Page 673 - Week 02 - Thursday, 20 March 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
government wants to take another step in the direction of appearing to be the greenest city in Australia while increasing the cost of living and not actually making much of a difference to the environment.
If we are here to represent our constituents and we know they are struggling with the cost of living, how can we support a bill which continues to increase the cost of living? The minister’s 2012-13 annual report under the Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act 2010 states:
Through implementing the actions set out in AP2, electricity prices are forecast to increase by up to 16% to fund renewable energy investment and ensure our greenhouse gas abatement targets are met.
We often have cost of living increases referred to in terms of a cup of coffee, and this is a situation where I am sure those opposite will try to use that argument. But we need to take a step back and consider increases in the cost of living across the board as well as reviewing what environmental benefits this will actually have when you look at the big picture.
Recently we referred AP2 to committee to look at the effectiveness of measures, including measures to assist low income households. Referring this bill as well would enable proper evaluation of the effect on Canberra households. I hope those opposite will support this bill going to the committee to examine the impacts on ordinary families.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (4.53): The government will not support this referral proposal today for a number of reasons. First of all, it is a very late proposal from the Liberal Party. This bill has been on the table now for a reasonable period of time. I was advised by Ms Lawder about half an hour ago of her intention to make this referral. It seems to me a last-minute bid by the opposition to try and stall consideration of the bill, and I do not think that sort of approach should be supported.
In addition, the premise on which Ms Lawder seeks to justify referral of this bill is a false one. The cost of renewable energy is very modest and it continues to decline. Costs of large-scale renewables, whether it is wind or solar, have dropped dramatically in the past decade, and they will continue to do so. Large-scale renewables are now cost competitive with alternative, more conventional forms of energy generation such as coal-fired generation or gas-fired generation. That will continue to be the case, and the competitiveness of new technologies like solar and wind will continue to improve.
But the cost to households is an issue that the government takes very seriously. Indeed, that is outlined comprehensively in action plan 2, and it is worth emphasising that the total pass-through cost associated with achieving 90 per cent renewable energy for our city in terms of our electricity supply is approximately a maximum of $4 per household per week in 2020 when full deployment is achieved.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video