy, there is a recommendation to further encourage the uptake of photovoltaic systems and renewable energy, and to investigate the benefits of decentralised energy delivery and solar energy. I call upon the government to both consider and implement those recommendations.

For fear of pushing too strongly the barrow about energy in this debate, in the time that I have left, I want to draw attention to the statement recently released by the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, on what a prudent and appropriate energy policy would look like in Australia, including processing of liquid gases to fuels. I suggest at this stage that the requirement for industry to implement energy efficiency savings which are identified for the government can only be made effective if targets are set—if there is a national sustainability framework which sets targets for the reductions of greenhouse emissions and for the increases in energy efficiency. It is not that hard to do.

Many years ago I built my own sustainable three-bay shed in New South Wales. Honourable members present who have a rural background will recognise that one of the reasons I built a three-bay shed was to encourage my neighbours, who were familiar with the shed—a tractor goes in one part of the shed, hay goes in another and the rest of the tools go in another—to consider not having to go on to the grid. They could have a couple of modest solar panels on the roof, some yachting fixtures that take 12-volt in both the kitchen and the bathroom, composting done out the back and a little bit of LPG for the stove. Guess what? Running costs per annum were in the vicinity of between $50 and $75. It can be done very easily. I was lucky enough to be able to do it a number of years ago. I hope some of my neighbours will have followed suit. More importantly, and to make my personal asides serious, this needs to be done nationally. So we call on the government to implement the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage in the Sustainable cities report as a matter of urgency.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned.