Page 2580 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 2 July 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (12.06): This is the smallest, most beautiful part of the legislation that I just do not get. The fact that the premium rate drops away if one has a generator of more than 10-kilowatt hours is something that leaves me rather puzzled and I think it leaves people in the renewable energy industry puzzled. I had a discussion about this with some people who are involved in larger scale generation. Although it is not fatal for them, they are perplexed that they go out and make the effort and they will get a lesser return.
It is important to note how important it is to maintain the high rate for the small-scale people because the small-scale people have been adversely affected by the mean testing—and I mean “mean testing”—from the mean-spirited Rudd government in relation to the domestic solar rebate scheme. So it is increasingly important that the feed-in tariff is there to lessen the blow.
I have had discussions with people who provide domestic solar fit-outs in the ACT and they did say to me how important they thought this legislation was and it would help soften the blow of the means-tested arrangement because it seems that most of their client group has incomes in the area of $100,000 to $150,000. Those people are now starting to seriously rethink their orders.
In suburbs that are growing, such as Forde and the like, where people are trying to be encouraged to be more environmentally friendly, we are going to see fewer solar arrays simply because of Peter Garrett, Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong’s stupid and mean-spirited change to the solar rebate scheme. I will be encouraging all my constituents to do what they can do to support the save the solar rebate scheme legislation that has been introduced by my colleague Greg Hunt.
I understand why this amendment is here, because you have deleted it from somewhere else, but I do not understand why smaller is better; if you achieve more, you receive less from the tariff.
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella) (12.09): I want to address Mrs Dunne’s comments, firstly in relation to the capacity of the generator. I need to point out that these different categories for generation are a result of the ability of a generator to produce electricity, not the amount it actually produces in an hour but the capacity that it has to produce in an hour. I needed to point that out.
Also, studies have shown—and it is very clear to see—that as you install larger capacity generators the actual cost of the installation goes down by the value of units generated. So if you have, for example, a one-kilowatt photovoltaic system on your roof in comparison to a 10-kilowatt photovoltaic system on your roof, it is less expensive per unit of generation for the 10-kilowatt system than it is for the one. What we have done here is institute a sliding scale that appropriates payment in relation to capital expenditure for generation of electricity.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (12.10): That does not solve the problem. The issue here is that this scheme seems to be almost entirely premised on the fact that this will be for domestic applications only because it only looks at small-scale production. We are waiting with bated breath to see the feasibility study, which I understand is due now, in relation to the solar power plant that the government and ActewAGL are doing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .