Page 1359 - Week 04 - Thursday, 12 April 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
members would know, the ACT has commissioned its wind farms in other parts of Australia: South Australia, Victoria and northern New South Wales. They would be outside of our region for the purposes of the NEG, meaning they would not count to allow us to acquit energy reduction targets. ACT retailers would have to purchase energy elsewhere, meaning that ACT consumers would essentially end up paying twice. That is right: the NEG design, as currently proposed, is likely to have ACT consumers and residents paying double for the emissions reductions required under the NEG. I think it would be unconscionable to follow Ms Lee’s advice and sign up automatically to the NEG, and condemn ACT households to this double cost whammy. That would be impossible to justify.
I note that late yesterday the federal minister, Josh Frydenberg, made some remarks about where he thinks that this matter can be addressed. I welcome that, and I think that is the conversation that needs to happen. This is the exact reason why we are not blindly signing up to the NEG yet. We know there is work to be done. I have indicated publicly that I know there is work to be done. The ACT will sit at the table for as long as it takes to get the deal done. I welcome Minister Frydenberg’s observation yesterday that he thinks this matter can be fixed. That is what we are working on: ironing out these glitches before we say, “Sure, we are in.”
We also know that householders in the ACT, and in fact all over Australia, want to take advantage of new technologies that give them control over their energy consumption. These are innovative and demand-responsive tools like batteries and the control devices that accompany them, allowing participation in initiatives such as virtual power plants. Research by Energy Consumers Australia shows that financial considerations and the desire to become less dependent on traditional energy companies are the primary drivers for consumers investing in solar and battery technology. One of the key benefits of these technologies is that they save households money.
Unfortunately, again, this is the type of progress the NEG is likely to suppress. The experts are saying that the NEG’s design will squeeze out smaller, innovative companies, entrenching the incumbent “gentailers” and reducing competition. Leaders in energy storage like Tesla and Genex have specifically warned that the NEG may delay investment in their technologies. This means that consumers will miss out on technologies that can help save them money, and it means that prices will rise. Just in the latest round of consultation on the NEG alone, the Energy Security Board received over 60 submissions that raised concerns about the impact of the NEG on competition in the national electricity market and more than 60 submissions raising concerns that the NEG risks increasing costs to consumers.
So despite all the political chicanery accompanying the federal government’s NEG proposal, there is significant evidence to show that, as currently designed, it will be a poor and detrimental scheme. It does not matter how many times the federal minister or his supporters say that the NEG will help consumers; the analysis and the evidence suggest that it will not. We have more work to do.
As the ACT’s energy minister, my approach to NEG negotiations is based on several key principles. I have listed them in this motion for other members to consider and,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video