Page 762 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 17 March 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
easier option that will not disadvantage home owners significantly; that is, if home owners find that they are not able to reuse their old solar panels they will be able to buy a new system for their house and then continue the feed-in tariff contract that they had in their previous premises.
There will be an outlay in the purchase of a new system. However, the cost of solar systems has come down quite significantly over the past five to six years, so the outlay will be less. Most owners with old panels would be on a higher feed-in tariff rate, perhaps as high as 50c per kilowatt hour, so the payback on the cost of a new system will be relatively shorter than for their original system.
There is, of course, the lost capital on the old system, but that will be included in the valuation of the house for the purposes of the scheme—although, of course, the extra value this would add to the house is uncertain and it may not meet the initial cost of the panels.
While it is difficult to predict every scenario that might come up in regard to the transfer of solar systems, I think this provision seeks to provide a fair and balanced response for home owners. I certainly thank those home owners who have written to me on this issue because it has enabled me to raise a series of questions with the task force about these various scenarios. I would also like to thank the task force for applying themselves to yet another issue among the many that have come up in the course of this case. We have managed to work through this to find a system that I believe will suit most people who have a solar system and want to retain it, move it or replace it if necessary.
With those few remarks, I support the bill today and appreciate the chance to speak about it.
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Minister for Planning, Minister for Roads and Parking, Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations, Minister for Children and Young People and Minister for Ageing) (5.06): As the minister responsible for workplace safety, I am well aware of the dangers posed by asbestos, and this bill is another in the growing list of examples confirming the government’s commitment to protecting the community from exposure. As I have previously stated in the Assembly, I am extremely proud to be in a government that is taking such a firm stance on asbestos safety. The government will no longer accept complacency about asbestos. Although the risks of contracting an asbestos-related disease are relatively low, the consequences can be terrible.
Recent changes to the work health and safety and dangerous substances legislation, most of which came into effect on 1 January this year, have helped to enhance asbestos safety regulation in the territory. The asbestos safety reform package passed by the Assembly last year adopted the national harmonised asbestos safety model regulations with a small number of significant adaptations to preserve the territory’s strong stance on asbestos safety; consolidated relevant asbestos-related definitions into the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011; transferred the licensing function for asbestos assessors and removalists to work health and safety laws, as is the case with other high risk work licences; and retained current duties in the Dangerous
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video