Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts) Share this | Hansard source

I rise on this matter of public importance to confirm to the House the strong commitment that the Rudd Labor government has to the solar industry—a strong commitment to renewable energy and a strong commitment to action on climate change. I point out to the member for Flinders that the policy that the Rudd Labor government has brought forward will see people get access to twice the number of rebates for solar panels than they otherwise would have. Getting access to twice the number of solar panel rebates means that there will be a sustainable path for the solar industry itself.

I have met with Mr May—just as I have met with other representatives from the solar industry. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was speaking earlier in the House, said, ‘I call on the minister for the environment to show that he is man enough to meet with Mr May.’ I have to advise the House, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have met with Mr May. I was able to tell him and other representatives from the solar industry of our serious and long-term commitment to the solar industry. I was able to point out to Mr May—and I took some time to do this—the history of the rebate and make reference to the fact that the former government, the Howard government, was contemplating that there be no rebate at all. Not only were they contemplating that there be no rebate at all but it then went to $4,000 and then they contemplated not having a rebate. It was the pressure from this side of the House—from the Labor Party when we were in opposition—to see a rebate in place to enable a sustainable solar industry to get going and keep going that saw that rebate put in place and supported by us.

When we came to government, there was a five-year, $150 million program for solar rebates. The government’s election commitment was to provide rebates for the installation of up to 3,000 household power systems per year over the five years. That mirrored the estimated demand in the coalition’s last budget, but demand for the rebate has been so strong since it was doubled last year that the government responded to that demand by doubling the number of rebates. We will now pay 6,000 rebates through the years 2008-09. So that is more solar panels and more rebates. The total commitment of $150 million remains unchanged. We brought forward $25 million in the budget to achieve in three years what the previous government set out to achieve in five.

The maximum household rebate payable stays at $8,000, but we want to ensure that the greatest number of solar rebates get onto Australian roofs. That is why we have introduced a means test of $100,000 per household: to ensure that the rebates end up in the hands of people who might not otherwise be able to install solar panels on their homes. I am confident that there will be continued demand for the rebates with the new means test. I am confident that we will provide 6,000 rebates in the next financial year and I am confident that the solar industry will benefit from twice the number of rebates that we had originally committed.

But there is an important message here in terms of the approach that the opposition have taken on this issue, and that is that if the opposition were really serious about the solar industry then they would bring forward a set of policies which showed their support for sustainability, for climate change action and for the solar industry as a whole.

The bottom line here is that on 1 July, under the Rudd Labor government’s Solar Schools Plan, schools will have the opportunity to put solar panels on their roofs. Schools have been waiting for this moment to come, and that is because under the former government’s green vouchers plan they could not do that. They did not have the opportunity to put solar panels on their roofs at all. So in this debate I think we have to ask ourselves: is this commitment of nearly half a billion dollars to schools around Australia—to enable them to put solar hot water systems, solar panels, PV panels, water tanks, water energy-efficiency devices and so on, but particularly solar PV panels on their roofs—going to provide a substantial bedrock for the solar industry to continue to produce solar panels and supply them to schools around Australia? I think the answer to that question must be yes.

Additionally, looking at the great appetite that Australians do have for putting energy-efficiency measures and solar energy into their homes, we will introduce low-interest green loans which, from 2009, will provide families with the opportunity, again, to put solar panels, solar hot water systems and the like on their roofs—another substantial foundation upon which a sustainable Australian solar industry can actually be established.

In relation to the means test on the rebate, what we have said is that we will monitor demand and we will continue to monitor that demand as the program rolls out. That is what I said to Mr May. I thought that was a perfectly reasonable thing to say to him. I acknowledged the point that he put to me and I said, ‘We’ll monitor demand in that program.’ They brought forward their concerns and we listened to them. But, on the subject of means testing, we think it is appropriate for public funds to be directed towards priorities—priorities for the environment, priorities to drive least-cost abatement, priorities for Australians who can least afford significant investments in the up-front costs of solar panels. So what we are looking at here is actually a sustainable solar industry with significant Rudd Labor government support for programs that stretch out from this point onwards and with the capacity for Australians who do not earn more than $100,000 to get those solar panels on their roofs, which is what they want to do—and for an industry to do the job of putting the panels up there for them.

I recognise that some members of the opposition have a different view about economic responsibility and means testing. The Leader of the Opposition said, ‘How do you put a means test on the environment?’ The fact is that the former minister for the environment did put a means test on the environment. He put a means test on solar hot water and it was set at $100,000. The question here is really about how much genuine, substantial policy reform the opposition are going to bring into this House on the matter of climate change and the solar industry in general.

The member for Flinders got up and said he thought I was a nice bloke but he had to tell me what he really thought about me in terms of performance. Well, here is what I would like to say in response to the member for Flinders: the Rudd Labor government brought forward the most comprehensive climate change and environment agenda that we have seen in the federation and we ensured that responsibility for delivering that agenda was given across a range of portfolios to a number of ministers, including me—and I welcome that opportunity.

When my colleague the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Minister Burke, and I as the minister for the environment brought forward the $2.25 billion Caring for Our Country initiative, I felt a great sense of achievement and pride. Why was that? Because we had done three things. Firstly, we had stopped the rorting. We had stopped a decade of rorting by the member for Flinders’s colleagues which saw the Natural Heritage Trust exist as a bucket of funds which could be sent off in all manner of directions with no significant evaluation and no transparency in terms of the delivery and the effectiveness of the programs.

Secondly, we set national priorities. We have got a significant investment in Indigenous protected areas. We are investing $200 million in reef rescue for our great natural treasures like the Great Barrier Reef. Where were the opposition on these issues when they were in government? They were trying to put a shadecloth across the Great Barrier Reef! They were trying to put a shadecloth across the Great Barrier Reef and denying that climate change was going to impact or threaten the reef.

Thirdly, we have brought forward a package of measures in the budget of some $1 billion which provide opportunities for communities and households to take energy-efficiency measures, to take low-interest loans, to have solar panels on the roofs of their schools. This is an initiative and a commitment that will run right across the economy and right across the country. This is serious nation-building on a sustainable basis which sees solar energy playing its proper role and ensures that Australians can have confidence that, when these programs come through, they are actually going to be used effectively—in the instance of the one that we are debating, by those who need to be able to use it and, across the measure of programs that have been identified, by the whole of the Australian community.

It is about having a plan. If you do not have a plan then what you have is a stunt. You cannot have stunt driven debates in the House. I acknowledge the concerns of the solar industry, but you cannot have stunt driven debates in the House; you have to have a plan. You have to have a plan that is going to address the significant climate change challenge that we face.

Let me identify some aspects of our plan. We have heard nothing from the member for Flinders about what the opposition are going to do, except introduce the legislation as a private member’s bill and run it back through the House. Where is the commitment to significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the medium and the long term? Where is the commitment, for example, to phasing out greenhouse intensive hot water systems? That is a commitment that we have made, a commitment which will see significant emission reductions, and the shadow minister knows that. Where is the plan for a renewable energy target? Our renewable energy target is to have 20 per cent of our electricity supply powered by renewable energy by 2020. We had numerous debates in this House about the necessity of supporting the renewable energy industry and now we do not have a policy from the opposition that is about renewable energy at all; we have a policy that is about clean energy. We want to support the renewable energy industry. We want to make sure that the renewable energy industry gets its fair share, and that is what a renewable energy target will do.

Finally, let us look at emissions trading, because it is when emissions trading comes into play that we have a price in the marketplace with wide coverage in a scheme which is rigorously designed to enable the maximum benefits to be taken from low-cost application, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and making sure that it is done on a low-cost basis.

See this speech in context