Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying before the break, Family First support renewable energy because we believe renewable energy will be an important component of the future energy mix. Family First do make a clear distinction between our support for renewable energy and our views on an emissions trading scheme. Obviously, there should be a different driver between the two of them because the emissions trading scheme was a policy that was based on the assumption that increasing carbon dioxide emissions are the leading cause of global warming.

The bill that we have in front of us, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2010, will help to prop up the artificially created renewable energy market even further. In Australia, we generate electricity at a very low cost using coal as the main energy source. For example, coal-fired electricity is manufactured today at about $30 per megawatt hour but solar and wind renewable energy costs upwards of $60 to $70 a megawatt hour. As you can see, the cost of electricity will go up by 100 per cent to 200 per cent if only renewable energy sources are used to generate electricity to keep our lights on and to keep us warm in winter. That is double the cost.

If you asked Australian families, ‘Do you want renewable energy?’ most families would of course say yes. But if you asked Australian families, ‘Would you pay 100 per cent more—in some cases 200 per cent more—for your power bill to have 100 per cent renewable energy?’ most families would say, ‘No, we can’t afford it.’ Can you imagine how much the cost of food and goods and services would go up if electricity prices went up by 100 to 200 per cent? What about businesses that will need to pass on the impact of higher electricity prices? This will flow on again to food and other goods and services. Guess who pays again? That is right: Australian families, not the Rudd government. Australian families are already footing the bill for subsidising new renewable energy markets and now the Rudd government wants to introduce more changes to the renewable energy market that most likely will hurt families even more. Why should mums and dads foot this very expensive bill and effectively pay a subsidy to private companies as they embark on risky renewable energy schemes?

Mums and dads, not the Rudd government, are basically footing the bill by bearing all the investment risk of risky renewable energy schemes; yet, if there are any profits down the track, mums and dads get no benefit. It is the private investors who make the killing, not the mums and dads—who have to foot the bill. Why should mums and dads bear the risk? There is no accountability and it is a huge gamble. Why should the government put all the risk onto mums and dads, especially given that mums and dads will foot the expensive bills to prop up these private companies for years but will not stand a chance of reaping any of the benefits or profits? This is an important issue which the Rudd government has simply failed to address, and it is probably why the Rudd government has decided not to bear the risk itself but to pass it on to mums and dads.

Last year I stood up here and said that I was really concerned that the winners from these big renewable energy targets would be the bankers and brokers and the losers would be mums and dads who would be left to foot the bill. What is more, because of the renewable energy policies of this government we are seeing wind farms popping up all around Victoria—in many cases right in people’s backyards. How would you like to wake up every morning to the sight of a great, big wind turbine on your front lawn? I was told a week or so ago that we need to install two great, big wind turbines every day between now and 2020 just to reach the target. That is a heck of a lot of wind turbines, and they are coming to someone’s backyard soon.

Only last week I received an email about a lady who lives next to the Cape Bridgewater wind farm near Portland. She said that she and her family experience incredible headaches, nausea and dizziness from low-frequency noise, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, as a result of having this wind farm so close to her property. Her entire family has to move away from home three nights a week in order to get some sleep at night. It is having a huge effect on their health, and this is from 29 turbines. Some people are surrounded by hundreds. What do the opposition have to say about this? Last year they stood up here in the chamber and beat their chests and said that the renewable energy bill was bad policy and that it was flawed, and then guess what? They voted for it anyway. That is right: they said one thing and did something else. What a cop-out. The National Party were the biggest disgrace of all. The National Party sold out the Australian public and sold out the bush when they supported the renewable energy targets. Today I listened with interest to one of the National Party senators giving the hint that they did not support the renewable energy targets last year. I might remind them that on Thursday, 20 August 2009, Senator Boswell stood up and said:

It was a difficult decision to support this legislation, because it does increase the cost of electricity.

That is what the National Party senator said in 2009. That is why they sold out the families in the bush when they supported the renewable energy targets last time: they knew that electricity prices would be going up. They sold out industries such as the food-processing industry, which now has to bear higher costs because electricity is more expensive. It is unreal that the Liberal and National parties have the gall to say they are worried about renewable energy targets when they are the only reason we have a 20 per cent renewable energy target in the first place. Family First is the party that had a commonsense approach to renewable energy. Unlike the coalition, we did not leave our principles, morals and values at the door. Family First voted against the renewable energy targets because the targets were wrong. The targets punished mums and dads and put all the risk on them. Now we have a bill which is going to help the big companies even more and will most likely hurt mums and dads as a result. I will not be selling out Australian families and the bush like the Liberal and National parties did.

I call on the coalition to show some backbone and ticker and stand up for what is right. These renewable energy targets will hurt ordinary Australian families and the bush. As I was saying before, to reach the targets of 20 per cent by 2020, you would need to build two wind turbines every day between now and 2020. Whose backyard do you want these in? Whose backyard does the National Party want these in? Whose backyard does the Liberal Party want these in? You cannot continue to stand up here and say that you are for families and for the bush and then sell them out in the chamber, like you did last year and like you are going to do again today. It is wrong.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move the second reading amendment, which I discussed in my speech on the second reading but neglected to move.

Leave granted.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add “, provided that the Government undertakes to implement a national gross renewable energy feed-in tariff scheme which standardises the existing state and territory schemes”.

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

I rise to sum up the second reading debate on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2010, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2010 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Small-scale Technology Shortfall Charge) Bill 2010. I thank all senators for their contributions to the debate. These bills will implement the enhanced renewable energy target. They deal with the dual policy objective of the renewable energy targets legislation, which is to support both small-scale household renewable energy technologies and large-scale renewable energy investment to deliver a greater amount of renewable energy to be utilised by Australia. The bills implement an enhanced renewable energy target, separating the existing scheme into two parts: the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme and the large-scale renewable energy target to take effect from 1 January 2011.

The renewable energy target is a key measure in this government’s climate change policy. It will deliver our commitment to ensuring that the equivalent of at least 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity will come from renewable sources by 2020. The enhancements provide greater certainty for large-scale renewable energy projects as well as for installers of small-scale renewable energy systems, such as solar panels and solar water heaters. We are keen to, and have been, working with different senators and different parties represented in this chamber in order to facilitate passage of this legislation this week. I want to briefly address some of the key comments that have been made, which I anticipate will be dealt with in more detail in the committee stage of the debate on this bill.

First, there have been some who have made contributions noting risks for the uncapped Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme. It is important to understand that the rationale behind the design of the SRES is to ensure that households, businesses and community groups that install small-scale systems can access support from the RET. For this reason the bills before the chamber do not seek to impose or limit the overall number of renewable energy certificates that could be created from installations of small-scale technologies. The difficulty with putting a limit on the number of renewable energy certificates from small-scale systems is that installations beyond this limit would miss out on the support from the renewable energy target, including the solar credit scheme.

In relation to the impact on electricity prices, it is important to recognise that this is a modest impact. The current renewable energy target is expected to increase retail electricity prices by around 4.2 per cent in the period to 2015. The enhanced RET is expected to increase prices by a further 0.2 per cent in the same period, bringing the expected electricity price impact of the enhanced RET to around 4.4 per cent.

In implementing this regime, the government’s intention is to preserve the effective rate of assistance in respect of emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities provided for under the current RET rather than to expand assistance to industry. It is important to recognise that assistance was not provided for the previous mandatory renewable energy target, implemented under the Howard government, of 9,500 gigawatt hours. Assistance under the renewable energy target is provided in respect of 90 per cent of the expanded RET liability above the former MRET of 9,500 gigawatt hours in relation to activities defined as ‘highly emissions intensive’ and 60 per cent of the expanded renewable energy target above the same threshold that applies to electricity used in activities defined as ‘moderately emissions intensive’. Consistent with the existing policy, assistance for a renewable energy certificate price above $40 on the liability of 9,500 gigawatt hours is dependent on there being a carbon pollution reduction scheme. This recognises that with a CPRS there would be a cumulative cost impact of both the CPRS and the renewable energy target on these activities.

I want to address briefly waste coalmine gas, because there was a contribution previously in which Senator Milne, I think, may have misunderstood the government’s amendments. The existing waste coalmine gas generation was included in the renewable energy target as a transitional assistance measure in the context of the cessation of the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme—known as GGAS. We know waste coalmine gas is not a renewable energy source, so the government increased the RET’s annual targets to ensure it could not crowd out renewables nor impact on achievement of the 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020. It was not the government’s intention to allow waste coalmine gas projects to receive assistance from the renewable energy target whilst GGAS was still operating. The GGAS legislation indicates that the scheme is to continue until 2020 or terminate sooner in the event of the introduction of the CPRS or another national emissions trading scheme. The renewable energy bill before the chamber therefore allows the eligibility of the waste coalmine gas to be postponed until such time as GGAS ceases.

There have also been some concerns raised about possible delays in receiving funds through the clearing house. The bill requires liable parties to regularly surrender small-scale renewable energy certificates four times a year. However, in most cases householders will choose to get the value of their renewable energy certificates immediately as an agreed upfront discount on the cost of installing their solar water heater or solar PV system as they do under current arrangements. There are four surrender periods throughout the year: 28 days after the end of each quarter for the first three quarters and then up to 14 February of the following year. So there will typically be a period of around six weeks from system sale to the need for a liable entity to surrender the renewable energy certificate.

There have been some comments in relation to the growth in demand for solar panels. This reflects a number of factors, including the very high levels of support offered by some of the states as well as a reduction in the price of solar panels. At the time that the solar credits multiplier was put in place, some—including some in this chamber—criticised the government for reducing levels then in place through the Solar Homes and Communities Plan. There is evidence that some panels are being offered at a very low cost, although evidence of free panels remains less clear. Obviously, low-cost panels mean that households are able to take up the opportunity to make a contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and a number of firms made submissions to the inquiry of the Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee in support of the current solar credits multiplier.

In relation to safety issues, I want to make it clear that this government takes safety issues very seriously. We are introducing a range of measures to further strengthen safety and compliance in relation to solar panels supported by the renewable energy target. I have today released regulations made on 15 June which require installers to comply with state and territory regulations in relation to siting panels and building codes, including for panel mountings and connections.

In addition, the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator is working with the Clean Energy Council to deliver an enhanced program of compliance and performance inspections. These inspections represent the first element of a broader and longer term enhanced compliance and performance strategy for the renewable energy target. My department will be consulting with industry and other stakeholders on this strategy, including on postinstallation checks.

In addition, the amendments to the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act introduced on 12 May 2010 include new and enhanced compliance measures, such as civil penalties, tougher financial penalties and more stringent compliance documentation requirements. So the bills before the chamber implement enhancements to the renewable energy target and have provided a timely opportunity to strengthen the compliance and performance framework.

In relation to Senator Milne’s call for a national feed-in tariff, I have said previously in this chamber that the position of the government is that we see, consistent with international practice, a renewable energy target scheme and a feed-in tariff as alternative policy mechanisms for promoting renewable energy uptake. A renewable energy target sets the quantity of renewable energy and allows for a range of cost-effective technologies to be deployed. In contrast, a feed-in tariff provides a certain amount of support for specified technologies set in advance for a future period of time. The government went to the election with a commitment to increase the renewable energy target and that is the policy mechanism that we remain committed to. I also note that Senator Milne has made some comments about biomass and I intend to deal with those in the committee debate when she moves her amendments.

In conclusion, the amendment bills before the chamber today will encourage the deployment of both major renewable energy projects and household-scale renewable energy systems. The renewable energy target is a key measure in Australia’s climate change policy. These changes will deliver significant and timely enhancements that will help reduce Australia’s emissions. The enhanced renewable energy target will drive significant investment, accelerating the deployment of a broad range of renewable energy technologies like wind, solar and thermal. These are changes which will ensure that 20 per cent of our electricity supply comes from renewable sources by 2020. These bills represent a major step towards the transformation of our economy and the building of Australia’s low-pollution future. I commend the bills to the chamber.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Milne’s) be agreed to.