Page 1111 - Week 03 - Thursday, 26 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
publicly available. We are proposing that the minister table in this place the advice that is received prior to the minister announcing the premium rate. This will assist in ensuring the program and the minister’s deliberations are as open and transparent as possible.
There are also concerns surrounding the recovery of the feed-in tariff from consumers and ownership of the equipment should a house taking part in this scheme be sold. I understand the Greens will be moving amendments addressing these concerns, which we will support. We note that the ACT community is concerned about the environment and that everyone should play their part in protecting it. This includes the utilisation of new energy sources. However, no Canberrans should be disproportionately affected by the government’s scheme.
We believe that any money collected from consumers not taking part in the scheme should be proportional to their energy use. The alternative is to impose a flat fee. A flat fee disadvantages those in smaller dwellings who may use significantly less energy than a large house or a business. We therefore support the notion that consumers pay a proportional fee.
We also have concerns regarding the ownership of equipment. It is unusual these days for families to live in the same house for 20 years; therefore the scheme needs some flexibility. We will therefore support the Greens’ amendment to link the contract to the equipment rather than to the house or an individual person. We believe this allows people greater options should they move house. The ability to sell the equipment with the house or take the equipment to their new house is a choice they should be free to make.
Finding alternative sources of energy is vital as we move forward. In Australia, particularly within the ACT we have the technology and the intellect to meet this challenge. The electricity feed-in scheme is a good start but we need to see much more from this government to secure energy for the territory in the long term. We need to see this government put in place plans for the ACT that work with national schemes. We need to see the Stanhope government work closely with federal, state and territory counterparts to find national solutions, not just piecemeal approaches to these important issues.
I would also flag that we are considering a proposed amendment that has been put to us by the Greens, which I believe will be circulated soon. We have not seen the amendment, but we have had a discussion with the Greens to clarify some issues. Mr Rattenbury, of course, will speak to that amendment when he moves it. We will consider it as soon as the actual amendment is circulated and we look forward to having a discussion in relation to that. At this stage, I cannot say whether we will be supporting it or not, but I will say that the principle that we will be supporting in relation to what I understand of the Greens’ amendments is that we do believe that the 30 kilowatt cap is a reasonable one. Anything which changes the impact of that cap we would not support, but if there are better ways of achieving the same outcome, then we are open to them and we will look at those amendments in that light.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (3.54): As members are aware, this bill seeks to amend an act that was passed in the Assembly last year—the Electricity Feed-in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .