Page 2572 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 2 July 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Including targets gives the government a mechanism to (a) judge whether or not the legislation is working and whether people are choosing to feed renewable energy into the grid; and (b) therefore increase or lower the premium for this fed-in energy. Without such targets, how can the government judge whether we have sufficient take-up and whether we should offer a higher premium? Germany is probably the most successful jurisdiction to cite as an example. Figures show that, driven by feed-in tariff legislation, in 2007 Germany generated 14.2 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources.
Turnover in the German renewable industry rose by 10 per cent last year, to €24.6 billion, and employment in the sector rose to 249,000 compared to an Australian sector that employs an estimated 3,000 people. The German government calculates that, in 2007, savings of 57 million tonnes of CO2 were directly attributable to the country’s feed-in tariff legislation.
I am very sorry that, I believe, the government will not be supporting my amendments relating to targets. It is a shame. I think this government is allergic to targets. Perhaps the government is afraid of setting itself up for failure. However, without targets, we have got no incentives for success either. By not supporting these amendments, it will certainly lead to a less successful scheme.
In relation to proposed new clause 3B, I have suggested that some targets be inserted. For this legislation, the renewable energy supply targets are: by 2010, five per cent of electricity supplied by electricity suppliers from renewable energy sources; by 2015, at least 15 per cent of electricity supplied by electricity suppliers from renewable energy sources; and by 2020, at least 20 per cent of electricity supplied by electricity suppliers from renewable energy sources. These are not “out there” targets by a long shot. In fact, they are quite conservative and quite achievable.
Mrs Dunne: They are not conservative enough.
DR FOSKEY: Indeed, that is exactly the case. If the government cannot support them, there is a real concern here, because we would have to ask: what does it want the feed-in tariff to achieve in terms of renewable energy take-up and greenhouse gas reduction?
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella) (11.35): The government will not be supporting this amendment as renewable energy electricity supply targets fall outside the scope of this bill. It is important to understand that this scheme is not designed to reach the ACT government’s renewable energy targets all by itself. It is one of several measures the ACT government is actively engaging in to ensure that it reaches those targets. Furthermore, renewable energy targets are specifically outlined as part of the ACT and New South Wales renewable energy target schemes.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.35): The opposition, the Canberra Liberals, will be supporting this amendment with one chastisement, that they do not go far enough. It is delicious, is it not—
Dr Foskey: You are enjoying this, Mrs Dunne.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .