Leading from behind on energy efficient buildings
April 7, 2008 by Christine Milne
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is very fond of calling her government’s approach to climate change “careful and methodical”, but yet another example of the Government’s actions, that I’ve been working to uncover recently, makes it seem more “careless and haphazard” or reactive governance.
Joining the Infrastructure Australia Bill which precludes the body from assessing climate change implications of infrastructure decisions without direct Ministerial instruction, the deliberate ignoring of emissions from the Gunns Pulp Mill, and Martin Ferguson’s fast-tracking of funding to turn coal into a horrendously dirty transport fuel, we now find that the Government has been signing new leases for Government offices which do not even meet the former Government’s 4.5 star energy efficiency target, let alone their own talk of lifting it to 5 star.
Most embarrassingly for Wong and the Government, the new Climate Change Department, instead of moving into a showcase highly efficient building - of which there are several available in Canberra - has moved into existing premises of the Environment Department at 2 Constitution Ave in central Canberra, which has been rated as 3.5 stars. Just around London Circuit in 16 Marcus Clarke St, which is 4.5 stars, and up Northbourne Ave or down the road at the Brindabella Business Park are more options for 4.5 or 5 star buildings.
After being embarrassed by my revelation of this fact, Minister Wong’s office has committed to working with the building’s owners and architects to retrofit it to 4.5 star or higher, and use the retrofit itself as a showcase. That’s all well and good, but it does smack of reactive governance.
Would they have done this had I not raised the issue? We’ll never really know. Just to make sure, I am now putting in questions on notice across the board to find out details of all new Government leases signed since the Rudd Government took office, specifically focussed on the energy efficiency ratings of all the buildings. With a bit of work, we can hopefully make sure all Government offices get a similar retrofit.
Now, it is worth bearing in mind, of course, that, while retrofitting these buildings once tenanted by Government offices is a good outcome, there are many building owners and developers out there who have already taken the initiative to make their buildings highly efficient in expectation of preferential treatment for their actions. Procurement policies by governments - the biggest tenants in the country - are there to recognise that leadership and reward it, as well as driving other owners and developers to do the same. A policy of finding the easiest office in the short term and then retrofitting it is a slap in the face to industry leaders who should be being rewarded.
Energy efficiency in buildings is a hugely important area whose potential for major emissions reductions is highlighted by the Garnaut Review and the IPCC amongst many others. It should not be left to ad hoc, post-embarrassment commitments. I shouldn’t have to chase up the Government to make sure they are doing the basic work. But I will until they understand the vital importance of a true, comprehensive, whole-of-government approach to climate change.
My release on the issue this morning is here.
Good work Christene!
Sadly despite these efforts it seems most likely that electricity demand will skyrocket in Australia over the next two decades especially as plug-in electric cars emerge here in response to expensive fossil fuels. (See recent Californian legislation mandating a minimum number of plug-in electric cars). This means we really need to get our clean generation going fast or we’ll be nuclear for sure.
The advent of electric cars also means an expansion of public transport will be considerably less effective than we might hope.
In anticipation of this demand can we get Penny to focus hard on clean generation?
Will Penny really allow Tanner to execute his plan to cut the existing renewable grants scheme?
And more to the point will the Senate allow Tanner to cut the renewables grants scheme?
After all Labor does not have the numbers to reduce that scheme without support of other parties. Can you embarrass the libs into helping to block Tanner’s plans to reduce those grants?
Good work - depressing that you have to chase them up like this, but keep at it until they get the messsage!
I’m not sure how the Liberals are going to hold these kinds of issues to the Government next election. They have painted themselves into the denialist corner on climate change and have no credibility in almost anyone’s eyes.
It is a void that really should be filled by the Greens coming in the near future. It is promising to see issues such as this put to the public.
It remains to be seen how the newspapers would respond.
Austin I think it is overstating things a tad to say the libs have no credibility in almost anyone’s eyes.
The coalition got more than 45% of the 2PP vote which indicates the libs really are the most credible party available to literally millions of voters.
With Howard gone its easy for the libs to now reinvent themselves are having Green tendencies. I think almost all the senior libs are on public record as saying their prior position on Kyoto made no sense and they fully support Rudd signing the treaty. Its pretty clear Turnbull was unhappy with Howard’s line even before the election.
The libs recently had a real go at Rudd for not committing at Bali to the negotiating range.
Their climate stance has shifted mainly because they must in order to rejuvenate like a tree that has been pruned. If they have any brains there game now will be to “out-Green” Labor particularly on climate change.
Heaps of previous coalition voters who shifted to labor last election on account of desire for climate change action will easily shift back to the coalition now given their new position.
We need to be mindful of this in forming our own strategies which means we can now fruitfully use the libs to force the present government to do more on climate change. Labor will not want to lose the upper hand here and so the Greens are perfectly placed to incite a response race between the two majors making the Australian people the winner.
I certainly wish the Greens had greater electoral success. But we won’t make much progress if we fail to grasp with clear eyes that literally millions really do find the coalition highly credible even on climate change and the most likely thing is that number will increase from here on.
So don’t fight the current, harness the current and get the outcome we all need.
Fascinating, asking for a retrofit once a lease is signed is definitely reactive governance.
Q. Will only the floors that they occupy be retrofitted, or will the whole building be retrofitted? And who will pay for this; the building owner or the tenant?
I believe that once a building has more than 30%?? of it’s floor area altered it automatically triggers the BCA and the whole building must be brought up to current code requirements.
And just who is going to foot the bill if the BCA is triggered due to the reactive decisions of Penny’s department? Retro fitting an entire building to satisfy the needs of a single tenant will make the landlord litigious unless the govt. pays for it.
The Greens should NOT be advocating moving out to Brindabella Park, which is an environmental disaster that will greatly add to private vehicle usage. The workers are in Gungahlin and the offices at the Airport with no public transport. The Federal Government should get out of planning if this the best they can do!
Chris@6, you have jumped the gun, a bit reactive perhaps? Please read the comments about BP again, no one was suggesting a move to Brindabella Park, BP was simply being used as an example that energy efficient buildings are available to rent in Canberra.
The lack of public transport to and from BP is appalling, and another example of reactive governance in operation - a territory Labor govt in this case. This however is a separate issue to the buildings energy efficiency, but one would hope transport infrastructure would be taken into account when weighing up options of locating a department - particularly one professing to be about climate change.