Page 2189 - Week 07 - Thursday, 27 August 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
First, it is possible that the proponents would find alternative ways to proceed with their projects, with the ACT failing to secure the rights to their renewable electricity output. In this case, the ACT community would also lose the additional benefits of these projects in terms of technology, training, research and development, and business development support. Such a delay would be a loss to the companies that have negotiated with the government in good faith in anticipation of a decision in the near term.
The second risk is that, if these delays are extended, and especially if the current proponents decide to withdraw from the process, the auction outcomes for the ACT are considerably weaker. We may need to run a further auction or return to less attractive proposals from the recently completed auction.
Either way, the results are less attractive. If the delays are very long, there would start to be some risk that future 100 per cent renewable electricity targets would need to be met in less efficient ways.
The current bill is the proposed solution. It offers a once-only solution to the administrative error. It seeks to remove the requirement to wait before agreeing to FIT entitlements. The bill also makes the instruments granting a capacity release not subject to disallowance. This ensures that grants of FIT entitlements made under the act are not later made invalid.
This is not a solution arrived at easily. In normal circumstances I would seek an alternative, either through time or through a different parliamentary solution. Neither is available in our circumstances.
The bill makes it crystal clear that this is a special, one-off solution to a special, one-off situation. It is due to the combination of an administrative error, election timing, our current health emergency, and the special circumstances of the legislation affected. I do not anticipate that we will ever see this combination of issues in future.
I remind all members that this is done to ensure the outcomes that we have all anticipated and that have been supported by this Assembly since at least last June. There is no change to the outcome we are seeking; this is just a change to the way that we will achieve it.
In the normal course of events, the Assembly would have seen the capacity release instrument much earlier. Members would have seen that it was the embodiment of decisions already made. There is no new direction in it. Indeed, the very public auction was the process to enact the directions this Assembly had clearly agreed to.
I believe that, through this process, the scrutiny of the Legislative Assembly is maintained. If anyone does not want the results of the auction to be realised, they can vote against this current bill. I do not think that that would be consistent with the previous decisions of the Assembly, but it would be an appropriate point of scrutiny by this chamber.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video