Energy investment in low-income housing needed: ACOSS

Australia is putting a lot of energy into energy at the moment, on both large and individual scales. At an individual level, most of us are trying to find a way to keep our energy costs down. Some Aussies are factoring in how they can do so while minimising their carbon footprint.

On a broad scale, governments, activists and institutions – including the energy companies themselves – have a similar aim. While the individual and larger scale aims are the same, achieving the latter is a very complicated task.

Australia’s incumbent government and the opposition Liberal National Party both accept there is a need to act on climate change. Where they differ is on the urgency of that need and the best way to achieve that. 

Independent think tanks (The Australia Institute, for example) have different views again on both aspects. No solution is without consequences. A rapid-fire closure of fossil fuel industries will have an impact on those who work in the industry. But if the transition away from fossil fuel is too slow, the impact on the planet could be catastrophic.

The energy conundrum

When you look into the matter of future energy requirements, other factors soon become evident, even to a layperson. These include:

• How will any change or development affect the average ‘punter’? Will their energy bill go through the roof? Will they have to throw away their gas stove or heater?
• How can a government make meaningful change without putting fossil fuel companies ‘offside’? Notwithstanding the impact on workers in the industry, the owners and management of these companies wield plenty of political influence. Whether they should wield such influence is a matter for debate, but while they do governments must factor that in. It could mean the difference between being dumped or re-elected at the next election.
• What’s the best and fairest way to transition away from fossil fuels? Opposition leader Peter Dutton is pushing for the nuclear option. However, much of the independent analysis seems to have dismissed this as unrealistic.

But what about your average – and below average – Aussies?

Constructive debate at a government and institutional level is good, but what is often overlooked is how lower income Aussies are being affected as this unfolds. And, according to the Analysis and Policy Observatory (APO), it’s lower income households that bear the brunt of all this.

A new report published by the APO (self-described as “an open access evidence platform”) makes this very clear. Deloitte prepared the report, “Powering progress: Energy upgrades to low-income housing” for the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS).

In the report’s foreword, Dr Cassandra Goldie, the CEO of ACOSS, says the burden of climate change borne by lower income Aussies is clear.

“Climate change is driving the need to accelerate emission reductions to avoid more dangerous impacts and build resilience to deal with the climate impacts already locked in,” Dr Goldie wrote.

“People and communities on lower incomes and experiencing disadvantage are impacted first, worst and longest by climate change,” she said. This was particularly true, “where the solutions are too slow, inequitable and non-inclusive”.

The energy solution

What, then, is to be done to ensure Australia’s poorest don’t suffer the most? According to the report, the clear path is to deliver “low-income housing energy upgrades”. One of the key pillars of this plan is “electrified housing”. 

The report states that “energy efficient and electrified housing is key to a net zero Australia”. Why are low income earners the key here? Because, as the report points out, low income earners form the majority of Australians living in older homes. Those homes are generally far less energy efficient than new homes. 

“The majority of Australian homes have an average rating of 1.7 stars (out of 10), with new homes required to meet a minimum threshold of 7 stars.” Not many low income Aussies live in 7-star new homes.

ACOSS says acceleration of home energy upgrades for low-income housing is vital. Specifically, it calls for “federal, state and territory governments to fully fund all social housing upgrades by 2030/31, provide assistance for low-income owner-occupiers through a combination of subsidies and zero-interest loans, and upgrade private rental properties through a combination of mandatory energy performance rental standards and conditional incentives via combination of subsidies and concessional loans”.

What about the cost?

That’s a fair question. Sometimes, of course, short-term investment is required for long-term benefits. However, ACOSS says its proposed solution will actually deliver economic benefits. This includes “an additional $10 billion in GDP over the quick-fix rollout period (2025–31), in net present value terms”.

Sounds great. Now ACOSS just needs to convince our federal and state governments of these benefits. Those governments will then have to consider and negotiate with their various stakeholders (such as fossil fuel companies).

One imagines that will be no easy task. Making Australia more energy efficient sure seems to take a lot of energy.

Do you live in an older home? How energy efficient do you think it is? Let us know via the comments section below.

Also read: Migration changes flagged as housing crisis bites

Disclaimer: All content on YourLifeChoices website is of a general nature and has been prepared without taking into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. It has been prepared with due care but no guarantees are provided for the ongoing accuracy or relevance. Before making a decision based on this information, you should consider its appropriateness in regard to your own circumstances. You should seek professional advice from a financial planner, lawyer or tax agent in relation to any aspects that affect your financial and legal circumstances.