Page 3029 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As members may have seen in the media, and they may be aware of the conversations, the minister provided us with data yesterday on the consequences, in his view, of opening the medium-scale cap to micro systems, particularly his comments on the take-up rate and how long this will last. The minister has suggested five months for the scheme under his scenarios. I thank the minister for the data, but it is important to discuss the data. If you look through it, there are a range of possible scenarios. At one end of the spectrum, if we return to the take-up rate that we saw before, what might be called the pre-rush level, there is in fact 22 months of rollout there.
The bottom line is that there is a level of guesswork involved here. What we have seen in the last couple of months, and the minister has outlined this today, are some external influences which have had a very significant impact. The change in the federal multiplier has been the most significant; that, as it takes effect from tomorrow, will undoubtedly have a cooling influence. Mr Seselja has given us the numbers on that today, and that very clearly demonstrates the impact that is likely to have.
The bill that I have put forward suggests a significant reduction in the tariff. It was an error for the minister not to reduce the tariff when he made the determination earlier this year. It is perhaps easier to say in hindsight, but that was the case. My bill has gone further and suggested a further reduction in the tariff to reflect the increasing efficiency, the increase in the Australian dollar and those sorts of factors. Mr Seselja, in his foreshadowed amendments, goes a bit further. I think that the Greens will accept that; I think that it is a number that probably is sustainable for the industry as well. And it is a better approach than providing nothing at all. I note Mr Corbell’s earlier comment when he said that this bill is a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Frankly, I would rather take a solution that is perhaps not ideal than completely ignore the problem. And that is what we are seeking to do here.
I think that is the approach. Taking the reduced premium, as I have touched on, is exactly how a feed-in tariff is supposed to work. The idea and the design of these schemes are to wind down the premium over time as the efficiency of the industry increases. That efficiency, as I have touched on, is in a number of forms, including cheaper panels and the like.
The problem we are dealing with here is an artificial one created by the imposition of the cap. What we should have seen through the feed-in tariff scheme in its ideal form was a winding down of the price, taking the heat out. As I said, that has become more difficult because of the moves in the federal arena. This bill going through today will see something more akin to that ideal design scenario.
I want to touch on some of the comments about the larger scale systems. I think that there has been some confusion here. Certainly in question time today the minister talked about the larger scale systems being compromised. I was interested in the minister’s press release this morning. It was excellent timing to come out finally today with a press release re-announcing the large-scale solar energy auction.
We have made progress and there is now a discussion paper available online. I look forward to having a look at that in some detail. What I found interesting was that, if
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video