Page 791 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 27 February 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Of course Mr Hanson likes to claim that such measures are at a disastrous cost to consumers. In fact the cost of the large-scale solar power facility that is currently being developed by the successful tenderer of the first stage of the reverse auction is at a cost per week—the disastrous, apparently, cost per week—per household of 25c per household per week. It is a disastrous cost, isn’t it, Madam Speaker? It is devastating. It is devastating on budgets, isn’t it? Of course Mr Hanson fails to understand that the mechanism in place for the large-scale solar auction means that that price will continue to decline so that on a per year basis, per year per household, the cost of that facility in terms of the pass-through to consumers will decline from the astronomical sum of $13 per year per household to $9.50 per year per household.
Are these policies that are disastrous on household budgets? Are these policies that cannot be accommodated through sensible policy measures? No, they are not. They are rational policies designed to drive an uptake in the technologies of the future which our city needs to be a part of.
Of course Mr Hanson does not mention, as the Chief Minister said, the policies that the government has put in place that are actually driving down costs for households. The most notable of these, of course, is the energy efficiency improvement scheme. That scheme delivers savings to households, on average, over a three-year period of approximately $300 per household off their electricity bill. It is a scheme that is in place in other jurisdictions like Victoria and New South Wales. It is a scheme that is supported by the Liberal Party’s counterparts who are in government in those jurisdictions.
It is a scheme that in Victoria is being expanded by the current Liberal government to include more small and medium enterprises because they recognise that it helps businesses and households to save money and use energy more efficiently. Indeed, it is perhaps the most cost-efficient measure to improve energy efficiency and reduce costs to households. But those on the other side of this chamber have the shameful record of being a party that voted against a measure that will save households money on their electricity bill.
If we are progressive for implementing such a policy, we are very happy to stand by that title, because it means those households save money. It means those households save energy use. It means those households are contributing to reducing the greenhouse gas profile of this city.
Let us understand the complete failure of those opposite on this issue. Every other Liberal government in the country supports such a scheme. They do not. I fear, and in fact I am sure, that the only reason they do not is because they do not have the imagination and they live in ignorance of how these schemes operate.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Sport and Recreation, Minister for Tourism and Events and Minister for Community Services) (10.45): I rise today to speak in this debate mostly to comment on the journey of an individual, and I think it is a remarkable journey in 1,541 days.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video