Page 1922 - Week 05 - Thursday, 3 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the government has outlined in its legislation, in its explanatory statements and in the introduction speech of this place is that the government wants to see this scheme extended to small and medium businesses in the same way that it currently operates in Victoria.
Who in Victoria expanded the operation of their energy efficiency scheme to small and medium businesses? It was the Victorian Liberal government. The newly elected Baillieu Liberal government not only agreed that the previous Labor government’s energy efficiency scheme on which this legislation is based was a good idea; they expanded it to include small and medium businesses. So there is the contrast, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the one hand, there is a sensible and considered response by a new Liberal government in Victoria that not only supports energy efficiency legislation but has expanded it to small and medium enterprises. Here in the ACT, the ACT Liberals just say no. I think they say no to cover their embarrassment, to cover the embarrassment that they know they do not really understand how this legislation operates.
That is quite clear from Mr Seselja’s comments. Mr Seselja stood up in his speech against this bill against this morning and said that a range of measures would be eligible under the scheme for so-called big businesses. He said that things like air conditioning or refrigeration upgrades at a supermarket would be subsidised by taxpayers. He said that high bay lighting upgrades at a large hardware store would be subsidised by taxpayers. They are not listed. Those measures are not listed as eligible measures in the government’s regulatory impact statement. Where did he get those from? Further, they are not eligible measures in the Victorian scheme, which is available to small and medium enterprises—not big enterprises: small and medium enterprises. Once again, Mr Seselja gets it wrong.
Further, Mr Seselja claims that this is a subsidy from households to businesses. It is nothing of the sort. Where does 60 per cent of electricity consumption in the ACT economy occur? Over 60 per cent of electricity consumption in the ACT economy occurs in the commercial sector—not in the household sector: in the commercial sector. Who are the majority users of electricity in the ACT economy? Industry—not households.
Who will wear the majority of the cost of this scheme? Not small households, but big energy users: big commercial office buildings, big commonwealth government department buildings and big shopping centres. That is who will wear the majority cost of this scheme. They are the ones who will subsidise the cost of the scheme for everyday Canberra households. They are the ones who will meet the pass-through cost so that small households—struggling households, low income households—can get better insulation, draught sealing around their windows and doors, double glazing or a more efficient heater so that they save money on their electricity bills. Mr Seselja should look again at the regulatory impact statement to see that that is set out very clearly. Once again, Mr Seselja has got it wrong. He has got it wrong.
This is legislation that delivers energy efficiency services to those who need it most. It delivers a saving, on average, per household, of $300 a year.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video