Page 3023 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
how the government sees the innovative reverse auction process operating and seeking feedback from potential proponents.
That is the future for solar in the ACT. That is the future. The existing medium category and proposed large-scale category will see further growth in renewable energy in the ACT, and local industry has every opportunity to continue to be actively involved.
The proposals from the Greens and the Liberals today will not achieve the claimed outcomes. They simply offer false hope and will create another mad rush. The government opposes the bill.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (3.48): We find ourselves here today fixing the government’s mess. What we are dealing with today is legislation that was probably always inevitable once this scheme was established in the form that it was. We have a scheme that was clearly unsustainable. It was so unsustainable and handled so badly by this government that in the dead of night it was killed, despite the fact that the minister had told industry that there would be a cushioning of the transition only weeks before that. That is at the heart of the problem we have. That is at the heart of the problem we need to address today.
We have got a bad scheme. It has not worked very well, but when you put in place a scheme people rely on it. Consumers sign up to it. People make business decisions on the back of it. We cannot just ignore that now. Whilst our concerns about the inefficiency of this scheme and the inequity of this scheme remain, we are faced with a choice. We are faced with a choice as to whether we leave it as is and see business suffer and taxpayers pay more or whether we seek to improve it, protecting consumers, honouring contracts, seeing electricity users pay less and giving some transition to industry.
We have chosen the latter path. We have chosen the latter path because the former path is the wrong way to go. We have to try and make this better. Unfortunately, when you have got a scheme that is so poorly thought out, this is the inevitable outcome. Consumers suffer; industry suffers. That is what is happening now. That is what we have to seek to fix. And that is what we will be doing through our amendments. Should our amendments be successful, we will be supporting the legislation.
We have not wavered from our fundamental reasons as to why we have been critical of the scheme. There are questions of inequity, the increase in the cost of living for ordinary Canberra families that is associated with this scheme, and issues of efficiency. As I said in February, and this is a quote from Hansard:
This is one of the most expensive ways imaginable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
It remains so. Our amendments make it somewhat less expensive, somewhat cheaper, and a somewhat more efficient way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have heard from a number of experts giving criticism, including Andrew Macintosh from the ANU, who said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video