Page 326 - Week 01 - Thursday, 17 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
policy should not be pursued. We cannot simply say it is one or the other. It means that we need to review regularly our support to those most disadvantaged and that we must offer both energy efficiency improvements and direct support to cover electricity bills. This support must keep pace with the rises in energy costs. We know that the average household energy bill rose by around 50 per cent over a five-year period up to 2010 while the government rebate to support low income families rose by only three per cent in the corresponding period. I acknowledge that the government increased this amount by $20 in the last budget, but that has certainly not restored the rebate to the level it was, nor will it ensure that it keeps pace with rising costs.
The Greens have also called on the government to meet their commitment in the ALP-Greens parliamentary agreement to double the funding to retrofit public housing in the ACT so that we can raise the standard to at least three stars for those houses. That does not seem too much to ask really; to live in a house that is able to be kept warm, a house where the heat from the heating does not go straight out through the ceiling. These are fairly basic requirements both for our quality of life and for tackling rising energy bills.
Picking up on some of the points that Mr Seselja made, we simply cannot do nothing. We cannot say it is either/or. We cannot say that we are only going to pursue climate change measures or we are only going to keep electricity prices down. There are going to be factors that play in both directions. We have to keep moving forward with a constant eye to equity and efficiency. These are the challenges in producing change while being mindful of the consequences that can come to bear.
I would like to come to some of the specifics on the bill, having discussed the broader issues of the feed-in tariff and the underlying factors in it. In terms of setting the rate for larger installations—bear in mind that that is part of what this bill does; it opens the door for installations from 30 kilowatts to 200 kilowatts, systems that are more efficient, and will deliver better value for money for this feed-in tariff scheme in the ACT—the bill indicates that the premium rate for the medium scale generation will be set at around 75 per cent, although, of course, the legislation provides for the minister to set the rate differently.
I would like to flag that the feedback we have received indicates that 75 per cent may not be the right rate and that larger systems have different financing and project costs that affect their pricing. I know that the intention is for the ICRC to investigate what this rate should be set at, and I again urge that the policy outcome is that the return on investment is set at a reasonable level for all scales of systems. It may be that the government has to put in some further rate delineation to account for this—that is, establish some further band widths of installed capacity size so as to ensure the return on investment is comparable on installation sizes.
Unfortunately the ACT will continue to be affected by federal support in this area, so small system prices will be affected by the decreasing value of the REC multiplier and larger systems will be affected by the 100-kilowatt cut-off for receiving the RECs up-front, which can affect financing systems over 100 kilowatts more difficult. So getting the rates right may be a little complex, and I encourage the minister to be flexible in his approach when he makes his determination on this. We need to be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video