Page 1917 - Week 05 - Thursday, 3 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There was no guaranteed large-scale solar generator in Canberra, no additional jobs for Canberrans and no tangible opportunities—just extra costs. In short, it was a clumsy way to expand a scheme that had already proven unmanageable and unaffordable, not just in Canberra but around the country. At worst, it is a very expensive way to do very little. Suffice it to say, I was hoping that this was a genuine idea, a tangible solution to address cost of living, but then we got the briefing.
This is a cost of living bill. Unfortunately for most Canberrans, it will push up their cost of living rather than bring it down. Take, for example, the government’s priority household target of 25 per cent. This means that 75 per cent of efficiency improvements can go elsewhere. So in a worst-case scenario, 25 per cent of low income households may benefit from the scheme, with the remaining 75 per cent going to big business.
Regular households, the main contributors to this scheme, in this scenario stand to receive little or no benefit whatsoever. Let us be clear on this: most Canberra families will receive no benefit under this scheme. They will only see increased costs. Worse still, those additional costs, $32 million, will be used to subsidise large corporations’ electricity bills.
This bill will increase Canberrans’ cost of living. The government’s modelling shows that this initiative costs Canberrans approximately $32 million over three years. In the second and third years of this scheme, Canberrans will be paying over $1 million a month to support this scheme. How does imposing a cost of $1 million a month on Canberra taxpayers help them save money? The money does not come from nowhere.
When a large supermarket decides it wants to save money by upgrading its heating and cooling system, it is Canberra families that will have to foot the bill to subsidise the company’s costs. If a large hardware chain wants to upgrade its lights, it is Canberra families who will pay. If a major club wants to upgrade all its television sets to more efficient models, it is Canberra families that will again have to foot the bill to subsidise this initiative. This is not only possible under this bill, it is probable. We were clearly told in the briefing that electricity retailers would find the most efficient way of meeting their targets. Clearly, dealing with large companies would be more efficient than going house to house.
There were other issues with this bill. In our briefing, we were advised that the eligible activities provided may not necessarily be free but could come in the form of discounted prices and/or top-up contributions by households. There are question marks as to whether our lowest income earners would be able to afford this co-contribution.
Neither the bill currently being debated nor the regulations provided specify the intent. At the same time, the list of eligible activities has not been formalised, and this can only be considered indicatively through appendix A of the government’s RIS report. Another concern is that this scheme does not acknowledge those who have done the right thing to make their homes more efficient prior to this. If you have already paid to have double glazing put in at your home or improve your heating and cooling system
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video