Page 1924 - Week 05 - Thursday, 3 May 2012

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

---

scheme operates and how schemes like this operate in other jurisdictions. Why is it that Liberal governments in New South Wales and Victoria, on their recent election, have retained energy efficiency alone as the measure that they pursue when it comes to greenhouse gas reduction? Why is it that these governments, who have been so resistant to other policy measures such as support for renewable energy and so on, have chosen energy efficiency alone as legislation that they will not only support but expand? They do that because they know it makes economic sense, and they know that it saves householders and small and medium businesses money. It saves them money. Most importantly, it does two things: it reduces greenhouse gas emissions and it reduces demand on electricity networks. Governments around the country are facing price increases in electricity costs overwhelmingly because of network costs, because of the need to build more generation and the need to augment supply networks to meet demand.

If we as a community, and if we as an Assembly, are serious and credible on the issue of addressing community concerns about price increases in electricity, the best thing we can do is legislate to implement measures that reduce demand on networks—that reduce the need to build more power generation, that reduce the need to pass through the costs of that infrastructure to consumers. That is what this legislation does. This is good Labor government legislation—Labor government legislation that supports low income households, drives reforms in energy efficiency and ensures that people are less exposed to the costs of energy supply in our community than they would otherwise be. I commend the legislation to the Assembly.

Question put:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Detail stage

Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.

MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.45): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 1999].

This is the amendment that I flagged in my in-principle speech. It relates to the definition of eligible activities. As I flagged before, at the moment the power under

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video