Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (09:37): I seek leave to move a motion against the Prime Minister.

Leave not granted.

Mr SHORTEN: So much for enthusiasm to debate parliamentary issues. I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Maribyrnong from moving the following motion forthwith—That the House:

(1) condemns the Prime Minister for his plans to:

(a) force Australian students to pay $100,000 for university degrees;

(b) saddle Australian students with a debt sentence;

(c) force young Australians to choose between owning a home and getting a degree;

(d) force Australians to choose between starting a family and getting a degree; and

(e) stop older Australians from developing new skills in a changing economy;

(2) condemns the Prime Minister for:

(a) saying one thing on higher education before the election and doing the opposite after;

(b) his failure to listen to the Australian people who have comprehensively rejected the Prime Minister’s plans for $100,000 university degrees; and

(c) his failure to listen to the Senate which voted against the Prime Minister’s $100,000 degree proposal only last night; and

(3) calls on the Prime Minister to immediately bring the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill on for debate, if the Government is determined to introduce the bill, so that this Parliament can again comprehensively reject the Prime Minister’s plans for $100,000 degrees.

Labor will not support higher fees, bigger debt, decreased access and greater inequality. We want the Liberal Party to stick by its promise that they will—

The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I call the parliamentary secretary.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (09:40): I move:

That the Leader of the Opposition be no longer heard.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard.

The SPEAKER (09:50): Is the motion seconded?

Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (09:50): I second the motion. It is time this Prime Minister started listening to the Australian people and scrapped—

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (09:50): I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (09:53): It is important that this suspension of standing orders be carried. The Minister for Education has not even bothered to come to the chamber. He is not even here—

The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. And the minister will resume his seat. I intend to put the question. The question is that the suspension motion be agreed to.

Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I am in the middle of my speech.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. I call the member for Watson.

Mr BURKE: They are running scared. They know the Australian people oppose what they are doing on higher education—

Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Social Services) (09:54): I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard.

Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Social Services) (09:56): I move:

That the question be now put.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the question be now put.

The SPEAKER ( 09:59): The question now is that the suspension motion be agreed to.

The House divided. [10:00]

(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)

Question negatived

Mr BALDWIN (Paterson—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) (10:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr BALDWIN: Australia ' s success in the offshore petroleum investment market is underpinned by its comprehensive and well-established regulatory framework. Central to this framework is the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA), a national regulator with the experience and technical capacity to effectively regulate in relation to matters of occupational health and safety, structural integrity, and environmental management.

In F ebruary 2014, the Commonwealth g overnment announced a new streamlined approach for environmental approvals for offshore petroleum activities. The approach makes NOPSEMA the sole environmental regulator for these activities in Commonwealth waters.

Streamlining has significantly increased regulatory efficiency in respect of petroleum activities in Commonwealth waters, as well as delivering clarity and certainty for industry participants.

Recognising these significant gains, the Commonwealth g overnment is seeking to streamline regulatory arrangements in respect of all offshore petroleum activities. As part of this process, the s tates and the Northern Territory are being encouraged to confer occupational health and safety, structural integrity and environmental management functions and powers upon NOPSEMA under their respective legislation in respect of those waters of the sea within their jurisdictional reach.

This would permit the s tates and the Northern Territory to benefit from the expertise and experience of an established national regulator, and increase the efficiency of the administrative process by minimising the number of regulatory agencies with whom industry participants must deal.

However, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act in its present iteration includes a number of legislative impediments to conferral. For example, there is a requirement to conclude an intergovernmental agreement before conferral is permitted in respect of certain areas of the sea. In relation to others, conferral is not permitted at all.

The amendments in this b ill seek to remove these impediments, thereby permitting conferral across as wide a geographic area as possible.

This represents an important step towards the establishment of a single national regulator for all safety, structural integrity and environmental management matters in the offshore petroleum sector. Moreove r, it underscores this g overnment ' s ongoing commitment to the maintenance and improvement of a strong and effective regulatory framework, and to a cooperative approach to the regulation of offshore petroleum activities.

The b ill further makes a number of technical amendments to the administrative framework relating to the taking of particular voluntary actions under the Act and regulations by multiple registered holders of a single petroleum title.

Due to the high cost of offshore petroleum operations, petroleum titles are often held by a consortium of companies. The a ct at present provides a mandatory process by which titleholders may take an action, such as submission of an application or nomination, that is permitted, but not required, to be taken under the a ct or regulations, where there is more than one registered holder of the relevant title. Such an action is defined under the a ct as an ' eligible voluntary action ' . The process requires the holders of the title to nominate one of them to take eligible voluntary actions on behalf of the group, and only the nominated person can take an eligible voluntary action.

However, application of the process in practice has created some confusion among titleholders, particularly in relation to the mandatory nature of the process, and also identified several unintended consequences.

The amendments in this b ill seek to clarify the operation of the process relating to the taking of eligible voluntary actions and, importantly, provide an alternative process for the taking of eligible voluntary actions that titleholders may elect to use instead of the current nomination process. The alternative process would require all of the registered holders of the title to take the action jointly, such as by all signing the relevant application or nomination. The current nomination process will also still be available for use where a group of titleholders prefer this option. I commend this b ill to the House.

I would now like to take the opportunity to foreshadow another significant amendment to the act. As all present are no doubt aware, Australia's exploration and mining success is underpinned by its highly prospective geology, up-to-date geoscience data and comprehensive information systems. The custodian of Australia's geographic and geological data is the national geoscience agency, Geoscience Australia. As part of its core functions, Geoscience Australia has an ongoing responsibility to define the limits of Australia's maritime jurisdiction. Most recently, this work has resulted in a change to the boundary separating Commonwealth waters from the coastal waters of Western Australia. These changes, centred on the North Scott and Seringapatam Reefs, took effect from May this year. The revised boundaries around these reefs intersect three existing Commonwealth titles: one retention lease operated by Woodside Petroleum on behalf of the Browse joint venture, and two exploration permits operated by ConocoPhillips on behalf of the Poseidon joint venture. The maritime boundary changes mean that certain blocks previously falling within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth now fall within that of Western Australia.

Our department is working closely with the Western Australian government to ensure the stable progression of the Browse and Poseidon joint ventures and to ensure the seamless and efficient transition of affected blocks from Commonwealth to Western Australian waters. This work has uncovered a gap within the Commonwealth offshore petroleum regime administered under the OPGGS Act. The gap will be of particular concern should a change to maritime boundaries in future cause an area presently within the jurisdiction of a state or the Northern Territory to fall within Commonwealth waters.

At present, there is no legislative mechanism enabling titles over affected blocks to transfer, with continuity of tenure, from the jurisdiction of the states or the Northern Territory to that of the Commonwealth following a boundary change. Instead, affected blocks become vacant acreage in Commonwealth waters and existing titleholders will lose title over those blocks. These titleholders may have already spent considerable sums of money and effort undertaking exploration activities under their title, and therefore titleholders should have continuity of tenure in the event of a boundary change.

While this will not impact current efforts in Western Australia, it is necessary to amend the act to anticipate those circumstances in which a future boundary change results in a gain of Commonwealth jurisdiction over the blocks. Given the ongoing nature of Geoscience Australia's effort to define Australia's maritime border, changes of this type are a realistic prospect. The proposed amendment will provide for the automatic grant of a Commonwealth title over affected blocks to the existing holders of a state or Northern Territory title at the time at which the state or Northern Territory title ceases to be in force.

The amendment is generic in nature and it is intended that it will provide a workable model for other jurisdictions to adopt. This will allow for consistency across Australia's offshore petroleum legislative framework, eliminate the sovereign risk created by future boundary changes, and ensure continuity of tenure for existing titleholders. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Mr BALDWIN (Paterson—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) (10:13): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill will make amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Act 2003 (Levies Act) that are made necessary by amendments contained in the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2014 (Miscellaneous Measures Bill). That bill expands the geographical scope of the definition of 'designated coastal waters' in the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (OPGGS Act).

The effect of those amendments in the Miscellaneous Measures Bill is to permit the states and the Northern Territory to confer particular functions and powers upon the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) in respect of all of the waters of the sea that are on the landward side of the Commonwealth offshore area.

NOPSEMA operates on a fully cost recovered basis through fees and levies payable by the offshore petroleum industry. The levies act at present facilitates cost recovery, by imposing levies in respect of regulatory activities conducted by NOPSEMA in Commonwealth waters, as well as in designated coastal waters of states and the Northern Territory where functions and powers have been conferred by state and Northern Territory law.

Under the levies act, 'designated coastal waters' is defined to have the same meaning as within the OPGGS Act. Expanding the geographic coverage of the designated coastal waters under the OPGGS Act would therefore consequently extend the area in respect of which levies are potentially imposed.

Legal advice obtained by our department indicated that this consequential expansion of the application of the levies act will create a medium to high level of risk of constitutional invalidity, as it would potentially result in the imposition of a tax that discriminates between states or parts of states on the basis of geographic location. This bill therefore amends the levies act to limit the operation of the levy regime to the area constituted by the existing definition of designated coastal waters. In other words, the levies act will continue to apply in the same area that it currently does, and not to the expanded area of designated coastal waters.

The effect of these amendments will be that NOPSEMA will not recover costs associated with regulatory functions performed in waters that do not fall within the existing definition of 'designated coastal waters' by way of levies imposed under the levies act.

I note that, given the lack of current activity in these waters, this is unlikely to have a significant impact in the near future. The Commonwealth will bring forward alternative options to ensure that NOPSEMA will be able to fully recover costs associated with the performance of regulatory functions conferred by a state or the Northern Territory.

Debate adjourned.

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) (10:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill contains a package of important measures to implement the government's election commitment to enhance online safety for children.

It creates a new statutory office, the Children's e-Safety Commissioner, and provides for the commissioner to administer a complaints scheme in relation to harmful cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child.

The measures in this bill follow extensive consultation carried out by the coalition, both in opposition and more recently in government.

In particular, this bill implements measures which were promised in the Coalition's policy to enhance online safety for childrenat the 2013 election:

Establishment of a Children's e-Safety Commissioner to take a national leadership role in online safety for children;

Implementing an effective complaints system, backed by legislation, to get material targeted at and harmful to an Australian child, down quickly from large social media sites; and

Improving support for schools through a stronger online safety component within the National Safe Schools Framework, funding $7.5 million for schools to access online safety programs and the certification of online safety programs.

Earlier this year, the government released a public discussion paper seeking feedback on our proposed measures.

We received over 80 submissions from a range of stakeholders including community organisations, industry, education bodies, government bodies, legal bodies, academics and individuals.

There was a strong response, with many organisations supporting the proposal to establish a Children's e-Safety Commissioner and the rapid-takedown system.

The government also commissioned research from a consortium of universities led by the University of New South Wales Social Policy Research Centre.

This very much confirmed the messages we have been hearing from the community about the prevalence and impact of cyberbullying.

The research found that the best estimate of the prevalence of cyberbullying over a 12-month period is 20 per cent of Australians aged eight to 17, with some studies putting that figure as low as six per cent and others as high as 40 per cent.

This is within the range of estimates of other international studies, and is consistent with previous work done by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which found that 21 per cent of 14- to 15-year-olds and 16 per cent of 16- to 17-year-olds had reported being cyberbullied.

The research found that most incidents of cyberbullying occurred on social media—and that the prevalence of cyberbullying has 'rapidly increased' since it first emerged as a behaviour.

Following the research findings and public consultation process, the government has continued to engage with key stakeholders, including each of the members of the government's Online Safety Consultative Working Group.

This group includes the National Children's Commissioner, various industry groups, large social media services (including Facebook, Google and Twitter), child safety advocates and law enforcement officials.

The legislation introduced today implements the government's election commitment to enhance the online safety of children through a number of measures.

Establishment of the C hildren's e-Safety Commissioner

The bill will establish the Children's e‑Safety Commissioner as an independent statutory office within the Australian Communications and Media Authority. The commissioner will take a national leadership role in online safety for children.

A key function of the commissioner is to administer a complaints system for cyberbullying material targeted at an Australian child, which I will describe later in this speech.

Other functions of the commissioner will include promoting online safety for children, coordinating relevant activities of Commonwealth departments, authorities and agencies in relation to online safety for children, and accrediting and evaluating online safety educational programs.

The relevance of accreditation is that the government is allocating $7.5 million for schools to purchase online safety programs—and this funding can be spent on any program accredited by the Children's e-Safety Commissioner.

The commissioner will also take on responsibility for administering the current Online Content Scheme presently contained in schedules 5 and 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

However, it is important to understand that this represents the commissioner taking responsibility for the administration of this existing and longstanding scheme. This bill does not make any changes to the Online Content Scheme.

It is quite separate from the new complaints system established by this bill.

The logic for giving the commissioner responsibility for both the existing Online Content Scheme, and the new complaints system for harmful cyber-bullying material targeted at an Australian child, is that there are likely to be operational efficiencies and synergies in doing so.

Two-tiered rapid removal scheme

The bill sets out a two-tiered scheme for the rapid removal from large social media services of cyber-bullying material targeted at an Australian child. Social media services participating under tier 1 will do so on a cooperative basis—that is, the service will apply to participate and if its application is accepted it will be included within tier 1.

Following investigation of a complaint, the commissioner may request that the tier 1 social media service remove the cyber-bullying material, but there is no legal obligation on the social media service to comply.

The commissioner will have the power to revoke tier 1 status if the social media service repeatedly fails to remove cyber-bullying material following requests from the commissioner over a period of 12 months, and may make a recommendation to the minister that the service be declared a tier 2 social media service.

A service may also be declared tier 2 at its own request.

Those declared to be tier 2 social media services will be subject to legally binding notices or face the risk of civil penalties for non-compliance.

The two-tier scheme in the bill allows for a light touch regulatory scheme in circumstances where the social media service has an effective complaints system and it is working well; but it enables the government to require that cyber-bullying material targeted at an Australian child be removed in circumstances where the social media service does not have an effective and well resourced complaints system.

The commissioner will maintain registers of tier 1 and tier 2 social media services. The commissioner will also be able to publish statements about non-compliant social media services in respect of failing to comply with the basic online safety requirements, failing to comply with a request for removal of cyber-bullying material, or failing to comply with a social media service notice.

End-user notices

The commissioner will also be given the power to issue an end-user notice to a person who posts cyber-bullying material targeted at an Australian child.

The government has drawn on a number of models in developing this mechanism. One is the process set out in the New Zealand Harmful Digital Communications Bill.

Another is the experience of the National Children's and Youth Law Centre based at the University of New South Wales. They have found that in many cases a formal written request to cease cyber-bullying behaviour, issued by the centre, resolves the issue.

An end-user notice may require the recipient of the notice to take all reasonable steps to remove the material, refrain from posting further material targeted at the child or apologise for posting the material.

The next steps available to the commissioner, if the recipient of the notice fails to respond, will include going to court to seek an injunction, or referring the matter to police.

The bill will not include a power for the commissioner to fine end-users who fail to respond to a notice (many of whom could be children), because the government is wary of imposing fines on children in this area.

The government anticipates that the commissioner will enter into arrangements with the police and educational bodies setting out the circumstances in which matters would be dealt with by those parties.

Key Definitions

Cyber-bullying material targeted at an Australian child

The definition of 'cyber-bullying material targeted at an Australian child' in clause 5 of the bill has been developed after careful consideration of a number of sources.

These have included provisions in other Australian legislation, for example in relation to workplace bullying; the New Zealand Harmful Digital Communications Bill which refers to 'serious emotional distress'; academic research on the normative definitions of cyber-bullying; the terms of use of a number of the large social media services; and the cyber-bullying policies of state government agencies such as the New South Wales Department of Education.

There is an important balance to be struck here. On the one hand we seek to capture the full breadth of cyber-bullying material. On the other hand we do not want a regulatory scheme which is excessive or heavy handed and which regulates material that does not need to be regulated.

Striking this balance is particularly important given the power conferred on the commissioner by the bill—to have material removed at very short notice if the commissioner concludes that it is cyber-bullying material targeted at an Australian child.

In other words, it is important that we do not set the bar too low—but equally it is important that we do not set the bar too high.

Three key features will affect how the definition is applied.

First, material must be likely to have the effect of seriously threatening, intimidating, harassing or humiliating a particular Australian child. The use of the word 'seriously' in the bill is intended to guide the commissioner, and the courts, so that material which is merely minor, trivial or frivolous in nature is not regarded as cyber-bullying.

Second, the definition includes the capacity for the legislative rules to include other conditions if it becomes apparent during the course of administering the legislation that further conditions are necessary.

Third, the definition will be applied in the commissioner's exercise of discretionary powers to issue notices. In the exercise of these powers, it is expected that the commissioner will exercise judgement and common sense, and will act consistently with best practice guidelines and statements issued by the commissioner. The legislation gives the commissioner the power to develop and issue such guidelines.

The government is conscious that when children—particularly teenagers—communicate online, they may use swear words, or describe a person in terms that appear derogatory, but it may well be that this is simply the normal interaction between friends and acquaintances. Any parent of teenagers will understand this point immediately.

Ultimately it will be a judgement for the commissioner, and there will be many indicators of seriousness in the broader context of the events occurring that may assist the commissioner to apply the definition, such as the intensity of the language used, the material being posted repeatedly and whether or not the recipient or target of the material is on friendly terms with the person posting the material. Social media service

For the purposes of the bill, a social media service is an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:

the sole or primary purpose of the service is to enable online social interaction between two or more end-users;

the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users; and

the service allows end-users to post material to the service.

For the purposes of this definition, online social interaction includes the sharing of photos, videos or other material for social purposes. Social interaction does not include business interactions.

The definition of social media service allows legislative rules to include or exempt specified services. The constant innovation in social media services makes these powers necessary to deal with new kinds of services which may emerge in the future.

The commissioner's formal legal powers to issue a social media service notice will apply only to a 'large social media service'—or another service that has voluntarily consented to be subject to the scheme.

The powers will not apply to small offshore-based social media services. That is because seeking to make such services subject to Australian legal jurisdiction is unlikely to succeed if those services have no nexus with Australia.

However, the commissioner will be expected to make (and maintain) contact with new and emerging social media services accessible to Australian children, wherever they are based around the world, to let them know that if they became large, they will become subject to the Australian legislation, and to seek to establish a relationship under which informal requests to remove cyber-bullying material targeted at an Australian child can be made.

Basic o nline safety requirements

The legislation will state the parliament's expectation that all social media services should comply with certain basic online safety requirements, to have:

terms of use that prohibit the posting of cyber-bullying material;

a complaints scheme under which end-users of the service can seek to have material that breaches the service's terms of use removed; and

a contact person where the commissioner can refer complaints that users consider have not been adequately dealt with.

As part of establishing relationships with social media services accessible to Australian children, wherever they may be based around the world, the commissioner will be expected to communicate the expectations set out in the bill of the basic online safety requirements.

Enforcement provisions

The bill contains enforcement provisions. If a person fails to comply with a requirement under an end-user notice, the commissioner will be able to issue a formal warning.

If the provider of a social media service fails to comply with a social media service notice, it will be liable to pay a penalty of 100 penalty units—for each day in which the service fails to respond.

The commissioner will additionally be able to accept an enforceable undertaking from such a provider.

In the case of either a requirement under an end-user notice or a requirement under a social media service notice, the commissioner will be able to go to court to obtain an injunction to ensure compliance with the notice.

In each case, enforcement is governed by the standard provisions that are contained in the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014.

Conclusion

The measures in this bill implement key aspects of the government's election commitment to enhance online safety for Australian children.

The internet—and social media—offers a forum for human interaction which in the main is of great social benefit. But sometimes human interactions go wrong—offline or online.

When that happens, the internet—and social media in particular—can make bullying behaviours more dangerous to children who are the victim of those behaviours.

The measures in this bill will bring a better and more rapid response to these dangers—and help keep Australian children safer online.

Debate adjourned.

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) (10:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill deals with consequential matters arising from the enactment of the Enhancing Online Safety For Children Bill 2014 which establishes the Children's e-Safety Commissioner to take a national leadership role in online safety for children.

Schedule 1 of the Consequential Amendments Bill contains amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to:

give the commissioner information gathering powers similar to those currently possessed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (known as the ACMA) under part 13 of that act;

change references in schedules 5 and 7 to the Broadcasting Services Act from the Australian Communications and Media Authority to the commissioner to reflect the transfer of administrative responsibility for the Online Content Scheme in those schedules to the commissioner; and

make minor consequential amendments to provisions in those schedules.

Schedule 2 contains consequential amendments to other acts arising from the establishment of the commissioner.

Schedule 3 contains transitional provisions relating to the transfer of administrative responsibility for the Online Content Scheme in schedules 5 and 7 to the Broadcasting Services Act to the commissioner.

Debate adjourned.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (10:36): I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Project JP154 Phase 1—Defence Counter Improvised Explosive Device Capability Facilities and Infrastructure Project.

As I advised the House, when referring this project to the Public Works Committee, the Department of Defence is proposing to deliver new and refurbished purpose-built facilities and associated infrastructure to support sustainable defence counter improvised explosive device capability into the Australian Defence Force. The facilities will support research and development; engineering acceptance and testing; and storage and training for forced protection electronic countermeasures equipment.

The committee has conducted an inquiry and is of the view that this project signifies value for money for the Commonwealth and constitutes a project which is fit for purpose and it is expedient to carry out the proposed work.

On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for once again undertaking a rigorous and a timely inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is scheduled to commence in South Australia in early 2015 and is planned to be completed on all other sites by late 2015. These are important works and I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (10:38): I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Project JP3029 Phase 2—Defence Space Surveillance Telescope Facilities Project.

As I advised the House, when referring this project to the Public Works Committee, the Department of Defence proposes to construct a space surveillance telescope facility at Harold E Holt Naval Communication Station in Exmouth, Western Australia. The facility will provide the Australian Defence Force with the capability to identify space based threats. The facility will also demonstrate a commitment to closer space cooperation between Australia and the United States of America.

The committee has conducted an inquiry and is of the view that the project signifies value for money for the Commonwealth and constitutes a project which is fit for purpose. It is expedient to carry out the proposed work. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for once again undertaking a rigorous and a timely inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in early 2015 and be completed by late 2016. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (10:40): I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Hamilton Island Replacement Fire Station Project.

Airservices Australia is proposing to construct a new aviation rescue and firefighting facility at Hamilton Island Airport. The proposed works will include new fire tender bays, maintenance facilities, a fire control centre, office facilities, amenities and associated storage. The project is valued at $13.4 million, excluding GST, which includes all development and delivery costs, management and design fees, construction costs, information communication technology, furniture, fittings and equipment, contingencies and an allowance for escalation.

While the project is under the medium works threshold, I have agreed with the Public Works Committee's request that this project be referred for a full inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is scheduled to commence in mid-2015 and is planned to be completed by mid-2016. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (10:42): I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Fit-out of new leased premises for the Department of Finance, ACT.

This Department of Finance proposes to fit out the new leased premises at 1 Canberra Avenue, Forrest, in the Australian Capital Territory. The department currently owns and leases space in seven tenancies across the ACT. It is desirable that the department be located in, or close to, the Parliamentary Triangle so that it can provide crucial support to its minister and the Expenditure Review Committee of cabinet in the budget process. As a central agency the department has traditionally been located in the Parliamentary Triangle.

The department's proposed fit-out of the new leased premises will provide capacity for the co-location of all of its ACT based staff, with the exception of COMCAR, and opportunities for significant benefits in relation to functionality, operating efficiencies and reduced administrative overheads.

Finance has estimated that the total cost of the proposed fit-out will be $32.066 million plus GST, including builders' costs; consultant costs; furniture; fittings and equipment; and workstations. The co-location will support the department's business needs resulting in savings in property operating expenses and lost productivity due to travel between tenancies.

Subject to parliamentary approval, the proposed fit-out works are scheduled to commence by April 2015 with staged practical completion scheduled from 1 July 2015. I am sure the committee will undertake a rigorous inquiry into the project and I look forward to reading its report in due course. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (10:44): I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: The Cox Peninsula Remediation Project.

The Department of Finance is proposing to undertake remediation of contamination on sections 32, 34 and 41 on the Cox Peninsula, Northern Territory. The remediation project will involve the construction of a containment cell on section 34, which will then be used to store approximately 28,500 cubic metres of contaminated material, including asbestos from all three sites. Non-contaminated material will be recycled, as appropriate, at existing facilities in the Northern Territory. The project will address the risk of contamination to local bore water, which supplies the local population at Wagait with drinking water. Once concluded, the project will enable the land to be transferred to the traditional owners, as part of the long running Kenbi land claim, lodged in 1979.

It will also minimise Commonwealth liability for contamination on Commonwealth land, which has resulted from its use over 70 years. The estimated cost of the project is $31.5 million, excluding GST. This includes the construction of the containment cell, collection treatment and disposal of waste, as well as escalation. Subject to parliamentary approval, the works are expected to commence in March 2015 and to be concluded by 2018.

The wet season in the Northern Territory generally occurs from October to April, so remediation works to the Cox Peninsula will generally be concluded between April and October in each year for the duration of the project. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (10:46): on behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's 17th report of the 44th Parliament entitled Examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011:bills introduced 24-27 November 2014, legislative instruments received 24-30 October 2014and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON: by leave—I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' 17th report of the 44th Parliament, the committee's last report for 2014.

This report provides the committee's view on the compatibility with human rights as defined in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 of bills introduced during the period 24 to 27 November 2014 and legislative instruments received during the period 24 to 30 October 2014. The committee has also considered responses to the committee's comments in previous reports.

Of the 17 bills introduced in the period covered by the report, eight are assessed as not raising significant human rights concerns. The committee has deferred its consideration of the remaining bills.

A number of the bills considered have been scheduled for debate during this sitting week, including: the Acts and Instruments (Framework Reform) Bill 2014; the ACT Government Loan Bill 2014; and the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2014.

As always, the report outlines the committee's examination of the compatibility of these bills with our human rights obligations. I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their consideration of proposed legislation.

In this report, in addition to the usual analysis of bills and instruments, the committee has published two revised guidance notes. Having been in operation for over two years, it is timely for the committee to reflect on its practices and how it communicates its approach and expectations to legislation proponents.

The first, which replaces practice note No. 1, sets out the committee's general approach to its scrutiny task and its expectations regarding the information provided in statements of compatibility. Importantly, the committee confirms that its reports seek to largely focus on significant human rights issues and not on matters of marginal or academic interest alone.

The second guidance note, which replaces interim practice note No. 2, provides guidance to legislation proponents on the human rights assessment of offence provisions, and particularly the characterisation of offence provisions and civil penalty provisions for human rights purposes.

My expectation is that these guidance notes will provide useful instructions to departments and legislation proponents on the committee's approach to the interpretation and application of international human rights law. The committee has sought to harmonise its guidance with the approach and guidance of the Office of International Law in the Attorney-General's Department. The committee is grateful for the productive engagement of the officers who have assisted in these efforts.

As this is the committee's last report for the year, I provide the following brief snapshot of the committee's work in 2014. The committee has considered 250 bills and 1,717 instruments. Of those, 213 bills—out of 250 bills—and 1,707 instruments were found to be compatible with human rights. It is crucial to note that, while much of the attention on the committee's work focuses on legislation that is or may be incompatible with human rights, in the vast majority of cases proposed legislation is in fact compatible or, indeed, may even promote human rights.

Looking back at the committee's achievements this year, I would draw attention to the committee's examination of four national security bills, introduced with the aim of ensuring Australia is best placed to combat terrorism and that law enforcement and intelligence agencies are sufficiently equipped to keep the nation safe. National security legislation necessarily strongly engages with human rights and these bills have raised complex issues around balancing the protection of human rights with national security objectives. I believe that the committee has not, since its establishment, considered any legislation as challenging in this regard.

I particularly want to thank my fellow committee members for their work on these bills. More generally, I would also like to thank my committee colleagues, who have engaged with the committee's work and who have done so in keeping with the scrutiny tradition of undertaking technical and bipartisan inquiry into the merits of proposed legislation and, in the case of this committee's particular task, the compatibility of proposed legislation with the human rights conventions signed up to by previous Australian governments.

To put aside personal opinions on the policy merits of legislation is not always easy to accomplish and, for doing so in the interests of providing credible reports to inform the debates of the parliament, I recognise and commend committee members for their service to this institution and to the legislators within it.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Ivan Powell, the committee secretary; Professor Simon Rice, the committee's current legal adviser; Professor Andrew Byrnes, the former legal adviser; and all the staff in the secretariat for their professionalism and hard work over the past year, which is so crucial to the committee's operation. With these comments, I commend the committee's 17th report of the 44th Parliament to the House.

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (10:53): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Introduction

Today I introduce the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 to secure the passage of essential reforms to higher education and research, which have at their heart Australia's future economic security and opportunities for students.

This bill implements reforms to higher education and research announced in the 2014-15 budget, which seek to spread opportunity to more students, especially disadvantaged and rural and regional students; equip Australian universities to face the challenges of the 21st century; and ensure Australia is not left behind by intensifying global competition and new technologies.

Naturally, I am disappointed about the outcome of the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014, which was defeated yesterday in the Senate following a sustained, baseless and irresponsible scare campaign.

We should all be disappointed. That bill, in amended form, would have shown the worth of our democratic process, representing, as it did, the outcome of many months of consultation and negotiation on the detail of the reform package.

I am therefore introducing a new bill, the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014, which preserves essential elements of the government's higher education reforms with the following changes:

The government has withdrawn the proposal to change the indexation to the 10-year Treasury bond rate. I accept that there were concerns about the impact of the previously proposed measure on some graduates, including those who take time out of the workforce to raise children or for other reasons, and those who work in low-paid employment. Senator Day and others argued cogently for this change, and we have responded to their concerns.

I have also listened carefully to Senator Madigan's arguments for a pause on HECS indexation for primary carers of a child under five. This bill, the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014, contains this measure. It will provide real benefits for new parents.

This bill also provides for a structural adjustment fund to assist universities to transition to a more competitive market, particularly those in regional areas.

The bill also introduces a new scholarship fund within the Higher Education and Participation Program for universities with high proportions of low-SES students.

The bill will also guarantee that domestic students' fees are lower than international students' fees.

Through returning the indexation rate for HECS debts to CPI, providing the indexation pause for new parents and abolishing the unfair loan fees imposed on some students but not others, this reform bill makes the HECS system fairer and more generous. Through the provision of support—for the first time—for all Australian undergraduates, wherever they study, in diploma courses through to bachelor degrees, we will be supporting far more students than ever before. The reform bill spreads the money slightly thinner so as to spread opportunity much wider.

Through freeing up our universities, we will enable them to offer students the very best education they can, and HECS guarantees that this will remain affordable and accessible for all. In fact, the Commonwealth Scholarships will support tens of thousands of disadvantaged students to go to university. This is not just a budget measure. This is great reform. It is some of the most important reform in generations.

I am, of course, open to further negotiations with members and senators on the details of the bill. Contrary to some of the irresponsible negative commentary from those opposite, the government has been consulting extensively before and since budget night and has demonstrated already our bona fides in responding to constructive, positive suggestions.

The government has made the changes I have mentioned to its proposed reforms because it has listened carefully to the views of those in the higher education community—universities, non-university higher education institutions, students, their parents, employers and professional organisations.

I have taken careful account of the recommendations of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee following its inquiry into the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014.

I have consulted with members and senators, who have relayed the views of their constituents as well as their own thoughts on the proposed reforms.

I have said many times that I was prepared to make changes to the reform package to secure its passage through the parliament.

I believe that these reforms are nothing short of essential to the wellbeing of Australia's future economy. Without them, Australia simply will not prosper.

I am not alone in this view. This has been the clear message from higher education institutions across the country.

It is what they want.

It is what universities, TAFEs and colleges know isneeded for the future of higher education and for the future of our country.

Universities Australia, the Australian Technology Network, the Innovative Research Universities, the Regional Universities Network, the Group of Eight, TAFE Directors Australia, the Australian Council of Private Higher Education and Training and the Council of Private Higher Education have all supported the government's reforms, with amendments.

As Universities Australia said:

Either the status quo of ongoing inadequate investment or further cuts without deregulation will condemn Australia's great university system to inevitable decline, threaten our international reputation and make it increasingly difficult for universities to meet the quality expectations of our students …

Overview of the reforms

The Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 does not contain any tricks. It is much the same as the bill I introduced a few months ago which was yesterday defeated in the Senate, with the important amendments I outlined just a moment ago.

As such, this bill has the same objectives as its predecessor. It provides a basis to transform Australia's higher education system and allow it to be the best in the world.

There are four key elements.

Spreading access to higher education

This bill will expand access to higher education by removing current limits on Commonwealth supported sub-bachelor places. Any Australian student who wishes to study an accredited undergraduate qualification will be able to do so with Commonwealth support.

We will no longer discriminate against students who seek to enrol at private universities and at non-university higher education institutions, including TAFEs.

We are also providing unlimited places for diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees—pathways into higher education for less-prepared students, and qualifications for jobs in their own right.

This government believes that engineering technologists, paralegals and construction managers are as deserving of taxpayer support to undertake their training as engineers, lawyers and architects.

This reform allows an additional 80,000 students each year to receive Commonwealth subsidies by 2018. This will include more people from disadvantaged backgrounds, from rural and regional communities and those who need extra assistance to complete their studies.

Member institutions of the Council of Private Higher Education (COPHE) have confirmed that 'whatever they receive in Commonwealth support for students will be passed on to students' through reduced tuition fees.

Equitable access will be further supported through the new Commonwealth Scholarship scheme. The Commonwealth Scholarship scheme will provide what is likely to be the largest scholarship support in Australia's history for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, which will enable many students from rural and regional Australia to get the education that they wish to have. These scholarships will assist students with the cost of tuition fees and also with the cost of living, textbooks and materials.

Fee deregulation

Second, the bill gives institutions flexibility in how they set their fees.

The government does not believe it should tell institutions how much they can charge for a course. Government control of fees means that institutions are operating with one arm tied behind their back.

The government does not have adequate information about how much it costs an institution to deliver a course, so why should it dictate the price?

No other business in Australia would stand for this degree of interference.

The government wants universities and other higher education institutions to compete with each other, including on price. We want each institution to be accountable to students for the type and quality of courses they offer. They need to deliver what students and employers want.

When higher education providers compete, students win. They win on:

the range of courses offered

the quality of teaching

other student support

scholarships

value for money.

Fee deregulation is essential to drive greater competition, innovation and quality. It will enable our institutions to set their own direction, serve their students and communities as well as they can, and compete with the best in the world.

And the bill provides this flexibility without reducing access or affordability. Every Australian student will continue to be able to defer their tuition fees through HECS so they do not have to pay a cent up-front or pay a cent back until they are earning more than $50,000 each year.

A fairer higher education system

This brings me to HECS.

HECS is critical to ensuring that no student is denied the benefit of a higher education. Providing assistance to students through HECS comes at a cost. This year the government is providing more than $5 billion in HECS loans, and this will increase to $10 billion in 2017. The government sought to introduce a fair interest rate on loans to alleviate taxpayers of some of this cost burden. However, as I indicated earlier, I have removed this proposal from the package, and as a consequence it is not contained within this bill. HECS indexation will continue to be based on the CPI.

As I have indicated, the bill also reflects Senator Madigan's proposal to freeze interest charges for the primary carers of a child under five. This family-friendly proposal joins with Senator Day's proposal in taking us back to CPI for indexation of HECS debts, and goes further. It provides a wholly new benefit to graduates caring for young children.

Again, the important thing is, HECS is here to stay, so no Australian student need ever pay a cent up-front for their higher education course.

Our HECS system is the envy of the world—introduced by the Hawke-Keating government, in fact. But one thing that is clearly wrong with the student loan system is the 25 per cent additional fee that is imposed on students who choose to study in a non-Commonwealth supported place, and the 20 per cent on students studying with the support of VET FEE-HELP.

So the government is acting to make the system fairer by removing inequities in the treatment of students and institutions under the HECS scheme. Consistent with the budget announcement, the bill removes the 20 per cent loan fee for VET FEE-HELP and the 25 per cent loan fee for FEE-HELP. These loan fees are an unfair cost on those students who are not receiving a Commonwealth subsidy.

Removing the loan fee makes the system fairer and will simplify and improve the consistency of loan arrangements for students and institutions.

It will also remove price inequity between public universities and other institutions. It will particularly benefit students who elect to undertake higher-level courses at institutions such as TAFEs.

Over 80,000 students undertaking vocational education and training and 50,000 higher education students will benefit each year from the removal of the loan fee. In 2013, the average cost of these per student was around $1,600 for VET FEE-HELP and $2,600 for FEE-HELP.

The lifetime limits on all HECS schemes are also being removed as they result in students paying up-front costs which can provide a significant barrier to access. As a result of this change, no student will need to pay their fees up-front in order to access higher education.

A strong competitive research system

Lastly, the government is committed to ensuring that Australia has a strong, competitive research system.

As part of the higher education reform package the government will invest $11 billion over four years in research in Australian universities, including $139 million for the Future Fellowships scheme and $150 million in 2015-16 to continue the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy.

Labor left funding cliffs for both of these vital research programs.

The government's commitment to ARC funding for Future Fellowships means that ARC funding is increased by this bill well above what was proposed by the previous government in the forward estimates. Consequences of the bill not passing

For our universities, the funding system will continue to operate like a straitjacket. There will be little scope or incentive for them to develop and market new and innovative courses to Australian students; much less the capacity for them to shine internationally if this bill is not passed.

Australian universities will be forced to deal with the continuing instability and uncertainty of the current funding system. If evidence of this is needed, look no further than the $6.6 billion of cuts that Labor announced from 2011. This is hardly the way for Australia's third biggest export industry to run.

And let us not forget that what Labor did not cut, they left unfunded. If the bill does not pass, the Future Fellowships scheme will cease, and many of our best researchers will be forced to leave. The National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy will cease, putting 1,500 researchers out of a job. The loss of these two programs alone will do irreparable damage to our capacity to support high-quality research.

For the higher education activities of our TAFEs and private colleges, we will be closing the door in their face.

If the bill is not passed, students will continue to be locked out of pathways qualifications—qualifications which, as identified by Dr Kemp and Mr Norton in their review of the demand-driven system, have a significant impact on the dropout rates of students with low ATARs.

If the bill is not passed, 80,000 Australian students a year will miss out on receiving Commonwealth support to study.

And if we do not pass this bill, we will forgo the largest scholarship scheme for disadvantaged students that Australia has ever seen.

Conclusion — no credible alternative

So the Australian parliament again has an opportunity to support some of the greatest higher education reforms of our time, and it is clear that there is no credible alternative.

As Mike Gallagher, one of the most experienced figures in Australian higher education policy, has said:

The 2014 higher education budget reforms are necessary. They are logical, coherent, sustainable, equitable and inevitable … My guess is that the detractors of micro-economic reform in Australia's higher education industry will find themselves on the wrong side of history in resisting efficiency improvement and innovation, as they will be in opposing the redistributive measures of the package and, curiously, supporting socially regressive subsidies from general taxpayers to more advantaged segments of the community.

The Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 will allow our higher education system to be the best in the world. It will ensure that future generations of Australians can get a world-class education to support them in the jobs of the future. It will provide the backbone of our future economy.

I urge members and senators to support the bill and I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (11:10): If I could just indicate to the House, as I have indicated to the Leader of the House, that at whatever point the government chooses to bring this on—

Mr Pyne: There has been a motion. It needs to be voted on.

Mr BURKE: It needs to be moved by the opposition, traditionally. That is the practice.

Mr Pyne: No, it does not. It can be moved by anybody in the House. I have moved it, and it does not require debate. In fact debate is not allowed.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The question is that the debate be adjourned.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (11:10): I simply want to indicate that at whatever point the government wants to bring this debate back on, the opposition stands ready to do so.

Mr Pyne: There is no reason for him to seek the call. The Clerk now calls on the next item of business.

Question agreed to.

Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (11:11): I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill, which will implement a number of refinements to simplify the approval requirements when seeking the Treasurer's approval of a change in ownership of a financial sector company, while also clarifying employer payslip requirements.

This bill forms part of the broader suite of repeal day legislationthat has been introduced into the House to honour the coalition government's election commitment to cut $1 billion in red and green tape each year.I therefore wish to take this opportunity to speak on this broader repeal day topic, and the great achievements of the coalition during our short period in government.

Over the previous six years under Labor, we witnessed a regular pattern of a government overpromising and underdelivering. Who could forget the former Treasurer's 2012 budget night announcement:

The four years of surpluses I announce tonight are a powerful endorsement ... This budget delivers a surplus this coming year, on time, as promised, and surpluses each year after that, strengthening over time.

Of course, what we saw was six consecutive years of an ever-growing budget deficit.

In contrast, since the 2013 election, the coalition government has more than doubled our election target of red tape reduction, announcing over 400 measures across the whole of government and a net reduction of over $2.1 billion in compliance costs.

As part of the 2014 Spring Repeal Day on 29 October, the government continued this work by removing nearly 1,000 pieces and over 7,200 pages of legislation and regulation. This continues the work of the first repeal day in March, where the government removed over 10,000 pieces and 50,000 pages of legislation and regulation and over $700 million of compliance costs.

This government's policy efforts will result in more efficient government and more productive business and not-for-profit sectors. This will improve our nation's competitiveness, helping to create more jobs while lowering household costs.

In contrast, Labor introduced more than 21,000 additional regulations, stifling investment and job creation, despite Kevin Rudd's promise of a 'one regulation in, one regulation out' policy and the then small business minister, Craig Emerson, saying in 2008 that Labor would 'take a giant pair of scissors to the red tape that is strangling small business.'

This legislation before us today isanother example that bad regulation and too much regulation hurts productivity, deters investment and innovation and costs jobs.

Following six years of hard Labor government, our great country ranks 124th out of 148 countries for burden of government regulation in the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Index. This year we improved four spots on last year, and we are still behind Colombia and Spain and just in front of Iran—hardly a ranking we should be proud of. This is our nation's shame. Over-regulation directly affects our efficiency. The Productivity Commission has estimated that regulation compliance costs could amount to as much as four per cent of Australia's GDP.

Under Labor, there were nearly 100 examples of non-compliant and prime ministerial exempt regulatory impact statements. These included some of Labor's most significant legislative changes such as the mining tax, the NBN, the future of financial advice laws, and changes to the Fair Work Act. These measures all escaped detailed regulatory impact scrutiny following exemptions granted by prime ministers Rudd and Gillard. The Borthwick-Milliner review, commissioned by Labor and reporting last year, found a widespread lack of acceptance of and commitment to the regulatory impact assessment process by ministers and agencies. This is not the way that strong effective and honest government operates.

In contrast, the Abbott government has introduced a comprehensive form of reform agenda. Our deregulation measures include: (1) minimising and simplifying interaction with government; (2) reducing regulatory obligations and reporting; (3) fuelling economic growth; and (4) common sense reforms. We are committed to a new approach where we must first ask what is the purpose, cost and impact on productivity of proposed initiatives before regulating. Only after these questions are answered, and only when it is absolutely necessary with no sensible alternatives available, should government proceed to regulate.

We have already implemented several substantial amendments to the regulatory process including: (a) requiring cabinet submissions proposing legislative changes with a significant regulatory impact to be subject to the regulatory impact assessment process, governed by the new government guide to regulation; (b) establishing designated deregulation units within ministers' departments and finalising ministerial advisory committees to advise on deregulation priorities and opportunities for cutting regulation; (c) where appropriate, linking the remuneration of senior members of the public service to their performance in reducing red and green tape; (d) the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has taken over responsibility for deregulation and the Office of Best Practice Regulation, previously located in the Department of Finance; (e) the Productivity Commission has prepared a framework for auditing the performance of regulators; (f) deregulation will be a standing item on the COAG agenda to enable the federal and state governments to cut duplication and over regulation. In addition, the government will also: (a) tackle the volume of regulation, which is clearly already too high; (b) work to eliminate the extensive duplication and regulatory overlap that exists between different layers of government, particularly between federal and state regulation; (c) improve the quality of consultation between government and those to be affected by any new regulations.

As I said earlier, this legislation forms part of this government's broader repeal day reform agenda. Our policies have received a range of third party endorsements that I would like to share with the House. Jennifer Westacott, Chief Executive of the Business Council of Australia, said:

Finally, we've reached a turning point in dealing with the high costs and inefficiencies faced by business and consumers every day.

Innes Willox, Chief Executive of Australian Industry Group, said:

… Australian Industry Group is right behind the Commonwealth Government’s commitment to reduce regulatory burdens by $1 billion per year each year over the term of the parliament.

Gail Kelly, CEO of Westpac said:

The government is showing that Australia is open for business, there is deregulation and a reduction of red tape is under way.

Peter Verwer, former Chief Executive of the Property Council Australia said:

Slashing red tape will unshackle industry from unnecessary bureaucracy and duplicative reporting.

John Osborn, Chief Operating Officer of ACCI, said:

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Australia’s largest and most representative business organisation, strongly supports the government’s initiative to cut red-tape and undertake legislative repeal days.

Tony Nicholson, Executive Director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, has said: 'We warmly welcome the government's red tape reduction agenda. Streamlining our reporting and compliance requirements makes a real difference as it frees up resources to be directed towards helping disadvantaged young families.' The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association and the Minerals Council of Australia said:

Australia's resources sector welcomes the Federal Government's efforts to curb the high costs and inefficiencies associated with project development in Australia and hopes the "Repeal Day" legislation marks the start of a concerted effort to boost the sector's global competitiveness.

Belinda Robinson, Chief Executive of Universities Australia, has said: 'We commend the government for walking the talk on deregulation and allowing universities to get on with the business of teaching, scholarship and research.' Finally, Russell Zimmerman, Executive Director of Australian Retailers Association, declared:

Dedicating Parliamentary sitting days to repealing regulation is certainly a step in the right direction and highlights the Coalitions' commitment of cutting $1 billion in red tape each year to benefit retailers …

The repeal day is another promise kept. It is another promise delivered, along with the cutting of the carbon tax, the mineral tax and the incredible work of Andrew Robb in attaining free trade agreements.

Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (11:21): I thank those members who have contributed to this debate. The Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014 forms part of our government's commitment to repeal counterproductive and redundant legislation and regulations. This bill amends various laws relating to taxation, superannuation and shareholdings in certain financial sector companies to implement a range of improvements to Australia's laws.

Schedule 1 of this bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to repeal the payslip reporting provisions. The payslip reporting provisions in Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 require employers to include in employee payslips information prescribed by the regulations. If employers were required to report actual contributions on payslips they would need to invest in major upgrades in their software, and the benefit would likely be only marginal. Removing these provisions will reduce unnecessary duplication in the law and provide certainty to employers. Schedule 2 of this bill simplifies the taxation laws by consolidating duplicated taxation administration provisions contained in various taxation acts into a single set of provisions in the Taxation Administration Act 1953. Schedule 2 of this bill also repeals spent or redundant taxation laws and moves longstanding regulations into primary law.

Tidying up our tax laws is an important part of the care and maintenance of our tax system. Schedule 3 of the bill amends the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998 so that persons who do not hold a direct control interest in a financial sector company will no longer be deemed to have a stake in the financial sector company as a consequence of their associates direct control interests. Currently, the law requires that associates of a person who is seeking a shareholding in excess of 15 per cent also seek approval for the shareholding. This is required irrespective of whether an associate has any actual shareholding or financial interest in the company in which the new shareholding is sought. These associates are caught by the wide definition of 'associate' in the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998, which requires them to undertake this action for no real policy benefit. With the changes in this bill, associates with no direct interest in the company will no longer be required to seek approval and will no longer be caught in a technical trap that requires them to hold approval under the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998.

Schedule 4 of this bill addresses the fact that currently the definition of 'Australia' for taxation purposes is complex, overly detailed and expressed differently in different parts of the taxation laws, despite the fact that the laws are intended to achieve a simple and largely equivalent result. Schedule 4 rewrites the definition of 'Australia' into a single location in the tax law, for use across all the tax laws, in a simple and coherent form.

Progressively removing individual pieces of unnecessary red tape and regulation and making our law simpler and shorter plays an important role in helping Australia's economy become more efficient. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (11:25): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr GRAY (Brand) (11:25): The Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Bill 2014 is an important one, and it is supported by the opposition.

I quote from the second reading speech of the parliamentary secretary on the introduction of this important bill:

The Commercial Building Disclosure Program, supported by the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act 2010, continues to represent one of the most cost-effective opportunities to reduce the use of energy in commercial buildings and improve productivity across the sector.

Since its commencement in November 2011, the CBD Program has transformed the commercial property market. Office buildings with better energy efficiency ratings consistently deliver greater returns for investors, and energy efficiency is now considered a normal part of commercial property transactions.

Commercial building and energy efficiency stakeholders have been actively engaged in the CBD Program and continue to support its important role in driving energy productivity across Australia's property sector.

The commercial building sector is responsible for around 10 per cent of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions, and this figure is rising. That is why it is extremely important that we have a bipartisan approach to energy efficiency, and, on this occasion, to energy efficiency in commercial buildings and that we understand that there is a direct link between energy efficiency and commercial advantage to building owners and to tenants from these initiatives. Energy conservation, energy efficiency and demand management are very important tools of the new age in managing higher electricity prices, and, importantly, in managing the greenhouse impact of our very large commercial buildings.

Energy efficiency of course represents one of the fastest and cheapest ways that we can reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions. The amendments bill proposed by the government is simply a set of housekeeping measures in response to changes that had been, properly, proposed by stakeholders through stakeholder forums. They are changes that will reduce red tape. They are changes that will make this act function better, and they are changes that are supported not just by the stakeholders but by both sides of this House.

I have spoken to the Energy Efficiency Council, the Clean Energy Council and the Green Building Council—all of them accept and support these important changes. We have also had interaction with the Property Council. It would be fair to say that the Property Council has a range of different views around the CBD program. On the one hand, they have indicated that the program is a good program, but they would like to see changes. On the other hand, at times they have called for the CBD program to be scrapped. We on this side of the House do not think this would be a prudent move. We do think that the appointment of ASIL Tasman to review the program by March 2015 is something about which we are concerned. We look forward to receiving that report. But we are concerned that a review that may be directed to remove the CBD program would not be a prudent way to support energy conservation and bring about all the great advantages that come through this program, which the parliamentary secretary referred to in his second reading speech in October this year.

Energy efficiency is not just the national agenda. It binds all levels of government in a virtuous cycle. In this, the role played by all state governments dovetails with initiatives that the Commonwealth has put in place to support energy efficiency. High energy prices help to focus our minds on energy efficiency. Householders do not care what their unit price for energy is—they care what their regular bill is.

Importantly, in the context of energy efficiency, the International Energy Agency's Energy efficiency market report of 2014found that energy efficiency is rapidly becoming the world's first fuel. It is a terrific and very sensible idea. Energy and efficiency improvements in 11 countries, including Australia, delivered more capacity than any other source of energy in 2014. It is a remarkable fact that more energy was saved by conservation than by oil, coal or gas in 2014. Energy efficiency saved those countries 56 exajoules of energy in 2012, which is more than the final energy delivered by oil, electricity or natural gas—indeed, it is more than the total energy consumption of the European Union.

What does that mean for the development of policies that have energy efficiency at the core? We can remove the supply-side bias that exists traditionally in the energy markets. The purpose of network companies is to provide affordable and reliable connection between an energy consumer and an energy supplier, but sometimes the most affordable way to boost reliability is to manage peak demand and put in place sensible energy-efficiency measures.

Our regulations often mean that network companies face incentives to keep energy demand high and therefore build more kit. We have seen this in electricity, and we have seen a pretty good draft decision, in the last week, on energy network, prices and costs. That decision—we hope—will drive a better profile of costs for consumers, industries and customers.

In electricity, in recent years, the lack of cost-reflective tariffs for peak demand has meant that Australians have installed lots of poorly-performing air conditioners—driving up peak demand, adding to problems and making markets unstable. Cross-subsidies meant that households without air conditioning paid, effectively, a $700-a-year cost to subsidise households with air conditioning. Politicians, energy producers and consumers can no longer afford to underestimate the importance of energy efficiency and efficient energy markets. There are some simple energy-efficiency measures that should be encouraged, like more efficient space and water heating, tariff reforms and price reflectivity.

This bill and the way in which it works, in commercial office space, is particularly insightful. The measures in this amendment that make it work more smoothly and make it work better for stakeholders are to be supported. I flag, again, my concern—and the opposition's concern—about any move to remove the CBD. We see the CBD program itself as delivering substantial benefits. Those benefits, as I began in my presentation this morning, were largely and accurately identified by the parliamentary secretary when he introduced this bill.

Major changes proposed in this bill provide for exemptions to building owners who receive unsolicited offers for the sale or lease of their office spaces. That, we believe, will lead to around a $300,000 estimated reduction in the regulatory burden on businesses. That reduction of the cost burden on businesses is important and is wholly supported by this place. Allowing transactions between wholly-owned subsidiaries to be excluded from disclosure obligations will again lead to around a $300,000 reduction in the regulatory burden on businesses. In total, we look forward to in excess of half a million dollars in savings delivered directly to commercial office-space owners and people who rent those spaces in the CBDs of our cities.

Addressing ambiguity in the main act, in relation to the status of assessments undertaken by assessors accredited under the National Australian Built Environment Rating System, the NABERS program, but not accredited under the CBD program, is important. Introducing the ability to determine a commencement date for building energy-efficiency certification, which is later than the date of issue, is also important. It provides greater flexibility for businesses wishing to proactively maintain their current building energy-efficiency certificates for their property portfolios. It removes the need for new owners and lessors to reapply or pay the application for fresh exemptions if there is an existing one in place for a building. This is also important.

We find ourselves at the point, with this bill, where we are wholly in support of its objectives and of the streamlining that has been introduced in these measures. We are extremely cautious at the possibility of the CBD program itself being called into question in the first quarter of next year, and the opposition would like to flag at this moment its great concern. The CBD program itself should be maintained and the commercial benefits that are so profound and so obvious should be maintained.

The BEED Act requires energy-efficiency information to be disclosed. In most cases, when commercial office space of 2,000 square metres or more is offered for sale or lease the BEED Act aims to ensure that credible and meaningful energy-efficiency information is given to prospective purchasers and lessees of large commercial office space. This information helps purchasers or lessees to make more informed decisions and to take full account of the economic costs and environmental impacts associated with operating buildings when they are intending to purchase or lease.

It is really about market information providing a market signal that can be properly understood in a properly functioning market. In that context, this program works. It should be made to work as efficiently as it possibly can. These amendments are insightful in that they do that—they reduce the cost of the application of this act. They are supported, not just by the opposition and the government—that, of course, is critically important—but by the industry that deals in this space. Therefore, this bill is to be supported by this House, supported by the opposition, with the caution that we remain very concerned about the future of the CBD itself. We hope that the government takes on board those concerns. Should the government, at any time, be considering changes to the CBD itself, please be aware that the functioning of that program is extremely important. It provides valuable market processes for ensuring that building owners and future tenants are best informed, it provides an incentive for building owners to make their buildings as energy efficient as they can be, and it allows tenants themselves to take spaces in buildings that are well built, well managed and maintained to the highest energy efficiency standards.

I commend this bill to the House.

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (11:38): It is good to rise on another bill, the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Bill 2014, which implements the government's commitment to reducing red tape, but in this case potentially green tape, in consultation with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that we have better best practice regulation in place in Australia. I thank the member for Brand, the shadow minister and the opposition for supporting what is a common sense measure. The member for Brand is one of the rare members of the shadow ministry who understands the importance of consulting with industry, listening to them and working with them and not against them, unlike many of his colleagues.

Whilst the member for Brand made some compelling arguments, I do not necessarily agree with his view that you need to have legislation in place in all of these areas and that it is absolutely necessary. The biggest incentive in commercial buildings is, of course, the commercial incentive—that is, to operate them at the lowest cost possible and to operate them in the best way possible. That is good business. It may not require a law. Having a review to understand this—whether this is now necessary—is a very worthwhile endeavour and something we should continue as a commitment to governments of all persuasions in order to reduce the burden of regulation, the number of laws and the unnecessary laws.

It is the case today with the price of electricity and the way buildings are invested in and structured that you of course have to consider energy efficiency—not because the law says so and not because it is the good intention of any particular government but because there is a prime commercial incentive. You would not have a business in this country not considering energy efficiency when investing in a commercial building at the moment. For the member for Brand to say we need these acts of parliament often without any real backup is unnecessary.

The particular changes in this bill that provide exemptions to building owners who receive unsolicited offers for the sale of their office space are going to lead to about $300,000 in estimated reduction of regulatory burden on businesses—about half a million dollars, as the shadow minister noted. We ask the questions, 'Do we need this? Can this be improved? Can this legislation be reduced?' These are the kinds of real-world savings that will produce great productivity benefits to business. That half a million dollars can be spent in other ways by these businesses that will produce a greater return and will allow them to have more time and more space to do more productive activity in our economy. This process can be continued.

It is absolutely starkly obvious that we need a disclosure scheme in general. I am very happy to have a look at it. I am very happy to see whether we need to have it in the future. The commercial incentives are there now for this to happen automatically and for the market to function without having to have a regulation in this space.

The other provisions are also very important. We remove the requirement for six pages of standard energy efficiency guidance text on the building energy certificates. Instead, live interactive online information about energy efficiency for office buildings will be put in place. This is just a contemporary updating of legislation to take advantage of online mechanisms. It meets the need for new owners and lessors to pay the application fee for a fresh exemption if there is a valid one in place. Again, they are common sense measures. Too often with these pieces of legislation that are passed by this parliament, especially when they deal with energy or environmental concerns, there are too many restrictions and too many penalties and too many requirements that really do not have a practical, environmental or energy benefit. These are very sensible measures. The requirements cost industry time, energy, effort and money without producing any real benefits. Again, they are sensible proposals that both sides of the chamber can support.

Other things can be looked at, particularly regarding the defunct Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act and scheme. In particular, we heard evidence in open committee, through my chairmanship of the Standing Committee on the Environment, that there have to be yearly or annual inspections of light fixtures in commercial buildings by law, even though these energy efficient fixtures can sometimes only be replaced every five years. Why you would require them to be inspected annually is beyond me. It is another area that of course has to be changed. Things can be improved. Obviously, the energy efficiency act is the subject of another move from this government.

This is what I am getting at: these pieces of legislation are well-intentioned at the time—sometimes they have a positive effect—but quickly you get to a point where they are too prescriptive and too onerous in their requirements without looking at the benefit produced by the particular regulations themselves. There is no doubt that, when you look at the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act, there is too much of that going on. That has been recognised and agreed to by both sides with the passage of this bill. Of course, in the future we will be looking for further savings in areas where this act can be improved, so that there is more flexibility for business and, of course, more opportunity for people to get on with what they should be getting on with. Energy efficiency is very important; there are savings to be made. There are reasons why you would do it, but, given the fact that there are good commercial reasons—in fact, it is the prime imperative for most businesses who are acting on their building and other investments at this point in time—it is not obvious that we need to have in place so many of these regulatory mechanisms.

All up, of course, the government is very committed to supporting business through the reduction of red tape in improving energy productivity. The bill is going to lead to close to $600,000 worth of reductions in regulatory burdens. It is yet another step in our ongoing red- and green-tape reduction. I look forward to seeing more of these amendments being supported by both sides of the House in the future to ensure that we are moving with the times and not allowing pieces of legislation, such as the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act, to become out of date, and to put a regulatory burden on business with no real return for the environment or of energy efficiency.

(Quorum formed)

Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (11:48): I thank members of the government for assisting me to deliver my contribution on this bill. Labor supports energy conservation. Labor's Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act of 2010 established a legal requirement for owners of large commercial office buildings to obtain energy efficiency information for their building and to disclose it to prospective purchasers and lessees. It also required head tenants who were subletting office spaces to disclose this information. The energy efficiency information disclosed is in the form of a building energy efficiency certificate. This certificate includes a star rating of the building's energy efficiency, an assessment of tenancy lighting, and additional guidance on how the energy efficiency of the office may be improved.

The commercial building sector is responsible for around 10 per cent of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions, and this figure is rising. It needs to be pointed out that energy efficiency represents one of the fastest and cheapest ways we can reduce our nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Credible energy efficiency information helps parties to make better informed decisions and to take full account of the economic costs and the environmental impacts associated with operating the buildings they are intending to purchase or to lease.

Energy efficiency requirements are an important complementary measure in the suite of policies we need for addressing climate change, such as for new homes and major renovations. Part of the five-star standard, which is now up to six stars, is a requirement for new homes in Victoria to have either a solar hot water heater or a rainwater tank. These are cheap things to install when you are building a house, but more expensive to retrofit later. Many builders do not seriously consider them because they are going for the absolute lowest total cost they can. But they are simple changes which do no harm to people's standard of living, but have huge, positive impacts concerning water and energy use.

The energy used by our buildings accounts for approximately 20 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, split fairly evenly between homes and commercial buildings. The business sector is by far the largest energy user in the Australian economy. The industrial sector alone accounts for almost half of Australia's energy end-use and for around two-thirds of stationary energy use. Australia has one of the more energy intensive industrial sectors among developed countries. Energy consumed by residential appliances and industrial and commercial equipment is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia.

As well as the benefits in reduced greenhouse gas emissions, the Commercial Building Disclosure program has a much broader range of impacts, which are not always captured or measured, such as increased industry capacity and potential building upgrades, that go beyond improving just the energy efficiency of a building and may improve water use, indoor environment quality or other elements. A recent World Green Building Council report provides information regarding the benefits that greener buildings can have on health, wellbeing and productivity.

It is now also well documented that buildings with an environmental rating deliver better returns, so the Commercial Building Disclosure program is helping to deliver increased value in the market. The Building better returns report of 2011 found that Green Star rated buildings deliver a 12 per cent green premium in value and a five per cent premium in rent when compared to non-rated buildings. Quarterly research by IPD also shows that the Green Star and NABERS rated buildings outperform non-rated buildings. The International Energy Agency's Energy Efficiency MarketReport 2014 found that energy efficiency improvements in 11 countries, including Australia, delivered more capacity than any other source of energy.

Greener offices are not only more comfortable to work in, they can also boost productivity, bring down sick leave, support green building-industry jobs and have the potential to deliver savings of 20 to 40 per cent on energy bills. Energy efficiency is a fast, cheap way of making inroads into Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. We need to do that, because Australia has become an international embarrassment on climate change action.

According to a group of senior British conservatives, the attitude of Prime Minister Tony Abbott to the global challenges of climate change is 'eccentric', 'baffling' and 'flat earther'. The group—including Prime Minister David Cameron's minister for energy, a former Thatcher minister and chairman of the Conservative Party—says Mr Abbott's position on climate change represents a betrayed of the fundamental ideals of conservatism and those of his political heroine, Margaret Thatcher. Twenty-five years ago, former British Prime Minister Thatcher addressed the United Nations and placed climate change firmly on the global environmental agenda. She said:

It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways.

These British conservatives warn that Australia is taking enormous risks investing in coal, and will come under increasing market and political pressure to play its part in the global battle against climate change.

According to Lord Deben, chairman of the Independent Climate Change Commission and a minister in both the Thatcher and Major governments, Australia will come under increasing market pressure to respond to the global shift towards renewable energy. Lord Deben said that Mr Abbott had betrayed the fundamental tenets of conservatism itself. He has been quoted as saying:

I have no doubt that people like David Cameron will be saying to Tony Abbott 'look conservatives are supposed to conserve, they are supposed to hand on to the next generation something better than they received themselves'.

Indeed! Tim Yeo, the chairman of the UK's parliamentary select committee on Energy and Climate Change and a former environment minister under John Major, said:

If I was Australian I would be concerned if my country's economic future and prosperity became dependent upon continued coal exports.

The United Kingdom led the world in 2008 by legislating for long-term, ambitious emissions reductions of 80 per cent by 2050. They have already achieved a 25 per cent drop on 1990 levels. In June, David Cameron opened the world's largest offshore wind farm with 175 turbines in the Thames Estuary. Almost 20 per cent of Britain's electricity is now produced by renewables, with eight per cent powered by wind—equivalent to 6½ million homes.

The UK's energy market reforms and the drive to transform the economy to a low-carbon model are supported by all the major political parties. David Cameron's former Minister for Energy and Climate Change, Greg Barker, said:

I think there is a lot of concern about Australia … people are concerned, slightly baffled by the approach that Australia is taking which looks, actually, slightly eccentric.

You know that your climate change agenda is in trouble when your traditional conservative allies start seeing you as a pre-science troglodyte.

This was further highlighted when the world's two superpowers signed a climate change deal, which I believe is the best news on international action to tackle climate change in nearly 20 years—the best news since the Kyoto protocol. It is an absolutely stunning agreement. China has agreed to ramp up its renewable energy target by one third—over 30 per cent—compared to its previous offer. This will build a massive solar PV industry. Secondly, it has agreed to level-out its emissions by 2030. Given that China's emissions accounted for 70 per cent of the global increase in emissions in 2012, this is a huge turnaround. It is a world away from the sabotage they engaged in at Copenhagen, which I strongly criticised at the time.

What did we hear from government ministers about this historic agreement? The Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development said it was a distraction. Indeed, the trade minister, Treasurer and foreign minister all lined up to have a crack. The foreign minister went so far as to send a briefing to the White House in response to President Obama's speech on climate change and the impact that it will have on the Great Barrier Reef.

The foreign minister said that she did not believe the reef was in danger. That is a view that contradicts the scientific consensus that it is in danger. For example, the Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2014 from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority said:

Climate change remains the most serious threat to the Great Barrier Reef. It is already affecting the reef and is likely to have far-reaching consequences in the decades to come.

It seems that only this government fails to accept that climate change is going to take a significant toll on our Great Barrier Reef unless we take action now. The diplomatic push-back against the United States was petulant, and underscores how isolated Australia is becoming on climate change—an international embarrassment, a shag on a rock.

The government has been put on the back foot by the US-China deal, and by comments from world leaders, during and after the G20 summit, highlighting the importance of global action to address climate change, including contributions to the international Green Climate Fund. Even Canada, a country that previously lined up with Australia against contributions to the Green Climate Fund, has now come on board with a $300 million contribution. Thirty countries have pledged $9.3 billion to the fund—just shy of a $10 billion target—to help developing countries cut emissions and prepare for global warming.

The South Korea-based Green Climate Fund aims to help nations invest in clean energy and green technology and build up defences against rising seas and worsening storms, floods and droughts. Money will be spent equally for climate change adaptation and mitigation, especially for the most vulnerable nations, including small island nations and Africa's poorest countries. The fund is designed to help those countries least to blame for, but most at risk from, climate change, with grants, loans and private capital for projects such as solar and wind farms, planting trees or disaster-proofing infrastructure. While other countries are contributing, Australia has ruled out contributing.

The UN climate experts have cautioned that there is no time to lose in the battle against global warming. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned in November that time is running out to limit warming to two degrees Celsius by 2100 on pre-industrial levels. They said we are on a likely trajectory for at least a four-degree Celsius warming, which is a recipe for melting ice caps, extreme weather events, habitat and species loss, and conflict over access to scarce resources.

Some of the key risks that were identified included: low-lying coastal zones and small islands being vulnerable to storm surges; more frequent flooding in urban areas; breakdown in infrastructure and critical services such as electricity, water supply, health and emergency services due to increases in extreme weather events; increase in deaths and illness due to extreme heatwaves; risk of food insecurity due to warming, drought and flooding; significant drops in agricultural production and rural livelihoods; loss of marine and coastal ecosystems with significant impacts on fishing communities and industry; and threats to native species and ecosystems.

The IPCC report focused on the risks posed by global warming, concluding that in many cases the world is ill prepared. Indeed, the World Heritage Great Barrier Reef topped the local risk list, with the IPCC warning that permanent damage is inevitable. Our leading coral reefs marine scientist and lead author Ove Hoegh-Guldberg said mitigation strategies, such as improving water quality and reducing fishing pressure, will only 'buy time' for the reef.

The Climate Institute said:

The IPCC report places priority on the decarbonisation of energy supply systems. It notes that scenarios likely to achieve the internationally agreed goal of avoiding 2C of warming require energy emissions to decline over the next decade and be reduced by 90 per cent or more from 2040.

The report is clear that humanity is influencing our climate, with changes unprecedented for decades to millennia, and which now threaten our prosperity, security and natural environment.”

This is a consensus document agreed by the world’s top scientists and governments, and is a conservative stocktake that should serve to spur more urgent action on climate change.

Indeed, just this morning, I was one of those MPs who received a petition put forward by many women concerned about climate change and the lack of action occurring in Australia on this front. I commend those women for their civic-mindedness and their concern for this nation's future.

The Climate Institute also said:

Australia is one of the developed countries most exposed to climate impacts in an Asia-Pacific region likely to be severely disrupted by climate change. It is in our national interest to act and encourage others to do more.

For Australia to play our fair part in global emission reductions after 2020, emission reductions will have to be much stronger than Australia's current target range of 5-25 percent emission reductions by 2020. A domestic policy framework that can't achieve this scale of emission reduction by 2030 is neither sustainable nor economically prudent.

Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (12:03): Before the minister leaves the chamber, I want to commend him on the work that he has done particularly in relation to our environment policies. I am sure the minister remembers very well the previous government's failed programs on the environment. There were 20 failures—10 failures of Prime Minister Rudd and 10 failures of Prime Minister Gillard. For a start—and the previous speaker introduced this to the debate—there was the carbon tax. The broken promise on that is a great place to start. There was a promise that there would be no carbon tax, and there was one. We also had the Home Insulation Program. As we know, it was linked to four tragedies. It was responsible for 224 house fires. It has seen 70,000 repairs. That is what the previous government saw as environmental policy at a cost of more than $2.1 billion, of which more than half a billion dollars was simply to fix dangerous roofs. The program was delivered in spite of 21 warnings by the former member for Griffith.

There was the Green Loans Program. It was a Rudd government program. We know that the Green Loans Program wasted $100 million and retrofitted just over 1,000 homes. The Citizens' Assembly program was scrapped before it even started. That was Prime Minister Gillard's initiative. There was the Solar Homes and Communities Plan. That had a $500 million cost overrun. When the previous speaker was talking about environment policy, that is what he was talking about. He obviously has a selective memory. There was the Solar Flagships program. After some years, there was not one watt of energy and not a thing built. That was an announcement from the member for Griffith. We saw all promise and no delivery at all.

There was the infamous cash-for-clunkers scheme. That was, again, an initiative of Prime Minister Gillard. The Green Car Innovation Fund was another spectacular failure. The low emission plan for renters collapsed. These were the programs and practical measures that the previous speaker on the debate in this House was talking about. There were the green technology grants, which stopped and started and stopped and started after the MYEFO came out. Those were another failure. There was the Connecting Renewables Initiative. It folded. The Renewable Energy Future Fund was absolutely squandered. The Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute unfortunately delivered far more dinners and conferences than progress on carbon capture. We saw the huge number of dollars that went into that program. The green buildings for tax breaks initiative was scrapped before it commenced. The phantom credits were scrapped 2½ years early. Simply advertising the carbon tax was $70 million wasted. The Green Start program was scrapped before it commenced. The contracts for closure were scrapped before commencement. So, after listening to the previous member speak in this House, all I can say is that those opposite obviously have a selective memory when it comes to their own environmental programs and their impact. We saw even with the carbon tax that there was no defined decrease in emission. But what a massive cost to business and households that was.

There also appears to be a lack of understanding about the innovation that is out there in this space. I do not know how many other members meet so many innovative groups and individuals who are working on environmental solutions, often using their own initiative and their own funds. They are certainly making a huge difference. Look at what has happened in the transport sector and how they have improved their performance over the years—for example, the Euro V engines. They are now looking at a Euro VI. There is a lot of work yet to be done, but that is what has been happening in transport. Of course, so many businesses and industries have done enormous work in the environment sector. They are not sitting on their hands. They are proactive in this space. As I said, I see a lot of innovation ahead, and it is ongoing. I think the practical measures that we are taking as a government feed directly into that.

Of course, one of those is something as simple as the Green Army. There are those who have sought to make this out to be some sort of joke; it is no joke on the ground. I am a farmer, and those young people out on the ground actually delivering practical outcomes is exactly what we need. We need things that actually work on the ground, where the taxpayers' dollars get to the ground and get to the practical programs that make a difference. Be it coastal, be it in rivers or be it in riparian areas, there is so much practical work happening on the ground, and that is exactly what we need to encourage. Things that make a difference at a local level, collectively make a huge difference. So I encourage anybody looking at the Green Army Program to get involved, because there is a lot of opportunity at a local level. This will build to 15,000 people on the ground—literally a Green Army working on practical measures. Our natural resource management groups and the catchment councils, which have been working so hard for so long, do the same practical things. No wonder this is a program that will work, because they are already doing this type of work.

I once had a member opposite say to me in a committee that she was surprised that I was on the environment committee, because I was a farmer. Let me tell you that over 94 per cent of farmers are involved in natural resource management or Landcare groups. They are very concerned and very interested, because they then hand on their own property to a next generation of farmers—be it family members or anyone who purchases that property. They want to see that property in the best condition it can be so that it can continue to produce quality food or fibre which this country is renowned for. You can only do that if you are looking after your pastures, if you are looking after your soil and if you are using the right fertilisers. Farming is a science. We have some amazing people working on the land. They are constantly looking at how to do their work better, whether they are an irrigation farmer—looking at how to irrigate more efficiently for so many environmental reasons as well as commercial reasons, and also to manage their pasture—or whatever the case may be.

These measures are going on constantly. Members opposite talk as if nothing is happening anywhere, but there are very practical measures happening right across this country in all fields, and there is much more innovation ahead. We see it every day, almost, in this place and out on the ground. I think we are going to see a lot more innovation in this space than people give us credit for. The measures of this government will add to that, as will practical measures such as adaptation. In the environment committee, we will keep working on a range of matters.

The Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Bill will streamline the administrative process. We have discussed in this place previously matters around greater efficiency and reduction, in various ways, of red tape—or green tape in some people's views. Of course, this will, under the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act, address stakeholders' concerns and reduce regulatory burdens on industry. It is very important to stay competitive. We know that in this country we have a productivity challenge. Every way that we can possibly improve productivity for business and individuals is exactly where governments should try to get out of the way, because it is business that creates the jobs and invests their own dollars. So assisting to streamline this process is a very good outcome.

The Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act, as we know, requires energy efficiency information to be disclosed in most cases when commercial office space of 2,000 square metres or more is offered for sale or lease. The act aims to ensure that credible and meaningful energy efficiency information is given to prospective purchasers and lessees of large commercial office space. That information helps purchasers or lessees to make more informed decisions and take full account of the economic costs and the environmental impacts associated with operating the buildings when they are intending to purchase or lease. Since the establishment of the CBD program, there have been a number of proposed changes raised through the regular forums with key industry stakeholders to improve the program. Again, that is common sense. Those changes require legislative amendments to the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act and associated legislative instruments, including the building energy efficiency regulations and determinations. The major changes include providing exemptions to building owners who receive unsolicited offers for the sale or lease of their office space. That will lead to an $0.3 million estimated reduction of regulatory burden on businesses. That is not insignificant, as every cent counts in business and your time counts because of time costs. Another major change is allowing transactions between wholly-owned subsidiaries to be excluded from disclosure obligations

Again, this leads to a similar reduction of $0.3 million in regulatory burden on businesses. Cumulatively, it is very important. This bill addresses the ambiguity in the status of assessments in the BEED Act which undertaken by assessors accredited under the National Australian Built Environment Rating System program but not accredited under the CBD program. It also introduces the ability to determine a commencement date for a Building Energy Efficiency Certificate, which is later than the date of issue. That simple measure itself will provide greater flexibility for businesses wishing to proactively maintain current BEECs for their property portfolios.

Another practical measure is removing the need for new owners and lessors to reapply or pay the application fee for fresh exemptions if there is an existing one in place for a building; and another is the removal of the requirement for six pages of standard energy efficiency guidance text on the BEEC by providing live and interactive online information about improving energy efficiency for office buildings instead.

This bill will lead to an estimated $600 million reduction of regulatory burden on businesses and, as I said, any reduction in regulatory burden is what business and industry for some time have been crying out for. As a government, you can respond in a practical way or you can ignore those calls. Every small and incremental change brings about a major change in the business itself—time and the costs involved—and as a result I hope that across all the fields where we are looking at the reduction of red and green tape we will see a streamlining of process and reductions in business costs, while still maintaining the standards that we require as a nation. I want to mention another company in my electorate that is doing a lot of innovative work with wooden building structures. I am sure that they already have a prototype up and running and that we will see more of these types of building in the future. A lot of interest is being shown in their efforts ,and I commend them for their activities.

Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (12:17): I am very disappointed with the member for Forrest—she is actually an intelligent, capable person. I cannot believe that the twaddle we have just heard from her. There was not one mention of climate change. She says she supports science and wants to see us being informed by science in the decisions we make. Yet scientists across Australia and the world are telling us that we are facing an enormous challenge in terms of global warming; that this global warming has been created by man; and that we need to take action to reduce our carbon footprint. All we hear from the other side is bleating—this uninformed, unintelligent bleating about green tape and red tape. The other side of the House are wrapping our planet in black tape—they are wrapping our planet in a cloud of fossil-fuel emissions and they are not prepared to do anything about it.

The whole premise of the member for Forrest's speech was that the most important thing that we can do is reduce costs. I would challenge that that is the most important thing to do but, even if that were the premise, putting energy efficiency in place is the critical thing. It is one of the critical things we have to do to put ourselves on the path to an economic future. This piece of legislation, which has been modified to some extent—and we as a party are supporting these modifications—offers an economic incentive for those who build and manage commercial buildings to ensure that these buildings operate in an energy efficient way. That incentive saves money for business; it saves money for small business. Those who do not build commercial buildings now have an option to make massive savings to their bottom line by leasing buildings that have been designed to be energy efficient. We have to put a market signal in there, and having mandatory disclosure is part of that market signal. In turn mandatory disclosure drives behaviour; it ensures that those people who construct large commercial buildings now have a financial incentive to invest up-front in the design and the technology that goes into a more energy efficient way of operating those buildings, while reducing our carbon footprint and reducing the costs.

The great tragedy in this piece of legislation is that we are not moving forward in the way that was planned in 2009, when COAG agreed that the states and the Commonwealth would come together to develop a national partnership agreement on energy efficiency. It was agreed in 2009 that not only would energy efficiency disclosure requirements apply to commercial buildings but also to residential buildings so that if you were selling or on-selling you would have a mandatory disclosure or a star rating for the home you were buying. I have to say it was a great tragedy that that was deferred in 2011-2012 because the states lost interest and they peeled away their support for what was a cooperative arrangement. I think we have done a great disservice to the people of Australia—to those young people who are buying new houses or apartments. We are sentencing them to a lifetime of high costs because we have not given the market signal or the incentive for property developers or builders to get their act together and put in place the technologies that would deliver a cheaper cost of living for them.

When I was a minister in state government we did a great deal of research on lifting standards in home building. We required a greater degree of energy efficiency, and we did very, very detailed cost-benefit analyses. This was resisted mindlessly and violently by the industry at the time. They said, 'It's going to increase the cost of housing.' The economic analysis that we did showed that, whilst there was, I agree, an increment of cost of a couple of thousand dollars onto the cost of a mortgage, within the first year the increased mortgage repayments were more than offset by the saving in utility payments, in electricity and water payments. In terms of the whole-of-life cycle, the cost of living was driven right down. We could not get intelligent engagement from the industry. I am very glad to see that there has been a change of leadership in some of the largest building companies in Western Australia. I believe that under this new leadership, particularly in companies like BGC, we would see a very different response now.

We are supporting this bill. There are some question marks for me around whether or not we should be allowing an exemption where there has been, supposedly, a non-solicited bid. I think there are potentially some problems around the enforcement of that, and that it has the capacity to be misused. I would like to see us go much further and ensure that we do this for residential building.

I will give an example of the appalling things that we see. As mayor of Vincent I was on various development assessment panels. We would have come before us rubbish developments that had absolutely zero cross-ventilation and in which some of the rooms were totally dependent on borrowed light. I would raise these concerns with the developer: 'This doesn't seem to me to be offering a very good product in terms of quality of life and affordability of operation.' They were small apartments aimed at the bottom end of the market. The developer would say, 'Don't worry about that. Don't worry about this cross-ventilation; we're putting in reverse-cycle air conditioning. They're not going to need it.' We are condoning bad design. Indeed, we are rewarding bad design. We are locking people into a lifetime of high energy costs and we are doing nothing to warn people about it. I think that is a national disgrace. We should have informed buyers. I reserve my particular contempt for Queensland, which did in fact have such measures in place. The measure was introduced in Queensland in 2010, and withdrawn in 2012 by the 'enlightened' Campbell Newman, who does not believe in the rule of law and does not believe in the science of climate change. He is a souped up, 21st-century version of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. That is a great tragedy for Queensland. I can assure members that I will be fighting to make this legislation even stronger under the Labor government which I am becoming increasingly more confident we will have in 2016.

The member for Forrest talked about business. There is so much business innovation coming out of the energy efficiency space, but we are putting the kibosh on it. There is a great new Western Australian firm, Ecocentric Energy. It is one of the firms that have not been closed down by a rampaging Department of Agriculture. This company has worked in collaboration with CSIRO and Commercialisation Australia, a project that is now being disbanded, just as Nobel Prize candidate scientists are being sacked, by this antiscience government. Ecocentric worked with Commercialisation Australia to develop a great diagnostic tool that can give very, very fine-grained reports on energy performance within a building or a manufacturing process. They have developed a thing called electrical fingerprinting and developed algorithms that are designed to recognise the energy signatures of each particular electrical device within the premises. It is a very sophisticated piece of kit. Not only did they get support under the Labor government from CSIRO, they were in the process of going to early commercialisation. We have scrapped the price on carbon and so now have no need for energy auditing. As a result, they are being wooed by the United Kingdom—I have seen submissions that have been sent to them by the UK trade office. The UK has said, 'Come over to the UK. We've got compulsory auditing provisions in the UK,'—they are also in operation in the US—'we will assist you in developing that technology.' Ecocentric are another example of the brain drain. This is happening around the world. We have shut down our carbon pricing architecture. We would have had the opportunity to be in there working with China, using the expertise we have developed over the last couple of years to work with China to develop the architecture that they are putting in place for their emissions trading scheme. We have lost that opportunity because we have destroyed the architecture. The member for Forrest went through and described a number of programs that Labor had done that perhaps had been less than optimum. There has been a lot of trial and error. I agree, we are in these new waters. There will have to be a lot of work done.

But I can tell you that the fundamental architecture that the Labor Party landed on and that was put in place within their second term of government is fundamentally the right architecture. We need a price on carbon. We need a decent renewable energy target and not a pretend renewable energy target; we need a decent renewable energy target that is going to drive investment into renewable energy. We needed ARENA, which was the early commercialisation phase, that allowed research and development and that early commercialisation to take place so that Australia could be a technology maker and not just a technology taker. We had the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Those four things together formed the essential and fundamental architecture that we need to address climate change and to ensure that Australia has a place in this new world of the 21st century. All of that is gone. It is all demolished. At this point, we are still working on the RET. Hopefully we will get one bit saved and hopefully Mr Palmer is able to continue to at least keep ARENA on life support.

But at the next election I have no doubt that this will be fought to a very large extent on climate change and Australian industry. The government of today will be found to be massively wanting on both of those counts. It is a disgrace that we are not acting seriously, we do not have at our core of this concern about climate change and we do not have at our core a concern about ensuring that we are part of the technology that is being developed. As I say, forget the green and red tape. You are wrapping us up in black tape.

Mr IRONS (Swan) (12:32): I rise to speak on the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Bill 2014 in the second reading debate. I quote:

Australia’s productivity is being choked by red tape, with the combined cost of administering and complying with public and private sector bureaucracy costing the nation $250 billion every year.

These are the words of Chris Richardson, the co-author of Deloitte Access Economics' latest report Get out of your own way: unleashing productivity, which was released in October. They are words that clearly depict the reality for productivity and profit margins that Australian business, industry and government is currently facing. It is also the reality that we need to work together now to stop in its tracks if we want to return our country to the level of prosperity that every Australian enjoyed a decade ago under the Howard government.

The report highlights exactly what this government has been saying for the past seven years: unnecessary regulation is a burden on government and it is a burden on industry. It is a burden which is costing this country's productivity margins every day it exists. Yet, it is a burden which the Labor Party insisted on increasing day in and day out for the six long years they were in government. It is a burden that, as this report states, the private sector is also imposing on themselves, through $155 billion in annual costs to administer and comply with their own rules.

We talk about doing it tough in the global economic environment we are currently living in, but this report has showcased the level of hindrance we are also causing to ourselves. It is a hindrance that is costing industry both time and money. That is because instead of employees spending their time working to boost productivity, they are filling in what is often unnecessary and duplicative administrative paperwork. They are also doing this without taking the time to weigh up whether the internal rules and regulations they are abiding by are actually providing a benefit to the company or in fact achieving their objective.

As the Deloitte report stated:

… not all compliance is bad and much of it is necessary. The issue is that many of the rules that are put in place either overcompensate or carry a heavy burden that is not justified on a risk/reward basis.

This is evident when you look at the breakdown of the private sector's regulatory burden, with $21 billion of this total $155 billion in costs being spent on developing and administering compliance rules, while a massive $134 billion is being spent purely on compliance costs. I think members on this side of the House would agree that the coalition government is doing its part to reduce this regulatory burden; but for these measures to be effective, industry must also do theirs.

The Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Bill 2014 is one of many repeal bills the coalition government has introduced into this place to reduce the impact of regulation across Australia as part of our commitment to cut $1 billion in red and green tape each year. That is because on this side of the chamber there are people with experience who understand businesses. They understand the economy and they understand that where money and time is wasted it costs Australia's economy as a whole. That whole is $2.1 billion.

This is definitely not a small number, but I am pleased to inform the House that it is the amount of unnecessary compliance costs that will now be saved in red and green tape as a result of legislation introduced by the coalition last month on our spring repeal day and in March as part of this parliament's first ever, and I must say unprecedented, autumn repeal day. It is also a number that I am pleased to advise the House is more than double our original commitment, because that is how much unnecessary regulation is currently choking industry and choking our government departments' ability to work efficiently and effectively.

The coalition government is trying to ease this regulatory burden and we are achieving our goal by working to open up our markets to new businesses and to boost productivity levels across existing industries. The coalition's commitment is not just evidenced by this $2.1 billion in compliance savings but also through our overall policy agenda to work hand-in-hand with business rather than in opposition, as seen under the former government. That is because at the end of the day our goal is the same: to drive profit for business, which in turn will boost our national economy.

The government's recently announced free-trade agreements with some of our largest global export and import markets, including Japan, Korea and most recently with our largest trading partner China will play another key role in boosting our economy, creating jobs and driving higher living standards for Australians. That is because the coalition is a government that recognises that, without business productivity, this nation as a whole will fall flat. We are a government that takes the time to listen to industry and takes note of their needs.

With that in mind, I am pleased that the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Bill is this government's direct response to industry stakeholders' calls for regulatory burdens to be removed and administrative processes to be streamlined for building owners and lessees when applying for a Building Energy Efficiency Certificate under the provisions of the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act 2010. The original intent of the legislation was to improve the energy efficiency of Australia's buildings, while also helping buyers and tenants to make informed decisions about efficiencies when entering into an agreement. It is legislation, I am pleased to say, that had bipartisan and stakeholder support at the time of its implementation and it continues to have that same support today. As we heard from the member for Perth, the opposition are supporting the bill.

The Commercial Building Disclosure—CBD—scheme mandates that energy efficiency ratings of commercial buildings or an area of a commercial building which is more than 2,000 square metres and is used for administrative, clerical, professional or similar information-based activities be publicly available. It also creates a requirement that these buildings must have a current Building Energy Efficiency Certificate before their commercial space can be offered for lease or sale, with the certificate being valid for up to 12 months. Currently, for a Building Energy Efficiency Certificate to be issued the following information must be determined by an accredited assessor. A National Australian Built Environment Ratings System, more commonly known as NABERS, energy star rating for the building needs to be assessed. For those members who are not aware, NABERS is Australia's national rating system which measures the environmental impact or operation of a building, and it does this by assessing its energy efficiency, water usage, waste management and the indoor environmental quality of a building or tenancy and its corresponding impact on the environment. A star rating between one and six is then given to the building, with one star indicating poor energy performance and six stars being regarded by industry as market-leading performance. For a certificate to be issued, an assessment of the energy efficiency of tenancy lighting in the area of that building that is being sold or leased must also be undertaken. With lighting accounting for over 30 per cent of all energy used in commercial buildings, this is important information for prospective tenants, as their future energy bills could be significantly reduced by leasing a property that has a higher performing energy efficiency. Lastly, for a certificate to be issued, the owner or sublessee must provide general energy efficiency guidance information to any prospective owner or tenant.

As I am sure members can see, this is all important information when trying to determine the best value for money in the property market, particularly when identifying the impact of a low versus high energy efficiency rated building on their bills, while also helping to accelerate energy efficiency in some of Australia's largest administrative buildings. For those members who are not aware of the potential impact of a building's low versus high energy efficiency, I will clarify what this means. If a building has a high energy efficiency rating, it would therefore be expected that the business owner's or tenant's corresponding energy bill would be lower than those buildings with poor energy efficiency. This would create savings in the long term, while a higher energy efficiency would also ensure that the building's environmental impact is lower than that of a building which has poor energy efficiency. As identified in an analysis by the Department of Industry, which looked at the investment performance of high versus low NABERS energy-rated office assets from September 2008 to September 2013, higher NABERS energy-rated offices consistently outperformed low energy offices. In September 2013, this saw an annualised return of 9.8 per cent, comprising a 7.3 per cent income return and a 2.3 per cent capital growth.

As I am sure members would realise, buildings across Australia which require a certificate are more commonly found in CBD areas due to the prevalence of large tower buildings. In Swan, there are, however, five buildings which have been issued a Building Energy Efficiency Certificate, which, as it happens, includes the office building where my electorate office is based in Victoria Park. I am pleased to advise the House that I selected my office well. It has an energy efficiency rating which is higher than all other Swan buildings, with 4.5 stars. Although members in this place expressed bipartisan support for this scheme when it was first introduced and have done so since that time, that does not mean its processes cannot be better streamlined and reviews should not be undertaken.

As I said earlier, a big part of reducing unnecessary regulation and compliance costs is to look back at the policies this place has implemented and to find ways to improve them rather than taking the 'if it isn't broke don't fix it' approach, which could potentially cost government and industry billions of dollars in the long run, as identified during this government's Autumn and Spring repeal days. The amendments proposed in the bill before the House are expected to deliver improved administration to the CBD scheme while also ensuring that additional regulatory burdens that hinder industry are removed, creating an annual predicted saving of $600,000 million in compliance costs. As I mentioned earlier, commercial office buildings or an area of an office building which is more than 2,000 square metres are required to have an up-to-date Building Energy Efficiency Certificate.

Although the CBD scheme when issuing these certificates is overall working well, stakeholders have identified a number of issues with the scheme when applying its rules and regulations in practice. The bill directly responds to these concerns by making a number of amendments to better streamline its protocols. One key amendment that will be made is the introduction of an exemption for building owners or tenants to provide an energy efficiency assessment when an offer to buy or lease that commercial property is unsolicited. Currently, the owner of a building would be required to have a Building Energy Efficiency Certificate in place before they could respond to any unsolicited or uninvited requests to sell or lease that building or an area of the building. By making this important amendment on behalf of industry, the coalition will create an estimated saving of $300,000 for businesses by removing this onerous regulatory burden. A second key amendment to the scheme also proposed in the bill will allow transactions between wholly-owned subsidiaries to be excluded from disclosure obligations. Again, this amendment will lead to another $300,000 regulatory burden reduction. Thirdly, as I mentioned earlier, a certificate is issued for a maximum of 12 months and, under the scheme's current provisions, this certificate must commence on the date of issue. According to stakeholders, this is impractical for those building owners and tenants who want to exercise due diligence in maintaining or improving their energy efficiency standards. The coalition has listened to these concerns, with a third proposed amendment allowing the commencement date for a certificate to be later than the date of issue.

Another provision that is currently required for a certificate to be issued is for standard energy efficiency guidance text to be provided to a prospective building owner or tenant. The coalition again believes this is an additional regulatory burden on industry, which could be better streamlined by instead having this information provided online in a live, interactive format.

As I mentioned earlier, although the general requirement is for commercial office space that has an area of more than 2,000 square metres to have a Building Energy Efficiency Certificate, there are exceptions and exemptions to this rule. Under the scheme, newly constructed buildings, which are those under two years old, and strata title buildings are automatically exempt from the scheme. There are also a number of exemptions to the scheme's requirements which are determined on a case-by-case basis. Such exemptions include the building being used for police or security operations, if it is not possible to assign a NABERS energy rating to the building, or for vacant buildings.

In the case of exceptions to the scheme, you do not have to apply to obtain one; however, a building owner or tenant may be required to substantiate why they should be considered an exception under the scheme. Typically, exceptions can relate to the type of building, such as new buildings where a certificate of occupancy has not yet been issued, or for buildings which have completed a major refurbishment for which a certificate of occupancy was issued less than two years earlier. They can also relate to the type of transaction.

Under the scheme's current provisions, new owners and lessors are required to reapply for an exemption and possibly pay a fee even if a valid exemption is in place. Under this bill's proposed amendments, this requirement will, however, be removed to get rid of this unnecessary and costly burden on industry.

While it is important that these amendments are passed in this place to assist industry and respond to their calls for reform of the scheme, I also highlight that the Minister for Industry has commissioned an independent review of the CBD program following a direct request from the Prime Minister. This independent review is currently underway by ACIL Allen Consulting and will report to the minister by March 2015. I look forward to reviewing this report, which I am sure will give all members a greater sense of whether the scheme is continuing to meet its objectives, the scheme's level of effectiveness, and other areas where reform may be needed.

On behalf of the stakeholders who these amendments will benefit, I commend this bill to the House.

Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (12:47): I am delighted to rise today to speak, as did my Labor colleagues the members for Brand, Wills and Perth, in support of the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Bill 2014 that is currently before the House. Since the establishment of the Commercial Building Disclosure, or CBD, Program, back in 2011, there have been regular stakeholder reviews.

The changes in this bill today have been supported wholeheartedly by those stakeholder groups. In fact, these have been issues that have been raised through those regular forums that are quite rightly aimed at ensuring continuous improvement of the program.

These changes require legislative amendments to the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act 2010, the BEED Act, and associated legislative instruments, including the Building Energy Efficiency Regulations and Determinations. The act was created following significant consultation with industry—specifically, the Green Building Council of Australia, the Energy Efficiency Council and the Clean Energy Council.

At the outset, I wish to reaffirm Labor's longstanding commitment to energy conservation and efficiency. Energy efficiency represents one of the fastest-growing and cheapest ways that we can reduce our nation's greenhouse gas emissions.

In fact, the International Energy Agency's Energy efficiency market report 2014 found that energy efficiency is indeed the world's 'first fuel'. The research found that energy efficiency improvements in 11 countries, including Australia, delivered more—that is right: more—capacity than any other source of energy. That is remarkable—more energy from conservation than from burning oil, coal or gas. Energy efficiency saved those 11 countries some 56 exajoules of energy in 2012, which was more than the final energy delivered by oil, which was some 50 exajoules; electricity, at 23 exajoules; or natural gas, at 20 exajoules. It is also more than the total energy consumption of the European Union.

My electorate of Newcastle is lucky enough to be home to some of the world's leaders in energy efficiency research. Scientists at the University of Newcastle's Institute for Energy and Resources, otherwise known as NIER, and scientists at the CSIRO Energy Centre have been at the centre of developments that are changing the way that we use, store and, indeed, generate energy.

I would like to briefly turn to some of the work being done at the Newcastle Institute for Energy and Resources. Their research is based on four key areas. The first is resource productivity and efficiency: looking for solutions to problems facing our minerals, gas and water resource sectors. They also examine energy technologies and utilisation, an area that is driven by economic and environmental challenges with the goal of increasing efficiencies and reducing, of course, greenhouse gases. The third key area for NIER is around advanced materials for energy applications—looking at the significant potential for the next generation of low-cost, sustainable energy applications. And the final area of study that NIER's researchers are great specialists at is land use, social impacts and sustainability, which focuses on the balance between the environment, community and economic activity within energy and resource intensive regions.

I could talk at length—for much of this debate—on some of the fantastic work that is being done by the Newcastle Institute for Energy and Resources; however, I would like to use this opportunity now to acknowledge one of the more recent successes of their researchers. Last month, Professor Behdad Moghtaderi was awarded the Renewable Energy Innovation Award at the New South Wales Science and Engineering Awards for his GRANEX heat engine invention. The engine turns low-grade heat resources that may not otherwise be viably usable into emissions-free electricity. It can be applied to a range of diverse heat sources, including renewable energy, process industries, transport systems and commercial and residential buildings. It is research that will indeed be a game changer for this nation, and I am particularly delighted that NIER its researchers have been recognised for the lead role they have taken in that area.

I would also like to turn to some of the work being developed at the CSIRO Energy Centre in Newcastle. Like NIER, the listing of achievements by the CSIRO Energy Centre would take much more time than we have here today to speak on this bill, but I would like to note that the CSIRO facility, the actual physical space, where much of that groundbreaking work has been conducted, is at the forefront of an energy efficiency build in Australia and is certainly worthy of being noted in this debate. The CSIRO Energy Centre, which opened in Newcastle in 2003, set a new benchmark in terms of ecologically sustainable design, showcasing innovative energy generation approaches, building demand reduction and supply options. They conserve energy through the building's orientation and layout, the construction materials and building management systems. They generate energy on-site through a 115 kilowatt photovoltaic system and a 120 kilowatt gas-fired microturbine co-generation system, and house two high-concentration solar thermal tower arrays capable of 500 kilowatts and one megawatt thermal output respectively. The Newcastle CSIRO Energy Centre most definitely practise what they preach. The work of both NIER and CSIRO showcase what can be achieved here in Australia with proper funding and investment into education and resources and important capital works and investment programs.

As we are discussing energy efficiency in this chamber, it would be remiss of me not to mention the renewable energy target. Until this government came to power, the renewable energy target, or RET as it is known, enjoyed bipartisan support since its creation some 13 years ago under the then Howard Liberal government. It is something that the Prime Minister promised he would not change if elected—but we are regularly reminded, however, that keeping promises is not one of the Prime Minister's strongest points. But keeping the RET was indeed a promise he clearly made. The government specifically committed to the 41,000 gigawatt-hour target and that there would be no changes to the arrangements in the rooftop solar industry, both household and commercial. The crazy thing is that even the Prime Minister's own hand-picked panel set out to review and possibly wind back the RET confirmed that on every possible indicator the RET works and it should be kept. The RET helped drive our nation as a leader in renewable energy technology and use.

When Labor came to government in 2007, there were 7,400 houses across the entire country that had rooftop solar. By the time we left, there were 1.3 million, and that is still growing by 3,000 every month. Unfortunately it is not growing as quickly as it would be if there were not some uncertainty, which this government has now brought through with its review of the RET, but the growth is still strong. Labor's position remains to defend the renewable energy target. It is working. It lowers power prices, lowers carbon pollution and supports an industry that employs thousands of Australians. The RET is an integral part of Australia's energy economy and our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Likewise, the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Bill is an important part of our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The commercial building sector is responsible for around 10 per cent of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions and this figure is rising. The importance of energy efficiency in our commercial buildings is as critical now as ever. Energy efficiency, as I said, represents one of the fastest and cheapest ways that we can reduce our nation's greenhouse gas emissions.

In terms of its effectiveness to streamline the efficacy of the Commercial Building Disclosure Program, the bill before us is an important step in the right direction. As I mentioned, stakeholders support the changes that are proposed in this bill but, notwithstanding the support for those changes, there is a great deal of scepticism about the yet to be published commercial building disclosure, or CBD, review. The CBD is a national program designed to improve the energy efficiency of Australia's office buildings as part of the National Strategy on Energy Efficiency.

Labor's Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Bill 2010 established a legal requirement for owners of large commercial office buildings to obtain energy efficiency information for their building and to disclose it to prospective purchasers and lessees. It also required head tenants who are subletting office space to disclose this information. The energy efficiency information disclosed is in the form of a building energy efficiency certificate. The certificate includes a star rating of the building's energy efficiency, an assessment of tenancy lighting and additional guidance on how the energy efficiency of the office might be improved.

I commend organisations which are setting a good example for others to follow in energy efficiency, such as the Hunter Water Corporation, in my electorate, which has a 4.5-star rating of its head office in Newcastle's Honeysuckle Precinct.

Not only are the energy efficiency measures good for the environment; they are also economically beneficial for building owners. It is now well documented that buildings with an environmental rating deliver better returns and so the CBD program is helping to deliver increased value in the property market.

The Building better returns report 2011 found that green-star rated buildings deliver a 12 per cent green premium in value and a five per cent premium in rent, compared to non-rated buildings.

Credible energy efficiency information helps parties to make better informed decisions and to take full account of the economic costs and environmental impacts associated with operating the buildings they are intending to purchase or lease.

In the second year of full mandatory disclosure, from 1 November 2012 to 1 November 2013, the CBD program issued 1,081 building energy efficiency certificates and 1,106 tenancy light assessments. These initiatives are making a difference. This bill will certainly assist in terms of tidying up a number of housekeeping measures that, as I have said, stakeholders have brought to our attention for continuous improvement of this program.

However, I do share, as outlined by the member for Brand, Labor's concerns around the future of the CBD program and the potential for this ongoing review to be an effective cover for its abolition. That would be a retrograde step for Australia and, indeed, it is to be avoided at all costs.

Labor supports the objectives of this bill and the efficiencies and streamlining of processes that will be achieved by its measures, but we give a warning about the review of the CBD.

Mr VARVARIS (Barton) (13:02): I rise to speak in favour of this bill, the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Bill 2014, which aims to streamline the administrative processes of the Commercial Building Disclosure program and, in so doing, address the concerns of stakeholders about reducing the regulatory burden on industry.

This bill fits with the coalition's plan to reduce red tape and to make it easier for businesses to comply with commercial building disclosure regulations. The implementation of this bill will result in significant savings for businesses.

The amending legislation will also ensure that businesses will encounter a smaller administrative burden and less red tape when dealing with compliance relating to energy efficiency regulations. The Prime Minister has noted:

… lower taxes, less red tape, and more incentives to work harder and smarter are the key to a stronger economy and better services.

I am pleased to be able to state that the coalition is delivering on its promises to cut red tape and make it easier for business to comply with government regulations.

Currently, the commercial building sector is responsible for about 10 per cent of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions and the coalition recognises that tackling building energy efficiency is one of the quickest and most cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thereby helping to mitigate the effects of climate change.

However, in so doing, it is important to ensure that the burden on business is not overly excessive and unreasonable, particularly in conducting transactions which are already significantly complex and time consuming.

This amending legislation aims to improve the Commercial Building Disclosure program, created under the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act 2010, the BEED Act, with the purpose of allowing businesses to have greater flexibility with applications for building energy efficiency certificates. The bill also ensures that certain businesses can deal with the streamlined administrative process when complying with the Commercial Building Disclosure program.

The Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act aims to ensure that credible and meaningful energy efficiency information is given to prospective purchasers and lessees of large commercial office space. The act requires energy efficiency information to be disclosed in most cases, when commercial office space of 2,000 square metres or more is offered for sale or lease, in order to allow purchasers or lessees to make more informed decisions and take a more complete account of the economic costs and environmental impacts associated with the operation of commercial premises which they are intending to purchase or lease. However, under the current regulatory framework, concerns have arisen from various stakeholders about the effectiveness of the program in achieving its goals.

This government has a proven track record of engaging with industry and, in so doing, has listened to concerns and acted to ensure that we make the process of conducting compliance more streamlined and efficient for business.

The amending legislation will make a number of changes in order to facilitate this. Firstly, it will provide exemptions to building owners who receive unsolicited offers for the sale or lease of their office space. Under the present legislation businesses are compelled to provide building energy efficiency certificates when unsolicited offers are made for a potential lease or purchase of any commercial property that falls under the act.

This bill will reduce the regulatory burden on industry, by providing a time-limited exemption from the mandatory disclosure requirements for the two parties involved in a negotiation started by an unsolicited offer. Providing for an exemption in this instance will reduce the need for businesses to provide untimely building energy efficiency certificates and will lead to an estimated $0.3 million reduction of regulatory burden on businesses.

Furthermore, the amending legislation will provide for wholly-owned subsidiaries to be excluded from disclosure obligations when entering into transactions with a parent entity. The effect of this change is to exclude these non-market transactions from the requirements of mandatory disclosure which will, in turn, reduce the burden on industry.

Whilst the present legislation aims to create a more informed marketplace with regard to transactions involving large commercial premises, mandating that wholly-owned subsidiaries transacting with parent entities be compelled to comply with the Commercial Building Disclosure program does not serve to achieve this and simply adds unnecessary complexity to already elaborate transactions.

Excluding these non-market transactions from the disclosure regime will lead to a further estimated $0.3 million reduction of regulatory burden on businesses. Combined with the exemptions to businesses which receive unsolicited offers from potential lessors and buyers, these measures will see a $0.6 million reduction in regulatory burden on business.

In addition to addressing these issues, the amendment will also address the ambiguity in the Building Energy Efficiency Act in relation to the status of assessments undertaken by assessors accredited under the National Australian Built Environment Ratings System. At present, a number of NABERS accredited assessors are not accredited under the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act. This means there is significant ambiguity for businesses around the status of accreditations completed by NABERS accredited assessors. In order to address this issue the amendment will confer additional functions on auditing authorities such as NABERS allowing them to directly provide or approve ratings used in building energy efficiency certificates which are required for compliance with the Commercial Building Disclosure Regulations.

The amendment will also confer two new functions on appointed auditors when conducting assessments of affected commercial property. Assessors will now be allowed to conduct audits of both energy efficiency ratings and lighting energy efficiency assessments provided or approved by auditing authorities such as NABERS for the purposes of applying for building energy efficiency certificates. The bill also aims to allow auditors to conduct audits of applications for exemptions under section 17 of the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act. This has the practical effect of enabling auditing under the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act of NABERS energy efficiency ratings which are conducted by the significant number of NABERS accredited assessors who have not been accredited under the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act up until now. In clarifying the status of assessments that up until now may not have been made by assessors accredited under the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act, the coalition will give certainty and assurance to businesses attempting to comply with the CBD regulations.

The bill also introduces the concept of having both an issue day and a start day which is later than the issue day. At present, there is no distinction between the day a building energy efficiency certificate is issued and the day that it starts to take effect. This will provide greater flexibility for businesses wishing to proactively maintain current building energy efficiency certificates for their property portfolios. The changes will also allow for a new building energy efficiency certificate to be issued in advance of the expiry of a current building energy efficiency certificate and for the new certificate to commence once the current certificates expires, creating a more efficient way for business to ensure that the certificates are up to date and compliant for their entire portfolio.

Furthermore, the act will be amended to allow for variations or revocations of an exemption to be given by the secretary of the department by way of written notice to a person with an interest in the commercial building or area to be affected. In doing so, the amendment will serve to remove the need for new owners and lessors to reapply or pay the application fee for a fresh exemption as if there is already a valid one in place for a building. This measure will make it easier for new owners and lessors to comply with the act's regulations and save them money by waiving the associated fee which under the act as it presently stands is required to accompany any application for a variation. The amendment will also ensure that the requirement for six pages of standard energy efficiency guidance text on the building energy efficiency certificate BEECH is removed. Instead, live and interactive online information about improving energy efficiency for office buildings will be provided in its place, thereby reducing the amount of paperwork that business needs to wade through in regulatory compliance.

By streamlining the work done by assessors accredited under the NABERS program, by making the process of applying for exemption more efficient and by reducing the overall burden businesses have in complying with regulations, the government has taken genuine steps to cut unnecessary red tape. In actively dismantling excessive regulatory burden, the government has not lost sight of the very real need to assist the commercial building sector to seek market based incentives to reform energy efficiency.

As I have mentioned previously, the amendments in this act demonstrate the government's clear commitment to taking into account the concerns of various stakeholders and reduce the regulatory burden on industry. At the previous election the Australian community made it clear that they wished to see a government taking action on these issues which stifle businesses and constrain growth. We have a clear mandate to lessen the regulatory burden and cut unnecessary red tape. This bill is one of the many important steps the coalition is taking to help businesses to facilitate growth. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:12): I rise to speak on the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Bill 2014. But before I do so, I commend the member for Barton for his contribution and publicly restate my commitment that I owe him a beer—that debt will be repaid one day!

Mr Tehan: Oh, another one you owe!

Mr PERRETT: I will take that interjection! This legislation basically deals with the commercial building sector. It is important that good governments understand the role that the commercial building sector plays in terms of contributing to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. I am informed that they contribute about 10 per cent of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions—and, unfortunately, this figure is rising. However, the good news is that energy efficiency represents one of the fastest and cheapest ways we can reduce our nation's greenhouse gas emissions. That is what the Howard government was committed to in the lead-up to the 2007 election, and obviously the Rudd government—and it continued under the Gillard government. We believe that this nation must act. As a Queenslander, coming from the state which is arguably the worst per capita emitter in the world—there is some argument about Qatar—I understand the need to do more. It is not enough to just let things continue unabated. This legislation reflects that commitment of good government to pull whatever levers are possible.

Labor's Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Bill, introduced in 2010, established a legal requirement for owners of large commercial office buildings to obtain energy efficiency information for their building and disclose that information to prospective purchasers and lessees—people moving into the building. The energy efficiency information disclosed is in the form of a Building Energy Efficiency Certificate—a BEEC. This includes a star rating of the building's energy efficiency, an assessment of tenancy lighting and additional guidance on how the energy efficiency of the office may be improved. It is a sensible bit of information—information that all good people purchasing a building would track down anyway, but it is creating the culture that this is the norm, that this is the standard bit of information that should be available to people when they purchase a building.

It is interesting that when Labor brought in this legislation two property industry reports showed that buildings with the higher energy efficiency ratings are actually commanding better returns in the marketplace. People are obviously prepared to pay more for the tenancies and the buildings because of this higher star rating. And switching to efficient lighting can cut tenants' lighting bills by 30 to 60 per cent. So, it makes good sense for commercial buildings to disclose as much information as possible and then to create the culture that this is the norm. And those stars are something to brag about. If you are a landlord who has a property portfolio and people want with good conscience to invest in a property portfolio, you can say, 'We only own buildings that have these star ratings.' It makes good commercial sense, it makes good environmental sense, and that is why Labor introduced this legislation and it has been largely supported by those opposite.

The amendment bill in front of the chamber now, proposed by the government, is largely a housekeeping measure in response to changes that have been proposed in stakeholder forums, and these changes will reduce red tape. Obviously when the program was brought in it started to achieve its outcomes, but we need to tidy up a few things. The changes before the chamber include providing exemptions to building owners who receive unsolicited offers for the sale or lease of their office space, and this will lead to a suggested $300,000 reduction in regulatory burden. It will also allow transactions between wholly owned subsidiaries to be excluded from the disclosure obligations. So, rather than running around and tracking down information when an entity is largely giving it to itself, there is a reduction in red tape. It also addresses ambiguity in the BEED Act in relation to the status of assessments undertaken by assessors accredited under the National Australian Built Environment Rating System program but not accredited under the CBD program. So, it is largely technical, but it makes sense to streamline this.

It will also introduce the ability to determine a commencement date for a Building Energy Efficiency Certificate which is later than the actual date of issue. This will provide greater flexibility for businesses wishing to proactively maintain their current BEECs for their property portfolio. It will remove the need for new owners and lessors to reapply or pay the application fee for fresh exemptions if there is an existing one in place for a building and remove the requirement for six pages of standard energy efficiency guidance text on the Building Energy Efficiency Certificate, as well as provide live and interactive online information about improving energy efficiency for office buildings instead. It makes sense to get rid of paperwork if the whole intent of the legislation is to decrease our greenhouse gas emissions.

The Department of Industry has appointed Allen Consulting to undertake an independent review with the purpose of assessing the program's objectives, the effectiveness of the program in promoting energy efficiency and its interaction with the proposed Emissions Reduction Fund. This needs to be seen in the context of the Direct Action climate change policy embraced by the Abbott government. That is a $2.55 billion program, or $2,550 million, committed to reducing Australia's emissions. Let us put that in context. That is about $110 for every man, woman and child, yet this program that they are committed to—that the so-called environment minister is committed to, that the Prime Minister is committed to—cannot find a friend who believes it will actually do anything effective. It is effectively giving money to polluters. That is the policy that the government has embraced. We actually saw the Prime Minister rule out ever introducing an emissions trading scheme, which is, as every economist knows, the best and quickest way to obtain a price on a product.

So here we have the party of Menzies abolishing markets, saying that we will never have a market for something that is going to cause harm to our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren, and causing harm to farmers right now. The Prime Minister has said—

Dr Jensen interjecting—

Mr PERRETT: I will take that interjection from the member for Tangney, because remember your policy, the very policy that your party has embraced, is to combat climate change. So, come in spinner! I am looking forward to your contribution on this, because it is always out there. Your contributions are almost at Mars when it comes to climate change. So, the member's party has committed to spend $110 for every man, woman and child in Australia to combat climate change. But we cannot see how it will work. The real risk is that you give some polluters money to not pollute, but then other polluters can step up—because there is no cap on what Australia's emissions could be—and just be able to increase their emissions. There is no cop on the beat, there is no market mechanism to ensure that that does not happen.

So we are going to have every man, every woman and every child in Australia paying $110, all for a mirage. I think the member for Fairfax extracted out of this government a commitment to provide a report on whether there should be emissions trading. They paid $2.55 billion for this report, but the Prime Minister has said, 'We will ignore that report'. So everyone in this chamber should take out $110 and just give it to the environment minister and say, 'Don't worry about the report, because you're just going to waste that money.'

We saw at the G20 meeting that Australia is not in step with the rest of the developed world. We saw China and the United States embrace action on climate change. We have seen India, which is buying a little bit of coal from Queensland, sidestepping that whole coal-fired power generation stage—in terms of bringing those hundreds of millions of people in the rural areas out of poverty—and, instead, they are going to go into solar and the other renewables.

The reality is that Australia had a golden opportunity, under the Labor government in the 42nd and 43rd parliaments, to be ready for a carbon-constrained global economy. Instead, we have lost that opportunity. Those billions of dollars of infrastructure investment in renewable energy have now evaporated and gone to other places—gone to sunnier places, gone too windier places than Australia. Instead, we have a government that fundamentally does not believe its own policy. That weathervane of a Prime Minister is prepared to sacrifice $2.55 billion for something that he actually, one day or another, does not believe in.

This legislation, the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Bill, is part of that Labor legacy of changing the culture. I saw it in Brisbane during the droughts in the early part of the noughties, where the dams in Brisbane were down to nearly 16 to 17 per cent water and suddenly Brisbane, a subtropical city, changed its water consumption patterns all but overnight. I have seen cultures change quickly, and that is what was happening under the Labor government in terms of responding to climate change.

We are obviously the party of jobs. We are not the magic-happens, crystal-hugging party that does not believe in jobs. We are the party of jobs. We wanted Australia to transition in a realistic way so that we could look after the jobs in the mining sector, look after the jobs in manufacturing and the like and end up with jobs in the long term.

Where were the jobs being created under Labor? They were in the renewable energy sector. We have had nearly 71,000 more unemployed people under this government since they came in last year. They do not understand jobs and, worse than that, they do not understand the future, the challenges that are coming our way. We know that there are some revenue collapse issues coming our way, and all the braying of those people that occupy the backbenches up there in the third 15 corner are not going to change that reality. Australia needs to be prepared for a carbon-constrained future—that is the reality.

This legislation is not something for Labor to be concerned about; however, obviously the review that is coming might be something that we need to look at. Under Labor, we did flag that eventually this model of providing certificates for buildings would turn into a cost-recovery model. That was something flagged by the Labor government when it was announced, because the program is only funded for five years. However, this is an opportunity for the government to show its leadership—not mislead, leadership—and make sure that this program continues. Because it is slowly changing the culture, and it will then flow out into households so that when people buy their home, buy their building, rent their building, rent their home, they will be saying, 'What are the long-term costs associated with this?' Because there are many things that can be done early.

That is another reason why this Direct Action policy will not work. That is because almost all of the low-hanging fruit has gone. That is why this $2.55 billion white elephant of a policy is not going to achieve the goals that they are talking about. Ken Henry suggested that it could cost up to $4 to $5 billion per year between now and 2020 just to get to the government's five per cent reduction target.

So it is going to cost even more taxpayers' dollars to achieve the target, or the Prime Minister will have to give up on his attempt to reduce Australia's carbon pollution, and that would make us even more of a pariah. Canada is happy to commit the world environment fund so that Canada gets it. The Prime Minister's only friend at G20, when it came to climate change, Canadian Prime Minister Harper, still understood that climate change is real. You might have a few people that scoff and surf the dark edges of the internet for some crackpot scientists wearing tinfoil hats that support their programs, but that is not the reality of the CSIRO and the mainstream science. The reality is—

Government members interjecting—

Mr PERRETT: Member for Tangney, I know you have a tinfoil hat at home—I understand that—but the reality is that Australia needs to act on climate change; otherwise, we will miss out on economic opportunities and miss out on jobs and, worse, people will start to see us as a trading pariah, and that will be bad for our farmers, bad for our jobs, bad for our manufacturers and bad our grandchildren, who will be lining up to slap the people that betrayed Australia.

Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (13:27): It is very difficult to follow a comedy act, but I will try.

We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us.

So said Winston Churchill, and today we invoke such vision and leadership. The coalition government prides itself on being responsible stewards of the Australian economy. The primary focus of this amendment is to peel back the overregulation that detracts from the purpose of the legislation in its initial form.

The Commercial Building Disclosure Program, supported by the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Act 2010, has been one of the most cost-effective attempts at reducing energy use in commercial buildings. With reduced use comes reduced costs. That is a real win for business. With this amendment bill we have the opportunity to streamline administration and reduce the regulatory burden on business. This amendment, a savings multiplier, is necessary and called for by the community. I have spoken before on the importance of keeping the regulatory burden subdued. Key to this is focusing on regulatory amendments that help keep compliance costs down. Compliance costs are a wet blanket on the flame of free enterprise and competitive business. Overregulation is the 'hungry, hungry hippo' of the economy. Unlike the lovable children's board game, overregulation leaves everyone the poorer—the people, the economy, the nation.

By passing these building efficiency amendments the government will reduce the regulatory burden on industry, streamline the administrative process of the Commercial Building Disclosure program and address concerns of these stakeholders who have been waiting years for these amendments to pass. These amendments will modify the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act. That bill required sellers—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the honourable member will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed.