Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

Senator, I am not sure I can assist you, particularly in relation to those specific technologies, other than, I think, with regard to our previous discussion in relation to the COAG review—and I know you have put your views about that. We have some concerns in relation to the drafting of this amendment. It provides very little clarity around what the legislative instrument can do. We have some concerns also, Senator Xenophon, about the criteria for energy efficiency. I made the point that this is a renewable energy target and renewable energy legislation. While I understand the arguments that have been made about heat pumps, this is not energy-efficiency-support-mechanism legislation. Essentially, what you are doing here is to ask a minister to include as a renewable energy technology something that has an energy efficiency outcome. While I understand that the government does not have majority support on this, I really would invite the chamber to consider the provision that it is looking at. I am unclear as to what ‘has demonstrated its energy efficiency’ would mean and what the public policy benefit of it is. If the intent is to have some greater flexibility about eligibility under the legislation, we have already passed amendments which deal with a biennial review, which is precisely to look at some of those issues, as well as the 2014 statutory review, from memory, which is already in the legislation.

What you seek on top of all that is an additional regulatory process through which you table by regulation something in relation to emerging technologies. I believe that the scheme has to be flexible enough to recognise that over the life of the target we—the parliament—will not be able at this point to predict every technology that should be in this act for the next 10 years, for example. But I think that has to be balanced against the importance of looking at the scheme as a whole and the parliament and the government of the day being able to look at the various aspects of eligibility in toto. I would suggest that this amendment would simply privilege one type of technology, in terms of eligibility, when other types of technologies may well require—I do not have legal advice on this—an amendment to the legislation. I would ask: what is the public policy benefit of privileging one type of technology over another? We have processes that have been agreed to by the government today, including Senator Milne’s biennial review, which would enable a more holistic, careful assessment of these issues. I invite the chamber to reconsider their support for this proposition.