Page 1126 - Week 03 - Thursday, 26 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
solar farm concept currently being explored by the government, which is a 22-megawatt capacity project, would create a community impost of $17.7 million per annum, which would equate to an increase of approximately $161 per account holder.
Those are the issues that are at play. We need to consider them in detail. We need to have more than the modelling we have at the moment to back up the proposals. That is the work the government is committed to doing. I want to come back to this Assembly and say: “In detail, this is what the costs and benefits are under a range of scenarios of lifting the cap. This is how impacts will be ameliorated if they are deemed to be substantial and disproportionate. This is the way forward.” That is the best way of approaching this issue.
The government wants to do this in a staged way and in a considered way. That is why the government will not be supporting these three amendments from Mr Rattenbury.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.47): Madam Assistant Speaker, I was not planning to stand and speak again, but the minister, in opening up the modelling, has come in here with some scary sounding figures. The word “goaded” has been used in this chamber already today and, frankly, that is the most appropriate way to describe it. He said, “Look at the impact on the ACT community; it is an outrage.” The minister failed to mention that these numbers were based on flawed modelling.
Mr Corbell: They are not.
MR RATTENBURY: They are based on modelling which uses the net capacity factor of 25 per cent when, in fact, the industry and large numbers of scientific papers show that the net capacity factor is 16 per cent. I am talking gobbledygook to the average person here, but this is all about the efficiency of solar panels. The original government modelling used a net capacity factor which nobody in the industry supports. It is embarrassing that the minister is prepared to cite figures that use such inaccurate numbers, particularly given that the Greens pointed it out to him last week. So I am embarrassed for the minister that he had the audacity to walk in this place and make such a fool of himself.
The government’s original modelling and the figures the minister has just cited are based on an assumption that every household in the ACT would pay a flat figure. That is why we have had to introduce a provision that makes it proportional. I am really sorry that I have to make these points, particularly in this spirit, but if the minister wants to stand in here, make grand speeches and put out numbers that make this sound horrible, when, frankly, we could go about it in a considered way, that is the way it is going to be.
The Greens in this provision are not proposing a free-for-all. We are not sitting here saying, “Yes, bugger the ACT; it’s all about getting as many solar panels in this town as possible.” That is not our position. Our position is that, if the government cannot get its act together by 1 July, as it said it will, there is a backup plan to get this going in the ACT, because the Greens are committed to getting this going. That is why we had these provisions because what it would have done was create a backstop; if the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .