Page 1918 - Week 05 - Thursday, 3 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
before this scheme, you get nothing. If you have spent your own money on energy efficient appliances and insulation, you get nothing. In fact, the vast bulk of Canberra families will not just get nothing, they will pay more. So the problems with this bill are manyfold.
We heard from Mr Rattenbury. I think the most important contribution that he made in the debate on the bill was that this is typical of the things the Greens support. It is typical of the kinds of things the Greens support. And we have seen time and again, right around the country, these Greens schemes which have maybe been well intentioned but which have led to nothing but additional costs for families and have led, in many cases, to governments having to run a million miles from them because they have failed so comprehensively, because costs have blown out and because in many cases industries have been damaged by these ill-thought-out schemes.
But in this case, what we are talking about fundamentally is big business welfare. We are talking about families being forced to pay more, most families getting absolutely no benefit from the scheme, and in many cases that $32 million that Canberra families are being forced to pay, that $32 million extra, will be money that goes to subsidising big business. We do not believe that is acceptable. We do not believe that is good policy. This is a bill that pushes the cost of living of Canberra families up and we therefore will not be supporting it.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (11.15): I am very pleased to speak in support of the Energy Efficiency (Cost of Living Improvement) Bill 2012, which will establish a retailer obligation energy efficiency scheme for the territory. The scheme is a true win-win-win scenario. It is good for the environment, it is good for the economy and it provides much-needed support for those most in need in our community to reduce energy costs and associated cost of living pressures. Following the introduction to this bill provided by my colleague, outlining how the scheme works and its policy context, I would like to highlight some of the key issues that arise from the comprehensive regulatory impact assessment conducted for this bill.
The ACT has the unenviable position of being among the highest per capita energy users in Australia. This leaves ACT households and businesses disproportionately exposed to current and expected increases in energy prices in the future. It also makes us, regrettably, among the world’s worst emitters of carbon dioxide pollution on a per capita basis.
We know that one of the biggest contributors to expected price increases will be the enormous upgrades required in the national electricity market, NEM, as a result of increasing electricity demand at peak times, as well as the carbon cost of emitting energy from non-renewable energy sources. Over $50 billion is approved to be spent across the NEM on network infrastructure alone over the current four-year regulatory period.
The forecast increases for future coal and gas commodity prices are also alarming. Plans to commence exporting compressed natural gas from Gladstone will expose Australia’s east coast to world natural gas prices for the first time. Some analysts
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video