2009-08-17
42
1
6
REPS
0
0
2009-08-17
The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 12 pm and read prayers.
MAIN COMMITTEE
7933
Miscellaneous
Private Members’ Motions
7933
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—In accordance with standing order 41(h), and the recommendations of the whips adopted by the House on 12 August 2009, I present copies of the terms of motions for which notice has been given by the members for Canning, Ballarat, Cowan and Wills. These items will be considered in the Main Committee later today.
CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (2009 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2009 [NO. 2]
7933
Bills
R4159
EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT (2009 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2009 [NO. 2]
7933
Bills
R4158
THERAPEUTIC GOODS AMENDMENT (2009 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2009
7933
Bills
R4083
FINANCIAL SECTOR LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ENHANCING SUPERVISION AND ENFORCEMENT) BILL 2009
7933
Bills
R4086
Returned from the Senate
7933
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (REMOVAL OF CONCLUSIVE CERTIFICATES AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2008 [2009]
7933
Bills
S702
First Reading
7933
Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
COMMITTEES
7933
Committees
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
7933
Membership
7933
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating a member to be a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
12:03:00
—by leave—I move:
That Mr Adams be appointed a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.
Question agreed to.
STANDING ORDERS
7933
Motions
7933
12:03:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I move:
That unless otherwise ordered, standing orders 192 and 193 be amended to read as follows:
192 Main Committee’s order of business
The normal order of business for the Main Committee is set out in figure 4.
Figure 4. Main Committee order of business
MONDAY
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
9.30 am
3 min constituency statements
9.30 am
3 min constituency statements
Approx
10.00 am
Government
business and/or committee and delegation reports
Approx
10.00 am
Government business and/or committee and delegation reports
12.30 pm
Adjournment Debate
Approx
1.00 pm
Approx
1.00 pm
4.00 pm
3 min
constituency statements
4.00 pm
3 min constituency statements
4.00 pm
If required
Approx
4.30 pm
Government
business and/or committee and delegation reports
If required
Approx
6.40 pm
90 sec statements
6.55 pm
Committee & delegation reports and private Members’ business
Approx
7.30 pm
8.30 pm
Grievance debate
Approx
8.30 pm
9.30 pm.
The meeting times of the Main Committee are fixed by the Deputy Speaker and are subject to change. Adjournment debates can occur on days other than Thursdays by agreement between the Whips.
193 Members’ three minute constituency statements
The first item of business on any day that the Main Committee meets shall be constituency statements by Members. The Deputy Speaker may call a Member to make a constituency statement for no longer than three minutes. The period for Members’ constituency statements may continue for 30 minutes, irrespective of suspensions for divisions in the House.
The amendment provides for an additional two hours and 40 minutes each sitting week on a Monday for members to debate government business or committee reports and to make three-minute constituency statements. It provides two changes to the existing standing orders: that the first item of business on any day that the Main Committee meets will be constituency statements by members and that, between 4.30 pm and 6.40 pm on a Monday, the Main Committee will allow for government business and committee and delegation reports.
This amendment will provide greater opportunity for members to do two things: firstly, to better represent their electorates with the increased allocation of time allowed for constituency statements and, secondly, to contribute to the legislative debate on issues that are important to their local communities. This will, of course, increase the accountability and transparency of the government’s legislation to the parliament, as additional debate will be allowed on legislation. Appropriately, it restores the proper practices to the Main Committee for which it was established.
The government has provided a great deal of opportunity for members of the House of Representatives to support their concerns and views before the House. Indeed, so far in 2009 the Main Committee has sat for a total of 176 hours, which is more than the entire time of 147 hours that it sat for in 2007. In 2008, the Main Committee sat for a total of 290 hours, more time than in any other year since its creation in 1994 and more than 60 hours more than its previous record in 2006.
I take the opportunity to make the point that, while the House of Representatives is engaged in discussion about legislation and also about issues of concern that members have in their electorates, I think the same, unfortunately, cannot always be said of the other place. The House has carried some 119 bills so far this year. There are 21 packages awaiting passage in the Senate. Of those, three are budget related: the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2009, the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2009 and the Health Insurance Amendment (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Bill 2009. Indeed, last week the Senate only considered four packages, of which three were passed.
Of course the Senate need to give proper scrutiny to legislation, but they also need to recognise that they have a responsibility to deal, in a timely manner, with legislation that is carried by the House of Representatives. Certainly, the Parliamentary Business Committee will continue to monitor the situation re the build-up of legislation in the Senate. It is my understanding that there are a range of bills which the government and the opposition have declared to be non-controversial but because of minor parties opposing that declaration the legislation is unable to be debated on Thursdays.
The fact that the Senate has not extended its sitting hours, unlike the House of Representatives in both this chamber and the Main Committee, is also an issue which needs to be given proper consideration by the Senate. I would certainly ask that they do so.
This is a practical motion which is about maximising the time that both chambers sit. It is also of good financial sense for the parliament to maximise the daytime activity whilst parliamentarians are here in Canberra, given the costs of parliament sitting. I certainly commend the proposed amendments to the House of Representatives and I thank both the Chief Government Whip and the Chief Opposition Whip for their ongoing deliberations on these issues and the cooperative way which, by and large, we operate in this chamber.
7936
12:09:00
Pyne, Chris, MP
9V5
Sturt
LP
Manager of Opposition Business
0
0
Mr PYNE
—The opposition lends support to the government’s changes to the standing orders in order to give parliamentary secretaries and ministers greater opportunities in the Main Committee. It was—when I was a minister and a parliamentary secretary—a vexing matter that you could not necessarily speak on the adjournments or in the Main Committee about issues to do with your local electorate. It seemed rather counterintuitive. We do support the opportunity for ministers and parliamentary secretaries to be able to range across issues that are of importance to their constituents, who make up, at least in my electorate, 98,000 voters and about 130,000 people. I am sure that in the electorates of ministers and parliamentary secretaries they would have similar numbers if not quite so great because South Australia has a higher number on average than most electorates across Australia due to a peculiarity in the Constitution, which we have talked about before. We do support the opportunity for parliamentary secretaries and ministers to be given the chance in the Main Committee to talk about their local electorates.
We also believe the change that would give parliamentary secretaries the opportunity to make statements in the Main Committee, which could then be responded to by shadow ministers, is an improvement to the Main Committee. I can think of other improvements to the Main Committee and to the chamber. I see the Chief Government Whip is in the House. He has been a longstanding advocate of change and reform in terms of the standing orders in both this place and the Main Committee. He and I served as chairman and deputy chairman many years ago of the Procedure Committee, my first very important appointment in this place by the former Prime Minister—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Last century.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr PYNE
—Exactly, last century indeed. It took a while to get started. We did report, in fact, into the Main Committee and the improvements that could be made, some of which were adopted, so it is good to see the continuing organic improvement in the standing orders. We do always support more opportunities for members to speak. The Main Committee has provided a forum for private members’ business. It is ironic that on a day when the government is suspending private members’ business in the House of Representatives in order to debate the renewable energy targets bills—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—We’re not doing that.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr PYNE
—You are not going to do that? That is good news. We are even more pleased to hear about that because we want private members to get more opportunities to debate. That had been the impression that I had been given, so that is good news. We will be able to debate private members’ business today as well as the renewable energy targets bills late into the night. I am pleased that the Leader of the House has confirmed that.
We would like to see other reforms to the standing orders. We would like to see the oft called for claims of the previous opposition about four-minute answers in question time adhered to. It is embarrassing, in fact, for the Leader of the House that, on most of the occasions that he has answered questions, he has transgressed the four-minute rule—51 per cent of the time in 2008 and getting worse in 2009 at 69 per cent of the time. The Minister for Education transgressed her own four-minute rule in 2008, 61 per cent of the time and she is getting worse too, she is up to 66 per cent—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese interjecting—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr PYNE
—About five I think. Up to 66 per cent of the time she is transgressing the four-minute rule. It was she who put in a submission to the Procedure Committee inquiry into the standing orders in the last parliament that there should be a four-minute rule. The Treasurer on the other hand, who also supports the four-minute rule, is doing much better. In 2008 he only transgressed it nine per cent of the time and in 2009 he has only transgressed it 22 per cent of the time. The Treasurer is actually doing much better in terms of his own self-imposed four-minute rule than the Minister for Education. If only he would actually answer the questions sensibly, that would be a huge improvement. He has probably answered them in such a short space of time because he does not know the answer and no answers are much shorter than longer answers; nevertheless he is doing better than the Minister for Education and much better than the Leader of the House.
Other ministers also transgressing the rule include the Minister for Finance and Deregulation at 72 per cent of the time in 2008 and 71 per cent of the time in 2009. The Prime Minister transgressed it 27 per cent of the time in 2008 and 34 per cent of the time in 2009, and the list goes on. I think, sadly, the worst offender is the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, who has missed the boat in a few areas but, certainly, he has missed the boat in terms of the four-minute rule. In 2008 he transgressed it 53 per cent of the time and in 2009, 89 per cent of the time. The Leader of the House might like to take him in hand a bit and then the opposition would be able to ensure that democracy is working much more effectively than the farce that question time has become under this government. That said, we support the motion moved by the Leader of the House.
7937
12:14:00
Price, Roger, MP
QI4
Chifley
ALP
1
0
Mr PRICE
—I do not wish to detain the House, but I did want to rise and support this motion moved by the Leader of the House, thank him and also thank the opposition for their support. I think increasing the number of speaking opportunities for members is always a good thing for them and, more especially, for their electorates, and I welcome the half hour that is now being provided on Mondays in the Main Committee. I would also observe that we are entrenching the rule that, if a division should interrupt the contribution of members on constituency statements, members will take off where they left off so their opportunity is not wiped out.
I would observe that when the Standing Committee on Procedure review this innovation, which I do hope they will do with some clarity, they might look at whether or not the proposition has been successful—and I am sure they will conclude that it has; whether it is popular with members—and I am sure the answer to that is yes; and, most importantly, whether or not an opportunity exists to perhaps extend it by a further half hour so that we would start sitting Mondays with an hour of constituency statements. But I do not want to prejudge how the procedure committee may deliberate on these matters but merely to hope that they will review these new arrangements, supported as they are by both sides of the House.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
7937
Business
Days and Hours of Meeting
7937
7937
12:16:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Leader of the House
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—by leave—I move:
That the time and order of business for the sitting tomorrow, 18 August 2009, be as follows:
-
the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 12 noon; and
-
government business have priority from 12 noon until 2 pm
For the benefit of members, it is the government’s intention to bring on the debate for the renewable energy target legislation immediately today. We will debate that up until 2 pm. We will, after question time, return to that debate and then, after private members’ business if need be, return to that debate again. A number of members have put themselves down to speak on the second reading, and we do not wish for people to not be able to make a contribution. However, I can certainly indicate that the Chief Government Whip has asked members on this side of the chamber to restrict their comments as far as possible; I understand the Chief Opposition Whip has done the same. Of course, I indicate that that would not be appropriate for the opposition spokesperson, who will be able to speak for as long as he wishes to.
It is the intention of the government to allow speakers tonight, through a negating of the adjournment of the House, to continue so that all those speeches will be concluded. That way we can come back here tomorrow at 12 noon, have any debates and votes that are required on that legislation and then move back to the education debate that has been listed. There will be an understanding with the opposition that there will be no votes this evening so that people who had made arrangements will not be disadvantaged by that. I thank the opposition for their cooperation, and I thank the staff of the parliament for staying back this evening.
7938
12:19:00
Pyne, Chris, MP
9V5
Sturt
LP
Manager of Opposition Business
0
0
Mr PYNE
—Briefly, the opposition are quite happy to facilitate the passing of this bill tonight through the House of Representatives. We are quite prepared to deal with the consideration in detail stage this evening, and we are quite prepared to have any votes that might be necessary tonight. We, the government and, I think, members of the community share the view that the renewable energy targets legislation should be dealt with one way or the other as quickly as possible to give people in the community certainty. It has already been delayed long enough, from the opposition’s point of view. As you know, we had not insisted that the ETS legislation and the RET legislation be together—we had been quite happy for them to be decoupled—and this legislation could have been passed two months ago. There are many people in the community who are waiting to see what the parliament does with this bill. So the Leader of the House should know that the opposition are quite prepared to have this bill passed and dealt with this evening. We have not asked our members to cut back their important contributions unless they feel that they are capable of doing so and happy to do so. If they cooperate, that will make it easier for us to deal with this this evening. Therefore, the time from 12 till two tomorrow may or may not be necessary; we might well be able to wrap this issue up this afternoon or this evening and then get it into the Senate so that the Senate can deal with it with all their wisdom, energy and experience as they see fit over the course of the next three days.
7938
12:21:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Leader of the House
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—Just in closing the debate, I note the comments of the Manager of Opposition Business, and that will be given consideration by the government. It may well be that we can get the debate concluded this evening. I think that would be difficult, however, if we are going to interrupt the debate for a number of hours with private members’ business. Certainly it is the government’s priority to get this legislation through. If the opposition were prepared to agree to the deferment of private members’ business that would make it much more feasible, given the number of speakers listed. What we will do is to engage in further debate with the opposition. It is certainly not the government’s view that we would defer private members’ business by a majority vote—that would be by agreement—so we will enter into further discussions. I commend the current recommendation to the House.
Question agreed to.
Rearrangement
7939
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government)
12:23:00
—I move:
That order of the day No. 1, government business, be postponed to a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
RENEWABLE ENERGY (ELECTRICITY) AMENDMENT BILL 2009
7939
Bills
R4142
Cognate bill:
RENEWABLE ENERGY (ELECTRICITY) (CHARGE) AMENDMENT BILL 2009
7939
Bills
R4143
Second Reading
7939
Debate resumed from 17 June, on motion by Mr Combet:
That this bill be now read a second time.
7939
12:24:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
0
Mr HUNT
—In rising to address the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009 I begin with a very simple statement: our vision is of a clean energy economy. We strongly support the concept of a 20 per cent renewable energy target. We believe in the potential of the great mirror fields of California, Nevada and Spain; in the potential of geothermal energy; and in the potential of wave, tidal and algal energy to contribute to Australia’s and, indeed, the globe’s clean energy future. Clean energy is, with green carbon, one of the two most fundamental steps to dramatically reducing Australia’s net emissions. It is also about broadening the base of our energy security. Clean energy is also about creating jobs in rural Australia. I am glad that the government have backed down on negotiating these bills. Now they need to provide the details, but we will enter into negotiations today, immediately after this speech, and I am pleased that the government have agreed to do that. We have important issues with which to deal.
I want to deal firstly with the coalition and renewable and clean energy. It was the coalition which introduced Australia’s first mandatory renewable energy target. At that time, the 9,500 gigawatt hours represented an effective target of almost 10 per cent when combined with existing renewables. The coalition strongly supports the 20 per cent renewable energy target and we accordingly offer provisional support for the legislation, subject to key amendments that we will move in the House and once it gets to the Senate.
We are also committed to a 25 per cent reduction in national emissions if there is a comprehensive global agreement. We were the party that introduced the $8,000 solar rebate, which the government means tested in a broken promise on budget night 2008. We are the party which introduced the same $8,000 solar rebate which the government then completely abolished without notice as of 8.30 am on 9 June 2009. And we introduced the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program, which the ALP abolished without notice on 22 June.
I compare what we have done with the Labor Party and its own attack on the renewable sector and see five things. Firstly, there was the means testing of the solar rebate. This took the price of solar panels out of the hands of mums and dads who earn $50,000 each. That was an extraordinary impact on mums and dads from middle Australia, be they a teacher and a policeman or some other combination as a couple. For them, solar power was taken out of their reach.
The second thing that the government did was to scrap the solar panel rebate entirely, as they did without warning on 9 June. The third thing they did was to scrap the remote solar program, to which I referred earlier by its more formal title. This was done with no notice on 22 June, and this took remote solar out of the hands of people in rural and regional Australia who were off grid. It had profound effects as a consequence: the solar industry suffered and people in rural and regional Australia were denied access to solar energy. So we have seen quite an impact.
The fourth thing we saw from the government—and this relates directly to this particular legislation—was to delay action on the renewable energy target by a year and a half. We are well over a year and a half into the life of this current government, and this legislation is only now being brought forward after we saw the collapse in the solar sector because of the combination of abolishing the rebate and the delay in this legislation. It is simply unacceptable. This very legislation has sat on the Notice Paper for two months, and now—finally—it is being brought on for debate.
The fifth thing the government did was to couple this legislation to the emissions trading scheme. One is good legislation and the other is bad. I will talk more about the backdown over the weekend and what we want to do in response. To the extent that there has been a backdown by the government on holding renewable energy legislation hostage, that is a good thing; but we have significant and substantive amendments which we believe can improve this bill and can protect key and critical sectors of the Australian economy.
What about the legislation itself? Firstly, the primary bill aims to set in place a renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020. It would also enable the government to introduce the solar rebate scheme based on renewable energy certificates that come with small energy units such as solar photovoltaic systems. The legislation progressively increases the coalition’s 9,500-gigawatt-hour annual mandatory renewable energy target to 45,000 gigawatt hours by 2020. We support this objective of a 20 per cent renewable energy target for Australia. The bill also replaces the coalition’s solar rebate of $8,000 with the solar credit scheme. But I should be absolutely clear that the market value of these credits will be somewhere between $4,000 and $4,500, plus or minus, for a common one-kilowatt solar panel system.
Those are some of the key elements within this legislation. What the government has done, though, is undermine its own renewable energy target in critical ways. Firstly, as we have seen, as the legislation now stands on the table before this House the government has taken its own renewable energy target hostage. It not only delayed that legislation for a year and half but also made it entirely contingent upon the emissions trading scheme. Over the weekend we have seen a backdown on that position and a willingness to decouple. We will meet with the government today and we will talk about those details. We want to know: what is the reality of those details? It was unnecessary and it was of great damage to solar employees and solar employers around Australia, and I am glad that the government has indicated a willingness to back down—but we have many things to discuss today.
Let me now move to our amendments to the legislation before us. The coalition will seek the following amendments in the House and in the Senate. Firstly, we will seek a full decoupling of the renewable energy target from the flawed ETS to which it was tied and which was voted down by the Senate last week. Let me say that we believe that a full decoupling is desirable. We believe that it is an important thing. But we will talk and we will discuss it. We do not want to see this legislation held hostage. We want to see the renewable energy legislation passed. We want to see real renewable energy legislation for Australia—this week if possible.
The second amendment which we will seek, which I will introduce in this House and which I believe is being circulated during the course of this speech, is the inclusion of renewable gas, or waste coalmine gas, as a recognised zero-emissions source of energy as it is in the New South Wales system, in the United States and in Germany. The reason why is very simple: it is about hundreds of rural jobs. These are jobs which exist. These are jobs which companies such as Envirogen and Energy Developments currently put in place. They do this for two important reasons: (1) it is good for rural economies to create these jobs and (2) this process will save 90 million tonnes of CO2 between now and 2020. Ninety million tonnes is almost twice as much as the government has promised from $3.9 billion being spent on pink batts. If you were to do this through pink batts, it would be the best part of an $8 billion program. Instead, by simply including renewable gas, or waste coalmine gas, in the system in such a way that it is credited as a zero-emissions energy source, which would then attract renewable energy credits, we could save 90 million tonnes. I will make the distinction for the record that we are not talking here about coal seam methane gas but waste coalmine gas or, as it will progressively become known, renewable gas.
The third of our amendments is that the coverage of the aluminium sector for both its existing MRET and the expanded RET liabilities should be at the 90 per cent which the government has given over the weekend. We want to see that and we welcome the fact that that 90 per cent has been extended for all future liabilities. We would also seek that the 90 per cent coverage be in place for the existing mandatory renewable energy target liabilities.
The fourth amendment—and this is very important to rural communities—is that we want to ensure that food processing is categorised for assistance under the RET. We are seeking a 90 per cent coverage of the food processing sector, we are seeking the broadest possible definition of the food processing sector and, in particular, we are mindful that dairy must be seen as a critical element here, as must also be food cannery works. These are important things for protecting our viability, our food security and our rural jobs.
The coalition will also seek to eliminate a loophole in relation to the multiplication of renewable energy credits for industrial or commercial heat pumps. We support domestic heat pumps. We support commercial heat pumps. But we will seek to place a 700-litre cap and we will seek to make sure that multiple systems do not receive an effective bonus which was never intended.
The final thing that we want to do is help build this vision of a renewable Australia with the great mirror fields and with tidal, geothermal and wave energies. Therefore, we will move that a portion of the renewable energy target be banded and reserved for emerging renewable technologies. These are, as I said, industrial-scale solar—or the great mirror fields—geothermal, wave, tidal and biomass. This figure would be 8,875 gigawatt hours, or 25 per cent of the additional 35,500 gigawatt hours of renewable energy by 2020, and we have set in place in the amendments a scale which will bring this into being between 2015 and 2020.
If the government does not accept the principles of these amendments today as we enter into negotiations then we will show good faith by allowing the legislation to pass the House, but we will reserve our position in the Senate subject to completion of negotiations there. We will reserve our final Senate position subject to resolution of these issues, but we will negotiate in good faith. We believe our amendments are critical. At the same time I say that we want to see this legislation pass. It is now up to the government to come to the table and to respond over today, tomorrow and the course of this week, because we have acted in good faith.
Our message to the government is very simple. We want this legislation to pass. We want to be constructive. We have laid our amendments on the table. We want to get the renewable energy legislation through the parliament. It is time that the government stopped using renewables and the solar sector as political hostages. We are happy, once we have debated and concluded on our amendments, to let this legislation through the House, subject to reserving our position in the Senate on the basis of the final outcome there. Ultimately, if the government is willing to consider our amendments then this legislation will pass. I commend our amendments to the House. I implore the government to engage in serious negotiations which will improve this legislation and protect jobs in rural and regional sectors across Australia.
7942
12:37:00
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
849
Braddon
ALP
1
0
Mr SIDEBOTTOM
—I am very pleased to speak in support of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and cognate bill. I remind the member for Flinders as he leaves the House that in 2004 John Howard, contrary to the recommendations of his own committee, failed to expand the mandatory renewable energy target scheme. That saw the end of a major renewable energy manufacturing business in my region in Tasmania and of the expansion of that industry in Tasmania and elsewhere. So I find it a bit rich that the member for Flinders and others on the other side come here hand-wringing about this government’s so-called inaction on introducing the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009, which can and must be seen as part of the wider Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
This legislation is part of our government’s comprehensive plan of action to reduce Australia’s national emissions. The key is to ensure that 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity is supplied from renewable energy sources by 2020. The legislation has the agreement of the states through COAG, which can see just how important and beneficial it will be to rural and regional Australia and also to the future of our nation as a whole.
Under the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act wholesale purchasers of electricity, or liable parties, will be required to meet a share of the renewable energy target in proportion to their share of the national wholesale electricity market. Generators of renewable energy can then create renewable energy certificates, or RECs, with one REC representing one megawatt hour of electricity from eligible renewable energy sources. These RECs can then be traded and sold to liable parties, which may surrender them to the Renewable Energy Regulator to demonstrate their compliance under the scheme and avoid paying a shortfall charge. This charge will be increased by the amendments in this legislation from $40 per megawatt hour to $65 per megawatt hour, but it is also aimed at encouraging compliance with the REC scheme.
The target is expected to drive around $19 billion in investment in renewable energy in the period to 2020, importantly accelerating the introduction of a broad range of renewable energy technologies—and I note in particular wind energy in my home state of Tasmania. I am very pleased that there is a project on the books in my region that could be worth up to $800 million. That project has been anxiously awaiting this legislation going through. With the support of those opposite I hope that it will be announced that this project will get underway soon.
We as a government have acted and will act to stimulate the industry with significant direct support through a range of initiatives. Indeed, in the 2009-10 budget the government committed $15 billion to climate change related initiatives, including $4.5 billion for the Clean Energy Initiative, which will kick-start a range of critical low-emission energy technologies in the marketplace. These include $1.5 billion for the Solar Flagships Program, which will aim to create an additional 1,000 megawatts of solar generation capacity. This ambitious target is three times the size of the largest solar energy project currently operating anywhere in the world. Another $100 million will go to the Australian Solar Institute, which supports research into solar thermal, solar photovoltaic and other solar energy technologies. Renewables Australia will be established with $465 million to support leading-edge technology research and to bring it to market.
On top of this is the $480 million National Solar Schools Program, which is giving Australian schools a head start in tackling climate change and conserving our precious water supplies. Already over 4,000 schools have registered to participate and more than $10 million in grants has already been approved. Expansion of renewable energy generation represents a significant opportunity to reduce Australia’s energy sector emissions while driving $19 billion of investment and creating the green jobs of the future as part of an estimated 30-fold increase in the renewable electricity sector by 2050. Let me repeat that for those across the way, who may have been a little stuck in their rut of denial: a 30-fold increase in green jobs in the renewable sector. These are jobs that regions like mine desperately need.
I congratulate the government on finally introducing this legislation. I look forward to those opposite supporting it and to a very positive future for the industries that will benefit from it and, particularly, for our environment.
7943
12:42:00
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
SJ4
O’Connor
LP
0
0
Mr TUCKEY
—There will be many people feeling much more comfortable now that the government has given up on playing politics with one of the biggest issues that will ever confront Australia and is at least addressing the components of reform that might deliver some positive outcomes for the Australian people with the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and cognate bill. Today when we open up one of our leading newspapers, the Australian, what does it tell us? ‘Food prices to surge under emissions trading scheme’. The story is by one of the paper’s leading journalists, Glenn Milne, who writes:
SHOPPERS face a jump in grocery prices of up to 7 per cent under Labor’s scheme to reduce carbon emissions …
Government members interjecting—
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—We have all sorts of deniers in this situation, but there are people sitting over there who think they know better than the grocery giants and everybody else quoted in this article. The article is very lengthy and I recommend that people read it. You will note it refers to the program, what is more, as the ‘emissions trading scheme’, not this smart alec rebadging called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. In fact, the scheme that was defeated in the Senate the other day is a process whereby the government sells permits to pollute. In its Treasury modelling, Australian businesses are encouraged to buy certificates to pollute from China, Bulgaria and, most possibly, the Russian mafia. That is what it tells people to do. The originators of the emissions trading scheme were quoted in the Wall Street Journal the other day as saying that they could not see that scheme working on the scale proposed on an international basis, and one of their major criticisms was integrity.
849
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
Mr Sidebottom interjecting—
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—It will be very good to see the member for Braddon—
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—The member for Braddon has had his chance.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—He might want to bet me a year’s salary that there will not be corruption within international trade. We see the carpetbaggers of the Business Council now being criticised by the producers of the Business Council—and I will repeat that word for you if you like, carpetbaggers—over the fact that the people that are going to see themselves making the biggest amount of money out of an emissions trading scheme are the hedge funds, the financial factor and, of course, the screen jockeys. Every time they drive a Porsche down the road, who pays for that? The electors of Braddon, because there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Nevertheless, the government is now being given time to consider whether food prices will rise. The article makes reference to where the government would be, considering its position in opposition, if someone were standing up now saying, ‘Let’s put seven per cent GST on food.’ I well remember the debates in this place on roll-back. A leading economics writer said that ETS should have an extra ‘t’ in it—the emissions trading tax scheme. Prior to getting on to this other measure, which is worthy of consideration, the reality is that an emissions trading scheme will put up prices. The government says it will put up the price of electricity and will therefore give people in the lower income sector compensation. What does that prove? It proves that the electricity generator is going to buy the certificates and not reduce the pollution. I watch a member opposite, so inconsequential I do not even know the name of her electorate, shaking her head.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for O’Connor has been straying widely. I think that was uncalled for and I would like him to return to the bill before us.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—Let me just point out to you, Madam Deputy Speaker—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—No, you will not point out to me; you will go back to the bill, thank you.
Government members interjecting—
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr TUCKEY
—The member for Bonner does not understand that if the price of electricity goes up it is because the generator has purchased certificates to pollute and the pollution does not come down at all. Admittedly, and with some cost to the community, if they go into various renewable energy options the opportunities are much greater. I think it was the Leader of the House who referred to me as a dinosaur the other day, and even the member for Braddon, who has had a bit of a come-and-go experience in this place, will remember that I was talking up renewables when he was the member before he got beaten and re-elected. I was talking up hydrogen and all of the decent options that might deliver the Australian people cleaner, more efficient, cheaper energy then. You do not have to subsidise people from the public purse if the price of electricity is going down.
The member for Braddon is very keen on wind energy and, considering the benefits in employment that that might bring to his electorate, he is right to say so. Being a Tasmanian, he can say so because Tasmania has extensive hydro resources which can be used to back up the vagaries of the wind. Hydro has a virtually instant responsiveness. On the mainland, where the foundation for the electricity system, the base power, is coal, coal is not responsive. You cannot just put another shovelful of coal on the boiler at the moment when there is a variation in wind activity. Consequently, if any of the people in the government ever go and talk to middle managers of baseload, coal fired operations, they will tell them that they have not reduced coal consumption significantly as a result of the existing wind generators on the mainland. Why? Because they have to burn the coal in anticipation of wind variation.
What do you do in the circumstances headlined by the power regulator in South Australia, who pointed out that this rush to wind generation in South Australia—to 30 per cent of total supply—will be very dangerous in days of very high temperatures because they have to be shut down? That is not necessarily a problem for Tasmania either, but that made headlines in the Advertiser. It was not some carbon sceptic or someone else; it was the bloke who regulates their power industry saying, ‘Be careful.’ One must therefore look at where the greatest benefits arise.
The first speaker today on this legislation, our shadow minister for climate change, Mr Hunt, identified to the parliament some amendments we think are most important, and one of them relates to emerging technologies. There is a grave fear amongst those people that, in an overall sense, have better ideas than wind; I have made my case there. The coalition had a full-day seminar last Monday with 10 separate presenters on renewables. All of them said, ‘Be very careful that wind does not rush in, knock off all the renewable energy certificates and leave better renewable energy options outside.’ Therefore, money should be reserved for those emerging technologies.
As I have already mentioned, one of those is tidal power. When one gets to tidal power in the Kimberleys of Western Australia, just in one inlet—according to the World Energy Council—there is the potential to generate 4.2 gigawatts of electricity. That is a very large amount of electricity; in fact, it represents 120 per cent of the existing generating capacity of WA.
The point I want to make that is missing from this legislation—and, in fact, from our policy at this point in time—is the need to sell certificates to people who implement major energy savings in the electrical transmission system. The Chinese are doing this and they will be able to sell Australians renewable energy certificates, because they are putting in high-voltage DC transmission lines. I give an example: to pump gas from the Pilbara to Perth uses 225 megawatts of electricity energy equivalent. That is 700,000 tonnes a year of emissions. The gas does not get there on its own; it has got to be pumped. They are the figures. When we get it to Perth, we turn 30 per cent of that gas into electricity. Yet, if that electricity were being generated up in the Pilbara and brought to the point of consumption by way of a high-voltage DC line, the emissions would be reduced by 200,000 tonnes a year.
If you are going to be able to receive certificates for putting a renewable energy generator in, then why not be able to receive certificates for a HV DC transmission line? And, by the way, there is one of those HV DC lines—as the member for Braddon probably knows—crossing Bass Strait. The Europeans are talking of putting one all the way to Iceland. They operate under water and underground and they transmit energy with practically no line losses at all. Every other form of transmission wastes a lot of electricity in the process of getting it from A to B. Maybe the member for Braddon, considering the way his state benefits from an HV DC line, might get up in his caucus and say, ‘Listen, fellas: why can’t someone who invests $1 million a kilometre for a terrestrial HV DC line—you can bury them for the same price as having them up in the sky—also receive certificates?’
A fact of life is that people can choose to invest in that. It opens up the opportunity for many better renewables—for instance, anything to do with solar. The further you get out in the desert, the hotter it gets and the better. The Europeans are going into the Sahara Desert for that purpose. What do we need to get that power to someone who wants to use it? High-voltage DC transmission lines. Really, through this renewable energy legislation, we should be giving people who invest in that type of technology, be they a state energy operator or anyone else, the same access as someone who builds a wind farm or a tidal generation farm or a solar facility. I draw that to the attention of the House. I will be prosecuting it in our party room tomorrow. I make the point that that is a very significant reform that could be included in this legislation. It is sort of—there is a word for this—the wool that brings the whole thing together. It is the interconnection of a lot of opportunities with renewables that are not viable because the source of the renewable energy—hot rocks, you name it—is too far away from where people use it.
I am aware that there are time constraints. I am pleased to say the member for Braddon did not use all of his time, so I have used the extra bit up and will now cease my arguments. I am in favour of this legislation, with the amendments that the coalition has foreshadowed. Wouldn’t it be lovely if the government saw that there are opportunities in all of this? Their attitude to a perceived problem is to put a tax on it. I say that there should be an investment of government moneys in the HV DC systems and others, and much of this other stuff will come on board. The $24 billion of $900 cheques, if invested in the electricity generation and transmission system, would have delivered a 20 per cent reduction without increasing the price of food or electricity or the price of doing business.
7946
12:58:00
Rea, Kerry, MP
HVR
Bonner
ALP
1
0
Ms REA
—After that contribution from the member for O’Connor, one is almost tempted to talk about a ‘VPRS’, which would be a ‘verbal pollution reduction scheme’. It would be of benefit to some members in this House as well.
I am very pleased, as the member for Bonner, to rise and support this very important legislation that we have before the House, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and cognate bill.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey
—I said she had no brains, and she just proved it.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—The member for O’Connor has had his time.
HVR
Rea, Kerry, MP
Ms REA
—This legislation is very important. It is very important not just to the broader Australian community but also to residents of the electorate of Bonner. As it is one of those seats based on a coastal area—we border the magnificent Moreton Bay, which is one of the most beautiful parts of South-East Queensland, and the bay islands—the issue of rising sea levels as a result of climate change and emissions pollution is one that is very dear to the hearts of many residents of my electorate. It is also an electorate that boasts a very important network of creek systems based around the Brisbane River. It is not just rising sea levels but, indeed, the rise of salinity within our freshwater creek systems that has a real impact on the many important ecosystems that depend on fresh water to survive.
I know that there are many environmental groups in my electorate—including the Bulimba Creek Catchment Coordinating Committee, the Norman Creek Catchment Coordinating Committee, the Hemmant and Tingalpa Wetlands Conservation Group and many others—who are all very concerned that this government should act to deal with the very real and immediate pressure that rising sea levels are putting on our coastal areas.
This legislation is also important because it honours the view and the belief of the Australian people that we need to act quickly on climate change through a range of mechanisms, including increasing our use of renewable energy sources. By introducing this legislation and a renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020, we are creating a very important framework which will see this vibrant industry emerge as a viable force in the Australian business community. So this legislation is good not just for our environment but for our economy as well. Indeed, this legislation provides certainty for business and individual consumers, which will see a real and measurable take-up of renewable energy in the Australian community. It also ensures that the take-up will increase significantly through the introduction of a range of measures: solar credits, renewable energy certificates, an increase in shortfall charges and a whole range of ways through which individuals, businesses and indeed the whole community can look to renewable energy as an alternative energy source.
It is important to remember that Australia is an energy-rich country. We have relied significantly on the abundance of fossil fuels that exist within Australia, but Australia has an abundance of renewable energy sources as well. As a result of this legislation, we will see investment in alternative energy sources such as biomass, solar, wind power, geothermal and many others. That is significant not just for our natural environment and the reduction of pollution but also in terms of the commercial and job opportunities which will arise from that. I have previously said in the House that the debate around climate change and alternatives to fossil fuel based energy provides so many opportunities which, unfortunately, the sceptics just cannot see. Mind you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think even the sceptics would support investment in solar and wind technologies. Even if they do not believe in man-made climate change, I am sure they would not oppose investment in those very interesting and viable industries.
I have previously likened this debate to the debate which occurred particularly in the last 40 to 50 years when computers were seen to be replacing jobs. There was much fear that the new technology would see our community changed, jobs lost, people put out of work and old skills lost without any alternatives. We all know that the rise of the computer industry has not only provided us with many new and more efficient ways of communicating and interacting with each other but also led to the burgeoning of many new industries, including the internet, computer maintenance and software programming. A whole range of job opportunities and commercial industries have emerged from the development of the personal computer and computer technologies. It is now one of the biggest industries in the world and an industry on which we fundamentally depend. I believe that, with the initiative and leadership of this government and the potential $19 billion investment in renewable energies, this emerging industry sector will become as fundamental to our lives as computers are to the way we work and play and will provide as many employment and business opportunities as computers have done.
I am very pleased that the government has put this legislation before the House. I see many opportunities coming out of it. I see significant benefit for the planet and for many generations to come in terms of new job opportunities. My children will probably benefit from the emergence of this area of business as much as I benefited from the emergence of computers. In conclusion, I feel it is unfortunate that, whilst this legislation has the support of the House, we cannot see a commitment to the very long-term and substantial initiatives that are required through support for a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The measures introduced in this legislation are necessarily complementary to the longer term initiative of that scheme. I can only urge members opposite and members of the Senate not just to support this legislation but also to continue to support the government’s other initiatives which will see climate change dealt with in a much more significant way. I commend the bill to the House.
7948
13:06:00
Briggs, Jamie, MP
IYU
Mayo
LP
0
0
Mr BRIGGS
—I rise to indicate my support for the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and cognate bill and for the position put so eloquently by the shadow minister for the environment and water at the beginning of the debate today—albeit a little earlier than I thought I would have the opportunity to do so. This legislation aims to set in place a renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020. What we have seen in the last few weeks is that, sadly, those on the other side have used this bill for political leverage against those of us on this side. Yesterday, that all came to a crashing halt with the backflip by the Minister for Climate Change and Water on this matter. Thankfully, common sense has prevailed. The minister has decoupled this bill, as she had been urged to do by those of us on this side and by others including the Greens and, last week, the Clean Energy Forum—not well-known supporters of this side of the parliament. Thankfully, the government did decouple the bill. It was part of a political ploy. There was no need to couple this bill and the ETS legislation that the government had before the parliament. As with so much of what this government does, it was purely about politics and not about genuine outcomes.
On that point—and I make it again in this place, as I did in the debate on the CPRS legislation—I support moves by our country, where we can, to reduce the amount of carbon that we emit into the atmosphere without getting ourselves into the situation where we are damaging our own economy ahead of the rest of the world for very little environmental benefit, arguably damaging our economy and also damaging the environment at the same time by emissions being pushed offshore, where they will still be emitted but with the loss of Australian jobs.
This legislation is important legislation, legislation which I and the opposition support. We have foreshadowed some amendments. As I understand it, the shadow minister for climate change has foreshadowed some amendments, which he is now seeking to negotiate with the government. I am pleased that, with the recent developments, the government is now negotiating on this. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary for Employment, who is at the table, to encourage his senior colleagues to sit down and negotiate on the ETS legislation so that we can get the outcome that people out in the broader community expect us to get.
Unfortunately, again today we have seen some more politics being played by those opposite. We have heard claims that this side is celebrating and champagne corks are popping. I noticed this morning the member for Solomon at the doors, out there on instructions—I am sure—from those higher. The member for Solomon is not usually that sort of person but he was out there this morning hoeing into the Leader of the Opposition for a backflip of the government’s own making—and the backflip came because the government was playing politics with this important issue. It is legislation that we support and, now that it has been decoupled, this week we will be able to deal with it through the parliament.
Our vision is for a clean energy economy, and we have said that before. We strongly support the concept of the 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020. We believe in the great potential of the renewable sector to become a key factor in our energy supply needs going forward into the future, growing along with a strong economy. We want to see that young Australians have the best opportunity to get high-quality, highly paid jobs—not chucking the baby out with the bathwater, while addressing the important issue of climate change. That is what we have said in this debate and that is what we will continue to say on the ETS debate. We believe it is important that we get the balance right, and that is what we have been doing.
Clean energy is, with green carbon, one of the most fundamental steps to dramatically reducing Australia’s net emissions. It is also about broadening the base of our energy security, and clean energy is about creating jobs in rural Australia. We are glad that the government has seen fit to negotiate on this issue.
One of the important, developing industries in South Australia is the uranium industry, and in recent times we have seen strong development in the uranium market, particularly with those countries such as China and India that are increasingly using nuclear power to fulfil their needs. Australia has made the decision and this government has ruled out the use of nuclear power. However, we sell uranium for the rest of the world to use for its power needs, and China and India are two of those countries which are using substantial amounts. The United States has indicated that, although it will not build a new power plant for some years, it now intends to build quite a number of others—I think it is in the range of about 30—in the next while. For a member of this place from South Australia, uranium is a vital part of the energy mix.
We were pleased to see that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts—who does not have responsibility for the portfolio of climate change, strange as it may sound—was able to put aside his long-held beliefs on the issue of uranium mining and the exporting of uranium and to approve an additional uranium mine in South Australia in recent times. Obviously it was a difficult decision for the minister but one that we are pleased with, because it is part of the answer to reducing emissions around the world. We cannot solve climate change ourselves in Australia but we can certainly take action, and we are doing that through this legislation but also by contributing to developing countries through uranium and different types of energy mixes.
We in South Australia also have great potential through hot rocks technologies. In my electorate of Mayo we have a wind farm down at Cape Jervis, and there are plans for others in South Australia as well. In South Australia we have great potential for wind generation. In my electorate we also have quite a number of people who want to take action personally and who are interested in installing things like solar hot water systems and solar panels for their homes to contribute back into the grid. I remember visiting about this time last year a property in the Inman Valley—which is down near Victor Harbor, for those who are not so familiar with my electorate. It is a beautiful part of the world. A gentleman in the Inman Valley had hooked up his home to the solar grid and it was contributing back in, because he had invested through government assistance and so forth.
That is why I was a little surprised in June when the government scrapped the second renewable energy incentives scheme, and we have had quite a bit of correspondence in my office from people who are very disappointed with that decision. The answer the government gave was that that scheme had to come to an end and there is a new scheme as part of this legislation. However, I think the way it was handled was suboptimal and less than should be desired by those of us here. We want to encourage people to invest in their own means of power generation, if they can, to reduce pressure on the grid.
But the major issue with energy supply is industry, and the importance of this legislation is that it will mandate the uptake of clean energy and will reduce the impact and the amount of carbon emissions that go into the atmosphere. Therefore, we have supported this legislation. We have been disappointed with the political trickery from those on the other side, who have tried to couple this with another bill, all for the purposes of obtaining a double dissolution trigger to avoid going to an election after next May, when they will have to outline another budget.
Last Friday we heard Glenn Stevens, the Governor of the Reserve Bank, talk about how interest rates are likely to go up by a couple of per cent in the next little while, all because of decisions made by this government—whether it be reregulation of the labour market, instigating massive debt or putting pressure on Australian families. Over recent times we have seen the government undermine their own renewable energy target and hold their own legislation hostage. Firstly they delayed this legislation for at least a year. They promised it back in 2007 but now, in August 2009, it has just been brought on for debate. The government themselves have delayed this legislation. Secondly, they have held the entire renewable energy sector hostage by tying the ETS bill to these bills. It was certainly unnecessary and no-one supported it. The Clean Energy Council said that the government’s holding up the legislation was a politically tricky manoeuvre and would simply end in being a remarkable own goal.
The political trickery of this government has meant that they have backed themselves into a corner, and yesterday we saw the outcome of that with the Minister for Climate Change and Water having to do one of those embarrassing press conferences that you see from time to time in this place and announce a backdown by trying to allege that the opposition would be put under pressure because of it. The truth of it is that this was a backdown of the government’s own making, through political activity which has held this legislation up.
The coalition is seeking to make amendments to this legislation. As I understand it, discussions between the shadow minister and Minister for Climate Change and Water are underway and we will seek to have those amendments agreed to and get this legislation passed. Our message is simple: we want to be constructive, we want a clean energy economy and we want to be a constructive participant in this debate. We do not want to be held hostage to the political activity by the government; we do not want the Australian economy to be held hostage to the political activity by the government; and we do not want young Australians, in both this sector and other sectors, to be held hostage by political trickery on the part of this government. We are supportive of the 20 per cent renewable energy target and we are working with the government on the amendments that we propose.
We are amazed that the government has delayed its own legislation by two years, and we are amazed that the government used this as a political tactic in the last six or so weeks. It is a disappointing move from a group of people who believe that this issue needs to be dealt with quickly. We heard from the member for Bonner, just prior to my opportunity to speak, talk about how important this issue is, yet we saw the government tie this legislation together for its own political purposes. We hope that the government is willing to sit down quite seriously and take our amendments on board so that this legislation can pass and we can have a genuine renewable energy target in place in the near future.
7951
13:18:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—I rise today to extend my support to the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009. The passage of this legislation is sought in order to tackle climate change.
This is an area which was clearly neglected during the past 12 years of the previous government. Today, Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberal Party are still divided and continue to debate whether climate change even exists. We have a responsibility to Australians and we have a responsibility to future generations to act on climate change now. We on this side of the House have a comprehensive plan of action to reduce Australia’s national emissions, halt their growth and turn them around for the first time in this country’s history. This legislation will bring Australia into line with the rest of the modern energy economies of the world in terms of promoting green, renewable energy.
This legislation provides not only a modern market mechanism to facilitate the application of renewable energy technology but also a platform on which to inspire developers and innovators of green technology to do their bit. It is most important to have regard for the fact that, under this scheme, in generating certainty for those developers and innovators the scheme generates jobs—enabling employment across a broad spectrum, including various areas of finance, manufacturing, operations and trade. It fact, it is predicted that by 2050 the renewable energy sector will be approximately 30 times larger than it is today. The government’s target of having 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supplied by renewable sources by 2020 underscores that development. In financial terms, the RET will provide a much needed economic boost, leading to $19 billion in investments in the renewable energy sector between now and 2020. The legislation before the House will provide the certainty sought by the various innovators, developers and operators of technologies in the renewable energy sector.
The legislation provides for a review of the RET scheme to be undertaken by 2014, coinciding with the review of the CPRS, and this will ensure that both schemes are operating efficiently and effectively and that they are delivering on the commitments that are being made in terms of our targets for renewable energy into the future. The passage of this legislation will also, for the first time, bring into line the various state and national objectives in a single national scheme.
Some of us might recall the enthusiasm when Senator Robert Hill introduced the MRET scheme in 2000. By the way, that measure was designed to complement Australia’s commitment to the Kyoto protocol. Regrettably, that commitment never eventuated, and it took the election of the Rudd government to commit to Kyoto. Had the former government acted on Senator Hill’s advice, it would have made for a much easier transition now, but those things just did not occur under the former administration, the Howard government. This not only damaged our international reputation but also took away opportunities for us to create new, green employment and to develop a workforce with the skills necessary to compete internationally in this emerging area of industry.
Prior to coming to this place, I worked for many years in the clean energy sector, principally with Energy Developments Limited, EDL, which continues to lead the way as one of the world’s pioneers in renewable and clean energy technology, having delivered approximately two million megawatt hours of green energy to the Australian power grid in the year ended 30 June 2009. EDL is one of Australia’s largest waste coalmine gas generators and operates projects such as our largest and leading waste coalmine gas plant at Appin, just outside my electorate, where they generate 97 megawatts of continuous power for the Australian power grid. Importantly, that power station abates over two million tonnes of CO2 equivalent gases every year. I also worked on the German Creek power station in Queensland, which generates 32 megawatts of power and abates over 800,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases per year. In Australia currently, EDL employs 250 direct employees, many of them in regional and rural areas, and supports another 150 indirect jobs. That is not counting the many hundreds of construction jobs which are undertaken by this company on a regular basis as it develops and deploys its technologies.
Finally, I would like to put on record my support for consideration of proposals put forward by various companies, including EDL, to include waste coalmine methane as part of the renewable energy target. We need to ensure that those companies who are our innovators and developers of renewable energy technology have the necessary incentive to undertake their activities with a degree of certainty so that they can help achieve our objectives.
7952
13:25:00
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
0
0
Mr IAN MACFARLANE
—It is with some pleasure that I take the opportunity to speak on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the related bill, and particularly to speak in support of the increase in the renewable energy target to 20 per cent. Those who have followed the renewable energy debate would be aware that it was the Howard government who introduced the original MRET of some 9½ thousand gigawatt hours. That was introduced with the specific goal of lowering Australia’s emissions and introducing and supporting new technologies in relation to renewable energy. There is absolutely no doubt that that legislation was an outstanding success. That legislation saw a growth in renewable energy in Australia unlike any we have seen since the introduction of the Snowy Mountains scheme. Of course, there were concerns towards the end of that scheme—which is still running—that the renewable energy credits were being taken up. So successful was that scheme that it was likely that there would not be enough renewable energy credits within the MRET. So this legislation was proposed and comes on the back of an election commitment that the Howard government made to introduce a 15 per cent clean energy target.
We saw then, as we do now, that clean coal in particular is part of the long-term solution to Australia’s energy needs. When you have an electricity industry of which 80 per cent is coal, to ignore the technology to take clean coal forward is a reckless step indeed. Our target during the election campaign was then increased to 20 per cent. Even though this legislation does not include clean energy sources other than renewables, give or take a few minor technicalities, we still support this legislation. Unfortunately, though, we have seen a political process attached to this, which has done no-one any favours, least of all the renewable energy industry. We have seen the legislation delayed. This debate in this House should have taken place six months ago. It should have taken place on the basis that there was ample time to debate the issue, which is one of the more important issues if we are going to lower greenhouse gas emissions. There should have been time during the last sitting period, even the one prior to that in the autumn session, to debate this legislation and to ensure that industry was not left hanging, as is the case with the photovoltaic industry. That is part of the politicisation that this government inevitably embarks on every time it brings forward legislation. We have also seen the legislation not only delayed but also tied to the passage of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation. That legislation was defeated last week, and we would assume will be debated again some time in the future. But in the meantime it is imperative that this legislation gains passage.
There are, despite our support for this legislation, a number of failings within it. In particular, the introduction of an emissions trading scheme—a pricing of carbon—combined with a renewable energy target increase to 20 per cent, or 45,000 gigawatt hours, has an enormous cost impost on the aluminium industry. In accepting that there would be a price on carbon, the aluminium industry has to also ensure that Australian smelters remain competitive against other smelters around the world, even those owned by the same company. So, if you have a situation where a company owns a smelter in, say, Canada, one in Australia, perhaps one in Europe and perhaps smelters in some of the places where it has access to electricity at a reasonable price and our smelter is the most expensive to run of those four smelters, our smelter will be the one that is switched off. We need to see what the member for Flynn is going to say in this debate. We need to see what the member for Bass is going to say in this debate. We need to see what the member for Hunter is going to say in this debate. We need to see what the member for Corangamite is going to say in this debate. All of those members have smelters in their electorates which are threatened by this legislation in its current form. Provision needs to be made within this legislation that, in the event of an emissions trading scheme and a RET, added compensation is made available to the aluminium sector. The coalition will be moving amendments to that effect.
The food industry will also have to compete in the event of an ETS and a RET against a New Zealand food industry which has a complete exemption on the basis of what is euphemistically known as the Fonterra bill. A large dairy processor in New Zealand can gain complete exemption from New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme for its export products. We do not need to see food-processing plants in Australia closed as a result of this legislation combined with the ETS. Again, we will be moving amendments in that regard.
Though it pains me to say it, the last government allowed a loophole to develop within the MRET legislation that has seen nothing short of rorting go on in the installation of heat pumps. Heat pumps are an extraordinarily efficient but electric way of heating water. They draw the sun’s energy, which has been transformed into ambient temperature in the air—that is, the energy is now in the air—into the unit through what is basically a reverse cycle air-conditioner and turn that heat into hot water. It is very efficient but not as efficient as gas. It certainly emits CO2 in the production of electricity to drive that compressor. As an alternative to an element hot water system, it is a much better option. Where you do not have mains gas or you do not have a large use of LPG and are able to buy at good rates, a heat pump is definitely a better option.
We made provision for heat pumps to receive RECs, but what we have seen is the manifolding or the connecting together of a whole series of these heat pumps which multiplies the RECs so you can actually get a set of heat pumps for absolutely nothing. Even in a residential situation, because of the added assistance from state schemes, you can get a heat pump instead of a more efficient gas hot water system in a city like Toowoomba or Canberra for $395—a quarter of the price of any competition—and it has completely put out of business gas boosted solar power, which is far and away the most efficient way to make hot water without emitting CO2. That anomaly needs to be fixed, and heat pumps need to be restricted to one unit where it is producing hot water for households or for commercial installations. The taxpayer should not be subsidising large-scale commercial operations to install heat pumps instead of other, less emissions intensive methods of heating water. Again, we will be moving legislation in that regard.
There are some other areas which I know the shadow minister before me has already outlined. We are keen to see this legislation pass the House as soon as possible. We are keen to see all sectors of the industry that are affected by this legislation dealt with fairly. There is one other sector which has been generating electricity at zero net emissions, and that has been the electricity industry which uses waste coalmine gas to drive generators. Again, as the shadow minister for the environment has mentioned, we will be ensuring that that industry does not hit the wall as result of this legislation.
This legislation is crucial to the future of the renewable energy industry in Australia. As a previous minister responsible for energy, I got a great deal of satisfaction from working with the industry to ensure that we developed other options. Other options are not just bringing European technology, sticking it on top of a tower and adding some blades to it and saying that this is the answer for renewable energy in Australia. The wind energy industry has done well from the MRET and will do very well from the RET—or the NRET, as it is referred to—but we do not want to put all our eggs in one basket. We need to see renewable energy developed right across the spectrum. We need to see wave energy, we need to see tidal energy, we need to see obviously both solar photovoltaic and solar thermal energy and we need to see geothermal energy, which probably holds the most promise to ensure that we have baseload renewable energy, because that Holy Grail of renewable energy remains 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
We must have renewable energy sources that ensure that the electricity comes out regardless of whether the sun is shining or whether the wind is blowing. We need to develop those alternative technologies. There is promise in those technologies. We are seeing them make progress. It will be difficult for them in the next five years to take a large slice of the RECs that are on offer. But we do see it as important that these technologies are advanced. We do see it as important that we generate 20 per cent of our electricity from renewable sources. We do see it as very important that we lower our emissions per megawatt hour and therefore lower our emissions overall as a country.
7954
13:37:00
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
1
0
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—I was rather surprised by the contribution from the member for Groom, as last week we had the Leader of the Opposition saying that the Labor government must decouple the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme from the renewable energy legislation and ensure that the renewable energy legislation is passed so that renewable energy projects are able to proceed. The member for Groom is foreshadowing amendments to the renewable energy legislation now that it is here. People in the renewable energy sector and people in the community, who are interested in these things, will be very troubled by this. If it is the case that the opposition proposes to insist on these amendments in the Senate, we have the risk that the renewable energy legislation will be delayed and those renewable energy projects, which we would like to see get up and running as soon as possible, will also be postponed.
The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009 implement a key climate change election commitment from the Labor government. We said that if a Labor government were elected we would lift the share of renewable energy in this country to 20 per cent by the year 2020 from around 10 per cent where it languished during the period of the Howard government. It is regrettable that Australia, going back 20 years and more, had a very promising renewable energy industry but, during the course of the last couple of decades, that renewable energy industry has languished. Implementing our election commitment is going to drive the renewable energy industry in this country and make it the part of Australia’s future that it needs to be.
Our legislation will bring the mandatory renewable energy target and the state and territory schemes into the one national scheme. That of course avoids the inefficiencies and the administration and compliance costs of having multiple schemes operate around the nation. Most importantly, it helps answer the question: how are we going to tackle climate change while maintaining our standard of living and maintaining economic prosperity? There are a number of answers to this question, but a critical answer is moving to renewable energy. We need to meet our energy needs with technologies such as solar energy, wind energy and geothermal energy, which meet our energy needs without putting the carbon, which is heating up the planet, into the atmosphere. I have long advocated an increase in the renewable energy target and I am delighted to see this legislation being debated in the House today.
People who claim that action on climate change will cost jobs keep forgetting that renewable energy will create jobs, especially in regional Australia. I point out to the House that there are a number of renewable energy projects in each state just waiting for this legislation to be carried. For example, there is the Collgar wind farm in Western Australia, the Waterloo wind farm in South Australia, the Musselroe wind farm in Tasmania, the Macarthur wind farm in Victoria and also the Solar Systems north-east Victoria project. In New South Wales there are the Crookwell and Silverton wind farms, and many other renewable energy projects around Australia are just waiting for this legislation to pass.
In the absence of this legislation we have seen renewable energy investments going elsewhere. California has 250 megawatts of PV panels being installed on six million square metres of industrial roof space in a billion dollar initiative announced in March 2008. I note that in May this year Pacific Hydro announced a deal for construction of 111 megawatts of hydropower in Chile, essentially using Australian superannuation fund money through industry funds management. I hope with this legislation passing that that kind of investment will be going on and driving an increase in renewable energy in this country.
I understand that this target will drive around $19 billion in renewable energy investment in the period to 2020, accelerating the deployment of a broad range of renewable energy technologies. It will facilitate industry development, create green-collar jobs and build the kinds of industries that we need for a faster more appropriate response to climate change. It will create the low-pollution jobs of the future in solar energy and wind farms and jobs using new technologies like geothermal energy.
Treasury modelling released last year shows that the renewable energy target along with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will see the renewable energy sector grow to 30 times its current size by 2050, creating thousands of new jobs. If we do not act, Australia’s economy will be left behind and we will not create the low-pollution jobs of the future. We do have strong natural advantages in areas like solar power and wind power; we have great opportunities for growth in green industries. I strongly support this legislation and I commend the bills to the House.
7956
13:42:00
Collins, Julie, MP
HWM
Franklin
ALP
1
0
Ms COLLINS
—I stand to support the renewable energy target legislation package. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009 represent the government’s strong commitment to action on climate change. These bills introduced in the House certainly deliver on the government’s election commitment to ensure that 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity is supplied from renewable sources by 2020. These bills do that by amending the legislation to expand the mandatory renewable energy target scheme. Since the Rudd government came to office, more than 80,000 solar systems are set to be installed on Australia’s rooftops as part of the solar rebate scheme. As we know, the renewable energy target bills are going to be replacing that with solar credits.
What I want to talk about specifically today is Tasmania. For a small state Tasmania really punches above its weight when it comes to generating renewable energy. We are a world leader when it comes to renewable energy. Tasmania currently generates nearly half of Australia’s renewable energy. Most of that is of course through our hydro-electric scheme. Hydro has been the predominant source of electricity in Tasmania since the first power stations were built in the early 1900s. There are currently 29 hydro-electricity power plants in seven different catchment areas throughout Tasmania.
In the 2007-08 year approximately 70 per cent of Tasmania’s electricity was generated from renewable sources. Tasmania also has world-class resources for wind generation. There are two operating wind farms in the state, Woolnorth wind farm in the state’s north-west and the Huxley Hill wind farm on King Island. As the science and technology expands across renewable energy in Tasmania, we are also seeing huge potential in geothermal and with the ocean resources of wave and tidal movement. Tasmania has been doing a lot when it comes to renewable energy. These expanded targets will also mean a great deal to Tasmania. The state’s unique environment affords Tasmania an opportunity to create further renewable energy solutions through this RET scheme—for example, Roaring 40s Renewable Energy, which currently has 500 megawatts of new wind energy already in the developmental phase. This project alone is a $1.5 billion investment for the renewable energy industry in Tasmania. Initial work, as people have heard today, has begun on the Musselroe wind farm in the north-east of Tasmania. Completion of this project is dependent on the successful passage of this legislation.
With the concern of reduced rainfall in Tasmania, the prolonged drought has required Hydro Tasmania to look at other feasible options to recover energy loss—although in recent months our rainfall has increased substantially and the hydro dams are filling up again. These are all new projects being considered; however, they can only progress with the RET scheme. This RET scheme will provide support for Tasmanian jobs and the Tasmanian economy, but it is also an investment in rural and regional Tasmania. A recent study undertaken for the Climate Institute by McLennan Magasanik Associates found that the RET would deliver around 500 permanent jobs and around 1,300 construction jobs at the peak of activity throughout Tasmania. This is extremely positive for Tasmania because it supports the growing green-collar workforce. Of course, there will be numerous indirect jobs also.
This RET scheme is about more than just investments and jobs; it is about ensuring we slow down Australia’s emission of greenhouse gases. And it is just one of the Rudd government’s measures to tackle climate change. In the last few weeks, we have heard in this place about the CPRS, which those on the other side of the House obviously decided not to support. I am pleased that, hopefully, they will be supporting the RET when we learn of and negotiate on their amendments. This legislation is really important for places like Tasmania and for the Tasmanian economy. I am pleased to be able to stand and support these bills today.
7957
13:47:00
Katter, Bob, MP
HX4
Kennedy
IND
0
0
Mr KATTER
—The previous speaker really cannot come into this House to represent the ALP and stand up with a straight face—Dick Adams most certainly would not attempt to do it—when she represents a party that stopped the Franklin Dam from going ahead. The member for Franklin is making faces. Tell the House: did the ALP federal government—the party that you represent in this place—stop the Franklin Dam? You stand up here and tell us that you are doing a wonderful job. I have news for you: if you pick up the latest edition of National Geographic—I will help you out to save you a little bit of time with your research—you will see that it has Australia at 31 or 51 and America at 506. If you divide the population of America by that of Australia you will realise we are not doing very well in the renewables stakes at all. In fact, if you have a quick look at the two pages in National Geographic you will realise we are dragging the chain very badly indeed. I felt so sorry for poor little Tasmania over the Franklin Dam decision, which was made by a few people who will probably be kindly thought of as very peculiar and on the very margins of the belief systems of the rest of Australia. I do not know; the people in this place just do not seem to be able to get the message.
Mr Latham went down to Tasmania to tell us all that he was going to save the trees—at the expense of some jobs, of course. I rang my campaign director and said to change all the advertising. He said, ‘I’ve already changed it.’ We were advertising on the basis that we would have the balance of power. Once Latham said that, there was not going to be any balance of power; there was going to be a slaughter. And that was exactly what happened. People like Dick Adams, who represent their electorate and their people rather than their party, took a very strong stand and were handsomely rewarded by the voters down there. But he did not do it to be rewarded by the voters.
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr Melham
—The voters also rewarded Labor on the Franklin River. They were elected for 13 years after the Franklin decision.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr KATTER
—I am only too happy to hear the interjections—
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr Melham interjecting—
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr KATTER
—If you would speak clearly I might be able to answer you.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—The member for Banks, if he continues to interject, will not remain in this House. The member for Kennedy has the call. The member for Banks will desist from interjection; otherwise, he will find himself out of this place.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr KATTER
—Naturally, it hurts a bit, I suppose. Of course, the Leader of the Nationals at the time and John Howard, smelling blood in the water, raced down there to look after the jobs of the workers. People in this country are much more conscious of jobs now than they were then. If you think you are going to the polls on the basis of carbon, good luck, son. I will be very nice to the opposition. I will be working very hard to ingratiate myself with them.
Recently we had an illness in the family and I had to spend a few days in Sydney. I met a number of taxi drivers there. They seemed to be local blokes. I asked them what people were talking about in their taxis. They said, ‘Jobs, mate; people are just scared.’ They did not know I was a member of parliament. ‘They are just scared for their jobs. Blokes in business have businesses going broke. They are really worried.’ I said, ‘What about carbon?’ Two of the eight asked me what carbon was and the other six said that no-one was worried about that. As I have said many times in this House, I am not a sceptic; I am an anti. If you are going to argue with me that a few specs up here are going to stop the illumination from coming through, you are having a piece of me. Where I come from, if you try that on then someone will laugh at you. What I am saying is that even a person like me, who is anti, still says that we should pull on the reins here. There will be some problems that will arise if we keep increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. And there are some serious ramifications in the ocean. I refer to the work of Katharina Fabricius and the Australian Institute of Marine Science, an internationally renowned institute in this respect.
If you are going to pull on the reins then look at doing something practical and real. Do not create another security which will be traded by Goldman Sachs, the share brokers, or Macquarie Bank and those sorts of people. All you are doing is setting up another security. As I have said in this place on a number of occasions, it is just a glorified MIS. It is a glorified way of diminishing your tax. That is all that is going to happen here. Do something practical and something real. I know the government is not comprised of people who can change a tyre on their car—nor is the opposition comprised of people who would know how to change a tyre on their car—but, surely, it can be practical enough to figure out that if you put a solar hot-water system on your roof you will diminish your energy needs. I will give you the figures on this by Steve Szokolay in his solar house book. Szokolay is probably the leading world authority in this area—though since deceased, I think. In that book, he delineates that 40 per cent of all domestic energy requirements are for the heating of water. I am not going to say you are going to remove all the heating of water, but you most certainly would remove 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the demand inside every house in Australia with solar hot water. If you cannot deliver it to every house in Australia, you most certainly can deliver to the government houses. I do not know what the figures are now, but at one stage when the Queensland government had responsibility for government housing about 25 per cent of the houses in Queensland were government housing, either state or federal. With a huge bulk contract of that size, you could deliver solar hot-water systems very cheaply. As I have said before in this House, when I was the Minister for Mines and Energy in the Queensland government this sort of thing would have postponed the necessity to build an 8,000 megawatt power station for another 10 years. That would have been the enormous saving from that one simple action.
I rise today to say that we are desperate for energy in north-west Queensland. Please do not put the cost of our mining operations up. There are probably four or five major mines operating at a loss. If you put another four, five or six per cent cost burden on them, they will simply not continue to operate. I did not allow all the foreign companies to buy our great mining companies, but this parliament did. It allowed our six great mining companies to be foreign owned. It may come as a shock and a surprise to some people in this place, but those foreign companies do not own those mines to be Santa Claus to Australians; they own those companies to make money. If they cannot make money out of a mine then they will close it. They might carry losses for two or three years—and they probably have done that now for two years—but they are not going to do it indefinitely.
Some of the Labor government members of this place were at the talk the other day by the man from Peabody. He said that not he nor any of the miners should be deceitful and say that mines were going to close. I observe that he would have been deceitful if he said they were not. If you dump a five per cent cost burden on the gross income of every mine in Australia and think they are going to stay open, obviously you have had no experience in business. I most certainly have had experience, and I can tell you they will not stay open. I represent 2½ thousand people who I think will be out of work if the government’s program as it now stands comes in. I urge the government to consider this.
I pay great tribute to Minister Ferguson, the Minister for Resources and Energy, for the excellent work he has done in developing a national energy corridor and for providing the open doors for our clean energy corridor. Before I sit down, let me say this to the House: yes, if you are going to subsidise the solar energy project, the sun can be used to boil water during the day, but it cannot boil water during the night. But if we have a biofuels project with that, which produces ethanol, then the sugarcane fibre that is left over can be burnt using the same boilers to produce electricity during the night. We would have a fully renewable system. You would have energy—petrol for motor cars and energy to switch on electric lights—for hundreds of years to come. The water that flows down that giant river, the third biggest river in Australia, will have a little bit diverted to grow the sugarcane and the sun will power our solar thermal power station. We can provide 450 megawatts. The other renewable projects in that clean energy corridor that stretches from south of Ingham all the way out to Mount Isa and through Pentland will provide 850 megawatts of renewable power as well as four per cent of Australia’s ethanol requirements. Two per cent of Australia’s power and four per cent of Australia’s petrol can be provided by this project.
We must sincerely thank Minister Ferguson, who has just entered the chamber, for the excellent work he has done in opening these doors of opportunity. But we plead with the government: if you proceed with the current policy then, as we read in the paper today, food prices will go up between four and seven per cent. Since most of our food is imported from overseas, I think that that is a very conservative estimate of the increase in the price of food. The price of electricity, according to the government’s own documentation, will go up somewhere between 22 and 46 per cent, if we are looking at a CPRS of 15. So the mother with two or three kids trying to make ends meet would be looking at a six per cent increase in her food prices and a 15 to 40 per cent increase in her electricity charges. We do not have to go down this path. There are other options available to the government that are realistic, that are practical and that will produce results. The clean energy corridor will provide the government—and we thank the government very much for their initiatives in this area—and the people of Australia with the possibility of supplying two per cent of their electricity needs and four per cent of their petrol needs. I must also add that the very excellent minister, Minister Ferguson, has brought to the attention of this House that we are running out of petrol in this country, that we have moved from 90 down to 30 per cent self-sufficiency over a five-year period.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Kennedy will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
7960
Ministerial Arrangements
7960
14:00:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr RUDD
—I inform the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time today and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation will answer questions on his behalf
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
7960
14:00:00
Questions Without Notice
Taxation
7960
14:00:00
7960
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to weekend media reports concerning a new tax on the family home. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether the government has made any—
Government members interjecting—
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr TURNBULL
—I am glad the government frontbenchers are indicating their commitment to imposing a new tax—that is obvious. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether the government has made any specific request to the Henry review into taxation to examine a new tax on family homes?
7960
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I am unaware of any such request, but I notice that the Leader of the Opposition seems to have had, historically, very close connections with the Treasury—at least parts of it. I say to the honourable gentleman that the reason that the government has embarked upon the Henry review of taxation is so we can have a comprehensive set of options for long-term taxation reform.
When the business community gathered in this building at the 2020 Summit last year in March, one of their first requirements of the newly elected government was that it was high time we had a comprehensive review of the future of the taxation system. That was their first ask. One hundred people from the business community from all sides of politics assembled in the Great Hall said, ‘What we need is a root and branch review of the system.’ That is what is underway. It is the right course of action, and we await the outcome of that report from the Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Henry.
Resources and Energy
7960
7960
14:02:00
Jackson, Sharryn, MP
00AN2
Hasluck
ALP
1
Ms JACKSON
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House of any recent developments in Australia’s resources sector?
7960
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank very much the honourable member for Hasluck for her question. I am pleased to advise the House that a number of major resource and energy proposals are being progressed despite the impact of the global economic recession. BHP Billiton continues with a phased expansion of its iron ore operations in the Pilbara and the Rapid Growth Project 4 all but complete. This $2.8 billion investment will enable production to expand by around 26 million tonnes per annum. Initial production is scheduled to commence in the first half of 2010, with the construction phase 90 per cent complete. This project has already generated 900 jobs. BHP’s Rapid Growth Project 5 is also underway. This project will increase production of iron ore by about 50 million tonnes per annum at a cost of $7.4 billion. Production from this project is expected to come on stream in the second half of 2011.
Woodside’s $12 billion Pluto 1 project remains on budget and on schedule and is close to 70 per cent complete. The company expects the first LNG from this project by the end of 2010. Woodside advises that the on-site workforce is expected to peak at around 4,000 workers—4,000 jobs being generated in our resources sector. The project is currently on course to deliver $6 billion in local content during the construction phase.
As members would be aware, there are a number of other gas proposals being advanced in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and in Queensland. One of those is the Gorgon LNG proposal in WA.
An opposition member—What do they have to do with you?
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Right on cue, one of the members from over there says, ‘What’s it got to do with you?’ Perhaps if the honourable member would sit back, relax and just pop a Mogadon for a minute, he would actually hear what we have got to say. This proposal is being developed by Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell. I understand that the Gorgon partners will consider a final investment decision shortly. This is the largest resource project ever proposed in Australia. Let me say that again: the largest resource project ever proposed in Australia. The total construction expenditure in today’s dollars would be close to $50 billion, generating around 6,000 jobs during the construction phase. The project envisages a three-train, 15 million tonnes per annum LNG plant off Barrow Island, off the WA coast. It also proposes a domestic plant and pipeline to supply gas to the WA mainland.
The Gorgon project will make an important contribution, assuming it proceeds, to the Australian economy and our energy security for many, many decades. The Gorgon joint venture partners estimate that, over the first 30 years of its life, the project would boost Australian GDP by $65 billion in net present value terms. It is expected that the project would return more than $33 billion to the economy through the use of Australian goods and services over that period. In advance of a final investment decision, the Gorgon project has already entered into contracts worth approximately $2 billion. Last Monday, one of the Gorgon partners, ExxonMobil, signed a sales and purchase agreement with Indian company Petronet LNG.. This is the first ever long-term LNG contract with India—again, something which the economy and the nation should celebrate. It is of itself worth $25 billion.
In addition to the contribution this project would make to the Australian economy, to exports and to employment, it would also make an important contribution to the fight against dangerous climate change. As some of the gas fields in the Greater Gorgon gas fields have a high CO2 content, the joint venture partners propose to capture and store that CO2 by injecting it two kilometres into a saline aquifer under Barrow Island. The proposal is to sequester some three million tonnes of CO2 per year. That represents around 130 million tonnes over the life of the project. Gorgon would be the world’s largest geological storage operation.
Getting a project of this size off the ground involves a lot of hard work and a high level of cooperation not only between the companies involved but between government and the companies involved and between the government in Western Australia and the government in Canberra as well. This great Gorgon project is no exception.
There have been three outstanding matters in relation to this project that we have been working on with the government of WA and the joint venture partners to resolve. Those problems are as follows: the finalisation of the necessary environmental assessments and approvals; the issuing of the necessary production licences for the project; and a commitment by government to indemnify the joint venture partners against third-party claims following the closure of the CO2 sequestration project.
In relation to the necessary environmental assessments, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts has been working closely with the Western Australian government to ensure that these assessments are progressed in both a proper and timely fashion. In relation to the production licences for this project, the Minister for Resources and Energy has been working closely and productively with the joint venture partners to ensure these matters are settled as quickly as possible. And I am pleased to advise the House that the matter relating to the indemnity of the project operator against third-party claims after the sequestration site has closed has now been settled. Both governments have agreed to share the long-term liability. The provision of the indemnity is subject to the Gorgon joint venture partners making a final investment decision this year. It is important that we build on the Commonwealth’s existing regulatory framework and that we now develop a regulatory regime around this project that properly protects the interests of both the Commonwealth on the one hand and the Western Australian government on the other hand as well as the broader Australian community.
It is appropriate that the Commonwealth government has a direct role in advancing this project given its scale and significance to the Australian economy. It is also appropriate that the Commonwealth has a direct role in advancing this project given the important contribution it will make to promoting carbon capture and storage technology. Finally, the Commonwealth has a direct interest in this project given the environmental significance of Barrow Island. This project would not only contribute to the WA economy; it is a testament to how important the WA economy is to the Australian national economy. The government looks forward to working with the government and people of Western Australia as we seek to bring this project into reality.
This is a positive development of a highly complex and capital intensive project. It is a $50 billion investment. That is equivalent to something in the order of five per cent of GDP. This is a very large prospective project. That is why the government has been doing all it can in proper consultation with the joint venture partners. This sort of development is important news for the economy as we chart what is still an uncertain course of economic recovery ahead.
I notice that those opposite find a project of magnitude, the single largest prospective resource project in Australia’s history, a matter of amusement. I would draw their attention today also to a statement by Dr Henry, who was the subject of a question just before from the Leader of the Opposition. He said that the government’s measures taken to date, both the monetary policy response and fiscal response, have had quite an impact in supporting aggregate demand in Australia. The fact is that, as a result of the early and decisive action of the Australian government, so far Australia has been weathering the global economic recession better than most economies. We have the strongest growth, the second lowest unemployment and the lowest net debt and deficit of all of the world’s most advanced economies, and so far we are the only one of them not to have gone into recession.
But this means that there is no cause for complacency for the future. That is why the Treasury secretary made his statement today. That is why the government will do all it can to support private sector development projects in the country of the type that I have referred to in WA. The Australian government, the Western Australian government and our major resource companies will be working together to proceed with Australia’s economic development in what remains an uncertain period ahead and what will be for the nation and the world a rocky road to recovery.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
7963
Distinguished Visitors
7963
14:11:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from Vietnam, led by the honourable Nguyen Van Thuong, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee for the National Assembly of Vietnam. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
7963
Questions Without Notice
Taxation
7963
7963
14:12:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his earlier answer regarding the Henry review into taxation. Will the Prime Minister rule out the introduction of any new tax on the family home?
7963
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—Can I draw the honourable gentleman’s attention to the statement from the business community here a year or so ago. They said it is time to look at the totality of the Australian tax system. That is going to be an important consideration for the future when it comes to our long-term economic reform. The problem in the past has often been that as we engage in mature debates about the future of the taxation system they get derailed by partisan comment on the way through. Let us look at what options are presented and see what the right course of action is for the future.
I say to the honourable gentleman when it comes to his contribution to taxation reform: whatever happened to the Ergas review, commissioned by those opposite as the blueprint for taxation reform for the alternative government of Australia? It seems to have disappeared down the same hole as the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition’s leadership.
Resources and Energy
7963
7963
14:13:00
Trevor, Chris, MP
HVU
Flynn
ALP
1
Mr TREVOR
—My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. Will the minister advise the House about the significance of the government’s decision today to share any long-term liability for the storage of CO2 from the Gorgon LNG project in Western Australia?
7963
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism
1
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—I thank the honourable member for Flynn for his question. In doing so, I indicate that he, like I, understands the importance of the LNG sector to Australia not only from an export point of view but also from a clean energy point of view. Historically, the LNG sector has been confined to the west coast of Australia and a small operation in the Northern Territory. The potential in the foreseeable future is also for a real industry on the east coast of Australia—hence the interest of the member for Flynn in the development of the LNG sector.
It is in that context that the Western Australian government has been working closely with the Australian government to secure the Gorgon LNG investment in Australia, a joint venture investment potentially of the order of $50 billion by Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell. As the Prime Minister has said this afternoon, it is potentially the biggest single investment ever made in Australia. Not only is it important from an economic point of view in terms of domestic jobs and investment; it is also potentially a major export earner which creates wealth not only for the private sector in Australia but also for the Australian government.
On that note, I am pleased to say that the agreement between the Western Australian government and the Australian government also enables us to put in place the regulatory regime previously approved by this parliament which goes to the injection and storage of CO2, which is consistent with what we want to achieve in offshore waters. In that context, I express my appreciation for the opposition’s support in enabling that legislation to have passage through the lower house and the Senate over the last 12 months.
The project also represents a major step forward on clean energy. The House will recall that the Prime Minister has been responsible for putting in place the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, which was well represented and welcomed by the meeting of G20 leaders in Italy not long ago. The Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute has received considerable international support, with over 130 founding members and collaborating partners, including 23 national governments and over 100 companies. The reason it has received overwhelming support is the need for us, both domestically and internationally, to make real, practical progress on the clean energy front. Carbon capture and storage is central for Australia’s endeavours to move to a low-emissions economy, because of the importance of coal in guaranteeing our energy security.
I therefore remind the House that not only does the Gorgon project represent potentially one of the G8’s targets of 20 CCS projects to be in place by 2020; it also represents potentially the biggest commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage in the world, consistent with our endeavours and consistent with the endeavours and objectives of the G20, as laid out in their recent meeting in Italy. It is not only important from a clean energy point of view; it is also of vital importance to Australia as we make progress with respect to the challenge of the global financial crisis. I will simply say that, if everything goes well for Australia over the next 12 to 18 months, we could secure something in the order of $100 billion in LNG investments in Australia which create a good platform for job creation and wealth for the broader Australian community and also key revenue opportunities for government to do what is necessary on key fronts such as education, health, child care and transport—all those services that the Australian community expects that we provide.
This project represents practical endeavours to put in place jobs for the Australian community, investment revenue and exports. In essence, it is about wealth creation, something that the government often speaks about but that is little heard of on the other side of the House. Not only will the project itself deliver, domestically, something in the order of $300 billion worth of LNG to export markets in the form of export opportunities; it is also important for our energy security in Western Australia. It will deliver 150 terajoules per day of domestic gas into the Western Australian market no later than 2015, increasing competition and easing supply-side issues for the Western Australian community. On the jobs front, it represents about 6,000 jobs for Australians if we secure final investment before Christmas, with construction to start on Barrow Island prior to Christmas—an important stimulus not only for Western Australia but also for Australia at large. Take the Pluto project at the moment. One in four of those construction workers lives on the east coast. The Gorgon project not only represents, potentially, domestic construction jobs but also represents, potentially, major manufacturing opportunities and the capacity to increase Australian content in a major domestic investment.
In conclusion, I say that from the Australian community’s point of view it is right for the Australian government to work in cooperation with the Western Australian government and the private sector to secure one of the needs for this project going forward: resolving the issue of CO2 liability. It is also important in putting the project in place to have proper regard for the environmental considerations and the nature of Barrow Island. The project represents industrial scale technology of vital importance in taking forward the clean energy debate, and for Australia it is of fundamental importance for wealth creation, jobs and investment. It is a win-win on all fronts.
Taxation
7965
7965
14:20:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. I refer the minister to his previous statement on taxing the family home. He said:
We should focus on the real issues of tax reform. Overinvestment in housing, which has been chronic in this country, has been contributed to by favourable treatment in the tax system. We should abolish negative gearing and modify the capital gains tax exemption by, for example, applying that exemption only to the unimproved value of houses purchased.
Minister, do you stand by those comments?
7965
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
Minister for Finance and Deregulation
1
Mr TANNER
—I am glad that the member for North Sydney is spending so much time trawling through statements that were made 15 years ago. It is good that he is discovering some hard work habits, which do not, unfortunately, reveal themselves in other contributions that he makes to public debate. The member for North Sydney is the Billy Brownless of Australian politics, all joviality and jokes and buffoonery, but you would not put him in charge of anything. You would not actually put him in charge of anything serious, any responsibility.
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Has the minister concluded? No?
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to standing orders 86 and 87. A question was asked in the public interest and there are no grounds for using a disorderly response and one of personal insult. I request that you ask the Minister for Finance and Deregulation to say yes or no to the question on his previous statement.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. He knows that I cannot request the minister to answer in any form other than the way that he chooses to answer. The minister will respond to the question.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a further point of order. You have the power to ask a minister to resume their seat.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! That was not the request contained in your urgings to me—which were to ask him to answer yes or no. The minister will respond to the question.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr TANNER
—If we go through the history, most of us in this place have said some things in the past that we may not necessarily stand by now. I remember in fact the member for O’Connor admitting to lying on TV. And in fact the Leader of the Opposition used to be a republican. So, Mr Speaker, whatever the views I expressed as an eager young backbencher 15 years ago on these issues, I stand by the government’s position on the matters that the member for North Sydney has put forward. The government is reviewing all aspects of the taxation system in order to present a modernisation of the Australian taxation system to take our economy forward. If this is the best that the opposition can do in its economic assault on the government, we are going to sleep very easy tonight.
Renewable Energy
7966
7966
14:24:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
Mr NEUMANN
—My question is to the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change. Minister, what is the government doing to support the uptake of renewable energy in Australia?
7966
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
Mr COMBET
—I thank the member for Blair for his question. He has taken a keen interest in the issue of renewable energy, and of course we have discussed a good deal of the government policy with him. Together the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the government’s renewable energy legislation and the energy efficiency measures that the government has announced represent comprehensive action by the government to tackle the challenge of climate change.
The renewable energy legislation of course is the subject of debate in the House today and is intended to help transform the Australian economy to a lower carbon future and to support investment in jobs in the renewable energy sector. The government’s target in this respect is to ensure that, by the year 2020, 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply is generated from renewable energy sources. It is an extremely important piece of legislation before the House at the moment. It is projected that the CPRS and the renewable energy legislation combined will generate about $19 billion in investment in renewables—a very significant contribution to the economy and the renewables sector—and will result, on Treasury modelling, by the year 2050, in the renewables sector being no less than 30 times the size that it is today. All of this is complemented by other government measures, including $2.1 billion to support research, development and the deployment of renewable technologies under our Clean Energy Initiative
External organisations of course have a keen interest in this matter. Only recently the Climate Institute released a study demonstrating that about $31 billion worth of clean energy projects are already underway or planned in response to the government’s climate change policies and, further, that these would generate around 26,000 new jobs, mostly in regional areas. Of course that does not include the employment that is going to be generated by the government’s $4 billion energy efficiency programs and the over $2 billion the government has committed to the development of carbon capture and storage technology. The fact of the matter is that, taking all of that into account, this government has done more in 18 months to support the renewables sector than those opposite did in 12 long years. The fact of the matter is that there are now more solar panels going onto Australian rooftops than ever before. A commitment for 80,000 solar rebates has been achieved since we came to office—compared to 10,500 installations in 12 years under the Howard government.
The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics has statistics demonstrating that in fact renewables went backwards under the Howard government. In 1997 renewables contributed 10.5 per cent, compared to 9.5 per cent 12 years later. No serious attempt was made by those opposite to increase the mandatory renewable energy target, notwithstanding a 2003 review conducted by the Howard government which recommended that the target be lifted above five per cent. It is a welcome development that the opposition says it now supports the government’s renewable energy target. That is a welcome development, and of course the shadow environment minister has put forward a number of amendments to the government’s legislation—in stark contrast to the approach taken in relation to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation.
But it is very important in this place that the sort of posturing that says that the coalition is now starting to ‘green up’ because it says that it supports changes in the renewable energy target should not be left without comment. We still have contradictions on the record. Less than one month ago Senator Joyce, the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, had this to say:
My predisposition is to vote against the RET.
Let us not forget that only last week the opposition voted against the most significant measure to bring about reductions in greenhouse gases—it voted against the CPRS in the Senate.
The test of the coalition’s position on Australia’s action against climate change will not just be to support the government’s renewable energy legislation in this House and in the Senate; it is going to be to support the CPRS, to develop a policy position and to put forward specific amendments, have discussion with the government and support these important measures. This is about taking strong action on climate change. That is what this government is doing. It is about bringing about reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, about playing a part in the international negotiations, about playing a constructive role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change and about supporting investment in the renewable energy sector. All of that is what this government is doing and it is time that those opposite took responsibility to support those measures comprehensively.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
7967
Distinguished Visitors
7967
14:30:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Judge Thomas Buergenthal from the International Court of Justice. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
7967
Questions Without Notice
Fuel Prices
7967
7967
14:30:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
0
Mr TRUSS
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to media reports that the Henry tax review intends to recommend an increase in fuel excise of at least 10c per litre. Will the Prime Minister rule out any increase in fuel excise?
7967
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—Can I say that there are two constant thematics to the opposition’s contribution to Australian public policy. One is fear and the second is smear, and beyond that they have nothing to contribute to the deliberations of the parliament. The honourable gentleman asked me about tax reform and the future of it, and I will come back to his question in a moment. I just draw his attention to what the then shadow Treasurer had to say about opposition tax policy—this is dated 7 April 2008, almost back in the Palaeolithic period. Dinosaurs have a particular attraction to that period and we have seen a few dinosaurs out on climate change recently.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to relevance. The Leader of the Nationals asked a very simple and straightforward question about whether the Prime Minister would rule out an increase in fuel excise. We simply ask for a yes or no answer.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—As I have indicated to the member for O’Connor, the Speaker is not in a position to dictate the way in which the question is answered. The Prime Minister is responding to the question.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The then shadow Treasurer, now the Leader of the Opposition, said in April last year:
I have asked distinguished economist Henry Ergas to conduct an examination of the many taxes in Australia at various levels …
I presume that might have incorporated various fuel taxes as well. Who would know?
… and to report to the Opposition on options for reforming the tax system.
Then he went on to say:
In undertaking this study, Professor Ergas will consult widely, and host a Conference to advance our understanding of the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for reform of the tax system.
I don’t see any particular exceptions from that Ergas review, other than this: it has simply disappeared without trace.
Can I say to those opposite that, if they seriously engage in the business of tax reform, it is a bit like your engagement on climate change reform and it is a bit like your engagement on industrial relations reform. Put your policies on the table. We do not happen to see that, whether it comes to fiscal strategy or whether it comes to productivity reform. These matters, in terms of the totality of the tax system, will be considered by Henry.
GT4
Truss, Warren, MP
Mr Truss
—Mr Speaker—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Prime Minister has concluded.
GT4
Truss, Warren, MP
Mr Truss interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the National Party does not have the call.
Renewable Energy
7968
7968
14:33:00
Parke, Melissa, MP
HWR
Fremantle
ALP
1
Ms PARKE
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the importance of renewable energy in meeting the challenge of climate change?
7968
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the honourable member for Fremantle for her question. Can I say to the House that, if we are serious about tackling the challenge of climate change, we have to move on multiple fronts. We have to move on the proper price of carbon—hence the government’s proposed legislation on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which those opposite chose to vote against last week. We as a government have also put forward a renewable energy target which will be a quadrupling of the number of gigawatt hours generated in this country through renewable energy sources by 2020.
We are also moving, as the Minister for Resources and Energy indicated before, on the question of carbon capture and storage. It is not just the global institute which we have constructed—the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, which was launched conjointly with a number of leaders from around the world in L’Aquila at the G8 Plus summit only last month. It is our domestic initiatives as well in terms of our proposed investment at scale in large-scale carbon capture and storage. Fourthly, we are moving also on energy efficiency—hence the government’s agreement with the state and territory governments on a new national energy efficiency strategy. As part of our economic stimulus strategy we are rolling out some $4 billion worth of investment in energy efficiency measures in people’s homes. As the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts just indicated before, we are also embarking upon a new set of measures to make it more possible for people to install solar panels on the roof. All these measures are necessary in our combined efforts on climate change.
On the question of renewable energy, we are dealing with the particular challenge which has been delivered to us by the fact that so much has not happened on renewable energies in this country for so long. Those opposite finally got around to setting a so-called mandatory renewable energy target of five per cent back in 2001. They then got together a report—led by, I think, then Senator Tambling, from memory—and decided in 2003, in the formal conclusions of that government-chaired report, that this was simply inadequate, that it was not going to give sufficient support to the renewable energy sector and it needed to be increased. The Tambling report, a bit like the Ergas review, fell off the edge of the table—gone, disappeared. It has gone into Davy Jones’s locker. Then we come to the eve of the last election, and those opposite say, ‘Finally, it’s time to do a little bit about renewable energy—we’ll have a 15 per cent target.’ Of course, we have seen from them no concrete policy since. But what has happened in the real economy since then?
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—What do you mean? How can you say something like that?
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—We particularly enjoy the interventions of the member for Flinders. As we know, he comes from a political party which constantly champions the cause of climate change. He has risen as a real leader amidst their ranks; hence the decisive policy they took on carbon pollution reduction last week and hence the decisive actions on boosting the renewable energy target when they had the opportunity to do so in government. In fact, his voice has counted for nothing.
Let us look at what companies had to say during the period when those opposite were in office. Look at what Roaring 40s had to say, for example, when they announced in 2006 that they were stopping work at Heemskirk in Tasmania and Waterloo in South Australia because of poor government support and a failure to increase the MRET. In May 2007, they said:
Without an increase in the initial [renewable energy] target level, electricity retailers are reluctant to commit to long-term REC deals which are crucial in financing renewable energy targets. Further substantial investment in the renewable energy industry is unlikely without an increase in the target.
That is the Roaring 40s company. From Pacific Hydro, in February 2007, there was a similar statement. Furthermore, the Vestas Nacelle company’s operations in Tasmania were affected by the absence of sufficient support by the previous government for renewable energy. But this one really gets me: Global Renewables, an Australian company, announced in March 2007 a $5 billion deal to cut greenhouse pollution in the UK because they could not get support for their technology here in Australia. The quote from them at the time is along the lines of:
In Australia there is no incentive to invest in our technology compared to cheaper options … which effectively allow polluting for free. We had to go to a jurisdiction that recognised our contribution to taking greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere.
The member for Flinders protesteth too much. This is what these companies had to say not about what the previous government said but about what the previous government did or failed to do. That is the record and it is not just in terms of the individual stories of those individual companies; it is what the cumulative effect of that was, as the honourable member indicated in his answer before, of the overall decline in actual renewable energy generation during the period in which they were in office between 1997 and 2007. Hence the course of action we have before us now with the renewable energy target legislation which we have put forward.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: under standing order 100(e) the Prime Minister cannot refer to legislation that is currently before the House. I would remind you that we are right in the middle of a debate about the renewable energy target legislation in the House of Representatives. He cannot refer to the actual legislation or the debate. I therefore ask you to bring him back to the question.
QI4
Price, Roger, MP
Mr Price
—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: I thought the anticipation rule had been removed some time ago.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—One of the reasons that from time to time I have invited the House to review question time is owing to the problem we have where there is a whole host of rules about questions and one rule about the answers. If there had been reference to the debate in the question, that would have been out of order. I have to adjudicate whether the response is relevant to the question, and the response is relevant to the question. But I invite those that are concerned and who have frowns on their brows to speak to the Procedure Committee.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—I have referred in my answer so far to what did not happen in the last decade or so on renewable energy. That is why the government has introduced its renewable energy target legislation—because we need to make a difference for the economy, for jobs and for the environment. And that is what we are getting on with the business of doing. Modelling produced for the Department of Climate Change in 2009 shows that the implementation of the expanded RET, together with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, if taken together, would lead to around $19 billion in investment in the renewable energy sector in the decade to 2020. Further, a 2009 Climate Institute study refers to the creation of 26,000 new jobs, primarily in regional areas. That is why we are getting on with the business of making sure that the renewable energy sector in this country has a future. That is why we are getting on with the business of ensuring that consumers have access to this scheme in order to provide support for the further installation of solar panels on their roofs. That is why we are getting on with the business of providing appropriate adjustment for businesses on the way through. But it all would have been that much simpler had those opposite instead risen to the challenge of leadership and put through legislation designed to create a proper carbon price, on the one hand through support for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and, on the other, supporting this particular means by which we provide further encouragement for the renewable energy sector—solar, wind and geothermal as well as wave and tidal and other forms of renewable energy. That is the way for the future.
Those opposite, in voting against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, have made the business compliance task for the Australian economy much harder than it need otherwise have been. Nonetheless, we have articulated our approach to this and we look forward to receiving what those opposite may have to say by way of amendments. Why have we had to do this? We have had to do this because at the end of last week they voted down the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and we need to provide certainty for the renewable energy business for a scheme which will begin in January next year. Secondly, we also need to guard against the possibility that those opposite will again vote against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme come November, because, if we have seen this absolute explosion in party unity on the part of those opposite in their excitement to get behind the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme this time, what is going to happen next time given that they have no unity on this question at all? Thirdly, when it comes to the future of the renewable energy target regime, we need also to guard against the possibility that we are left in continued limbo into the future because of failed leadership on the part of those opposite.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition: it is time to put the partisan divide behind us. We need the national interest to prevail on this question of the future of climate change. It is time for us to act in the national interest in this parliament on something as critical for the economy and for climate change as the legislation which is now before the House. As the Leader of the Opposition finds this amusing, he finds it a matter for smirking, he finds it a matter of great general comic performance, I appeal to those opposite: this is not a matter on which the Australian people are prepared to tolerate your continued internal divisions. The challenge for those opposite is not, as the Leader of the Opposition sought to do on the weekend, to proclaim victory for the defeat of the carbon pollution reduction scheme. That is not leadership; that is a substitute for leadership. Real leadership means looking beyond the horizon and doing something for the future of climate change, doing something real for the future of renewable energy, and actually showing leadership with your own ranks so you can bring a united position to this debate and the critical one which now lies ahead in November. Therein lies the future. I suggest that he opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, lies firmly anchored in the past.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The eye contact was enough: I did indicate to the member for North Sydney that I had an announcement to make, and he did the right thing and cooperated—I am shocked, but maybe I should not be. I thank him.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
7971
Distinguished Visitors
7971
14:46:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Cho Yoon-sun, the spokesperson of the Grand National Party of the Republic of Korea. On behalf of the House, I extend to her a very warm welcome.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I call the member for North Sydney, and I thank him.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
7971
Questions Without Notice
Health
7971
7971
14:46:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—I only have eyes for you, Mr Speaker.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Now I am worried!
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—You should be!
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr Crean
—You must have become really attracted to those gorillas on Kilimanjaro.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Minister for Trade!
Honourable members interjecting—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—It is very thin air up there, I can tell you. I salute the member for Hotham for that interjection. I hope it is properly recorded.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I hope it’s not!
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to recent comments by the Minister for Health and Ageing regarding tax increases to pay for the future of Australia’s health system, when she said:
… it is something that we have to include in the mature debate about how we fund health care.
Given that the government is now running deficit budgets and is now borrowing record levels of money, Prime Minister, what taxes will need to be increased to pay for the minister’s health plan?
7971
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I sense a theme emerging on the part of those opposite. It has been prosecuted with subtlety, it has been prosecuted with finesse, it has been prosecuted with the back handle of an axe. I say to those opposite, when it comes to the future of tax reform: in response to the business community and the 2020 Summit last year, in response to the representations of the Business Council of Australia and many other peak industry groups, the government believes that the right thing to do is to have a root-and-branch review of the tax system. That is why we have commissioned the Secretary to the Treasury to do so. Furthermore, I say to the shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney: when it comes to the future of health and hospital reform—I assume he has read the report produced by Commissioner Bennett—one of the recommendations which was put forward by the commission relates to an increase in the Medicare levy. Therefore, I would say to those opposite, before they go into ‘ha-ha’ mode—‘Here is a possible discussion about a further tax’—that the commission is quite upfront about the fact that there is one possible way of funding a future approach to the reform of dental care and their particular proposal for denticare. I say to those opposite, as they engage in a fear campaign on debt and deficit, a fear campaign on tax, a fear campaign on health and hospitals, a fear campaign on industrial relations, a fear campaign on climate change and a fear campaign on employment, that what the Australian public would like is a mature national discussion about the options which lie before us.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Put it on the table!
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—He interjects, ‘Put it on the table’—like the Ergas review, the one which was put out there in April 2008—but my attention has been drawn to a further proposal on tax reform, which was the subject of some discussion a year or two ago between the member for Higgins and the member for Wentworth. It is this thing here, called Taxation reform in Australia: some alternatives and indicative costings. But here is a really interesting interview—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked the Prime Minister about his own health minister’s statement and asked him to engage in a mature debate and put on the table those tax increases the Prime Minister wants.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I will listen carefully to the response of the Prime Minister.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—We are talking about tax options for the country’s future. Our approach is clear-cut. We have the Secretary to the Treasury working through these things. Those opposite said last year that the approach was clear-cut; it is just that it has disappeared—that is, the Ergas review. Absent the Ergas review, we are left with the Turnbull proposals of 29 August 2005. In a great interview between Karl Stefanovic, of the Today program, and the then Treasurer about the status of this particular set of tax reforms as proposed by the member for Wentworth—
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: because of your admonition last week that the opposition ask specific questions that do not invite debate, the shadow Treasurer has asked a very specific question about comments from the Minister for Health and Ageing about tax. If the Prime Minister does not wish to answer those specific questions, he should sit down. He is not being relevant to the question that was asked now.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. I will listen carefully to his contribution.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The member for Sturt would be fully aware that questions containing health policy and possible taxation sources to fund future reform were canvassed earlier in my answer to the question. I say to the honourable member: Karl Stefanovic asked the then Treasurer about tax policy, and he said:
Alright, Malcolm Turnbull came up with a tax plan as you know, as you are fully aware, what did you make of that plan?
The Treasurer then said:
Well, he didn’t actually have a plan…
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: he is the Prime Minister of this country. His health minister has flagged new taxes. I asked the Prime Minister to be honest and real with the Australian people and come up with the alternative.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The point of order is not an opportunity for him to debate the question. The question related to tax reform and the health system and mentioned the deficit. The Prime Minister has the call.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The then Treasurer said, ‘Well, he’—that is, the member for Wentworth—‘didn’t actually have a plan.’ Stefanovic said, ‘Well, he had a model.’ The Treasurer then said, ‘He had, in fact, 280 or so.’ Then he went on to say: ‘I am sure if you didn’t like one, there were another 279 that you could take a look at … The point is when you actually have a tax plan you do you actually have to come up with an alternative.’ Well said, Member for Higgins. The member for Higgins also contributed to the debate today, I am advised, in relation to this matter, so there is no—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for North Sydney has a further point of order?
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Yes, Mr Speaker. The point of order is relevance. The Prime Minister was asked about the minister for health’s comments on tax. I ask the Prime Minister to be real with the Australian people and answer the question.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister will relate his material to the question.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The point of the reference to the member for Wentworth’s then contribution to Australia’s national debate on tax reform and the absent debate since he has become shadow Treasurer, as Ergas did its disappearing act, is that, if we are going to have a mature national conversation about tax reform, we are going to put our ideas out there in due season—that is why we have the Secretary to the Treasury at work—and I would assume that those opposite would do so as well. But, instead, what we had on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme last week was them standing up time and time again saying they could not support the legislation we put forward, because they had an alternative view. When asked what their alternative view was, they could not find one or agree on one. Frankly, the nation deserves better.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
7973
Distinguished Visitors
7973
14:53:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Minister of State (Democratic Reform) from the parliament of Canada, the Hon. Steven Fletcher. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
7973
Questions Without Notice
Emissions Trading Scheme
7973
7973
14:54:00
Sullivan, Jon, MP
HVS
Longman
ALP
1
Mr SULLIVAN
—My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. How will the government support pensioners and low-income families as we move towards a low-carbon future? What challenges are there to this support?
7973
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
1
Ms MACKLIN
—I thank the member for Longman for his question. He knows, like everyone on this side of the House, that the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will help create a low-pollution future for Australia. It is certainly the case that Australians want action on climate change. Yes, it is the case that action on climate change will mean that things will have to change. Treasury modelling released earlier this year, and available on the Department of Climate Change website, recognises that the price of pollution will add around 1.2 per cent to the consumer price index over two years. Of this, household food prices could contribute around 0.1 per cent. The government has always been very upfront about this. We have made it very clear, including in legislation that has gone through the House of Representatives, that we will provide low- and middle-income households with compensation. Reports in today’s Australian suggesting that there is no compensation for households are wrong. Through a package of cash assistance, tax offsets and other measures the government will help these households maintain their standard of living while moving to a low-pollution future.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey interjecting—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—I want to say, so at least one person up the back knows what this compensation is going to be made up of, that the government will increase pensions and other income support payments by 2.8 per cent over two years, including upfront indexation, to fully meet the expected overall increase in the cost of living flowing from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. A single pensioner will receive compensation of up to $504 over two years. A pensioner couple combined will receive $760 over two years.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Wow, that will go a long way!
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—I hear the member for Mackellar commenting, but she can wait until I get to what the opposition’s views are. Low-income families will also receive compensation to fully meet the expected overall cost-of-living increase. Family tax benefits will be increased, generally by 2.8 per cent over two years, an increase of up to $175 a child on the maximum rate. The low-income tax offset will increase by $430 over two years. So, in specific terms, a single-income family, on average wages—around $60,000 a year—with two children under 12, will receive $861 over two years in extra assistance.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Wow!
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—There is a lot of wowing going on from the member for Mackellar. You might wonder how much wowing went on in the Liberal Party party room when they came up with that report last week. If you have a look at the report they put out last week you will see that low- and middle-income households would be worse off because there would not be any compensation. Whether it is their policy or not of course we do not know—
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr Emerson
—Even they don’t know!
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—Thank you. They certainly don’t know. But the report makes it clear in black and white—tell it to the wow factor over there—that household compensation would be removed. That is what is in there. Do we hear any wowing?
Government members interjecting—No!
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—Under the Liberals—if it is their policy, which of course we do not know—families under the report that was released last week would be hit with higher costs but with no compensation. So maybe that is where this story has come from. The Liberal Party policy is to deliver no compensation to low- and middle-income households; by contrast the government will make sure that they are protected.
Emissions Trading Scheme
7974
7974
14:59:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
0
Mr HARTSUYKER
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to reports that the government’s flawed emissions trading scheme will result in an increase of up to seven per cent in grocery prices. Does the government expect consumers to pay more, farmers to receive less, or Australian food to be substituted with imports? Which is it, Prime Minister?
7974
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable gentleman may be referring to a report in today’s Australian, which I understand is in part—it may not be—derivative from an earlier submission from Woolworths, as I understand it, to the government’s public inquiry on the future of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I would also draw the House’s attention to a statement which was put out by Woolworths this morning which says:
Modelling undertaken last year on the previously proposed scheme did show that food, like all goods, would incur a slight price rise. This price impact would be higher if agriculture was included but agriculture is omitted under the current plan. Woolworths submitted this information to the government in 2008 in order to assist with the compensation planning for lower income households.
Woolworths goes on to say:
Woolworth believes that the CPRS is necessary to effectively address climate change. Woolworth has already invested millions of dollars in sustainability initiatives that will reduce our energy costs and mitigate the impact of any scheme.
I would draw that statement to the honourable member’s attention. I would also draw to his attention the fact that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme white paper was upfront about the projected impacts in terms of household costs. You cannot inject a new cost for carbon and pretend that it will not flow through to the general economy. It will. The key question is: how do you then compensate households in their dealing with that? That is why the government, through its regime, has proposed a way in which it compensates low-income earners, how it compensates middle-income earners and how it also assists motorists on the way through. That is a responsible course of action.
A responsible course of action is also to clearly outline what your industry assistance packages are in terms of how you seek to transition businesses, particularly emissions-intensive trade-exposed sectors of the economy, the coal sector and other critical sectors of the economy, from a higher carbon environment to a lower carbon environment. That is a responsible, balanced systematic approach to how you bring about this sort of fundamental policy change.
Can I suggest to the honourable member, as he represents the National Party, who are in fact the ultimate denizens of climate change denial in this place, together with certain well-known members of the Liberal Party who probably should be in the National Party when it comes to climate change, that what the nation requires of us is to put aside our partisan differences on this and begin to work together on climate change for the future, climate change on a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I note for those opposite that, in the debate which unfolded last week, after they released the Frontier Economics report, which they then disowned, they did not advance a single amendment. I think the Leader of the Opposition asked last week, ‘Why is the government not negotiating with us on the CPRS?’ I say to those opposite: how is it possible to negotiate if not a single amendment is advanced in the Senate? Not a single amendment. I could say to those opposite that the nation’s interests, economic and environmental, require a different posture on the part of those opposite both for this the renewable energy target and for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, because business needs certainty and we need to do our bit to bring down greenhouse gas emissions for the future.
Climate Change
7975
7975
15:03:00
Bevis, Arch, MP
ET4
Brisbane
ALP
1
Mr BEVIS
—My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Will the minister inform the House of the importance of taking responsible action to tackle dangerous climate change?
7975
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
1
Mr GARRETT
—I thank the member for Brisbane for his question, and I know that this is a serious issue for him and for his constituencies. The challenge of climate change is all about taking responsibility—about taking responsibility for our contribution to global emissions, about taking responsibility for the impact that climate change will have on our environment for the future. That is exactly the approach that the Rudd government have taken as we rise to the challenge of climate change.
This morning I spoke in Brisbane at the opening of the International Conference on Ecology and there the government released the report Australia’s biodiversity and climate change: a strategic assessment of the vulnerability of Australia’s biodiversity to climate change. This report confirms the climate change risks to our iconic natural areas like Kakadu and the Great Barrier Reef. The House may have seen recently a report commissioned by the Great Barrier Reef Foundation which showed that the likely costs to the Australian economy, if we have increasing climate change impacts on the Great Barrier Reef, is some $30 billion over the next century. The report released today also shows that Australia has an extremely high proportion of species, our unique biodiversity, that will be at risk from climate change impacts.
The Rudd government understands these risks, and that is why we brought forward significant reform in the shape of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to begin the task of bringing down Australia’s carbon pollution for the first time. That reform was blocked by the coalition. We brought forward reform with the largest energy efficiency rollout in Australia’s history, the Energy Efficient Homes package, helping Aussies reduce their energy bills at home for decades to come. That reform was opposed in its entirety by the opposition. This is the same opposition that, as a coalition, had a last minute conversion to a cap-and-trade scheme before the recent election and then last week voted against the same cap-and-trade system in the Senate. So in some ways we can say that the song of the coalition remains the same, that not much has changed since the last election. In fact, we did hear from Senator Minchin earlier this year some of the lyrics of the song when he launched an extraordinary attack on the ABC—
Opposition members interjecting—
Government members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order!
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—They are encouraging me, Mr Speaker. Don’t worry; I haven’t finished yet.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will ignore the interjections.
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—He launched an extraordinary attack on the ABC for referring to carbon pollution as pollution. He said:
It is a nonsense to describe it as the pollutant. I mean, it is grossly misleading of the public to describe it as a pollutant.
Then last week in the speeches in the Senate, there was Senator Minchin again, and he said:
CO2 is not by any stretch of the imagination a pollutant.
And he went on to say:
… this whole extraordinary scheme … is based on the as yet unproven assertion that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming.
Tell that to the climate scientists who are working day and night to alert the world and policy makers to the likely impacts of climate change. Tell that to the research institutions that are producing the work day in and day out to let us, as policy makers, know what the impacts of climate change are likely to be. Tell that to the US government, the Chinese government, the non-government organisations and the scientific communities—all those who recognise that dealing with this risk is one of the most important and urgent tasks we have.
There was Senator Bushby, who said:
I have no choice but to refuse to believe what I am told is truth and to declare myself a ‘sceptic’ when it comes to the issue of mankind’s impact on the climate.
Of course, it is not just in the Senate. It is also in the House of Representatives, where they are going backwards; they are not moving forward. I was so disappointed at the remarks of the member for North Sydney when he was speaking to Karl Stefanovic and said: ‘Look, climate change is real, Karl.’ I think this was mentioned in the House the other day. ‘You know, whether it is made by human beings or not, that is open to dispute.’ I thought to myself: ‘Who is responsible for these carbon dioxide emissions? Perhaps it is the dinosaurs or perhaps the member for North Sydney.’ Then I realised it was. I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition held his You Tube policy announcement speech/reflections/views in a certain park and I thought to myself, on the theme of dinosaurs, ‘I know which park that is—Jurassic Park!’
It is tempting to say that nothing has changed since the last election, but the ugly truth is that the coalition are going backwards on climate change. They are now positioning themselves to the right of the former Prime Minister, John Howard, on climate change. It is hard to believe, but the coalition are now trying to make the former Prime Minister, John Howard, look like Al Gore. The fact is there have been 12 years of climate change scepticism. Scepticism leads to denial. Denial leads to inaction. And inaction imposes costs on the Australian community and on the Australian environment. In this instance our country, a continent that is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, deserves much, much better.
Economy
7977
7977
15:10:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his statement prior to the last election:
… working families have been under financial pressure, whether it’s through mortgage interest rates going up, whether it’s through the impact on rents, whether it’s food and grocery prices, the cost of child care …
As the Reserve Bank governor has indicated that mortgage rates are likely to rise by at least two per cent, house prices and rents are increasing, grocery prices may rise by as much as seven per cent and childcare costs will increase by up to $1,500 per child per year, I ask the Prime Minister: where are the fresh ideas the Prime Minister promised working families to keep the costs of living under control?
7977
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the honourable member for his question and I would respond in the following terms: over the last period of the Howard government, the cost of living surged, growing by three per cent. The proposition being advanced is that there has been a relative increase relative to the period they were in government. Three per cent under the Howard government in its last year in contrast over the last year here, where inflation has eased with prices increasing by 1.5 per cent. Under this government, clothing and footwear inflation is down, transportation fuel prices are lower, recreation inflation is lower, financial insurance service prices are lower and there are a number of other categories where that applies. The premise upon which the honourable gentleman asked his question is not correct.
The second point I would make goes back to this great question of interest rates. Do those opposite remember how many interest rate rises in a row there were under the previous government? There were 10—10 interest rate rises in a row. Those opposite, through the Leader of the Opposition, come here with the great airbrushing of that fact from their collective memory, as if it never happened.
Extraordinary actions have been undertaken by the Reserve Bank to deal with the global economic crisis. These were the subject of extensive remarks by the Reserve Bank governor in his testimony before the House committee on Friday. The Reserve Bank governor’s remarks reflect the extraordinary circumstances we, and the rest of the world, found ourselves in with the global financial crisis as it unfolded last year. There were unprecedented actions by central banks across the world to bring down interest rates, unprecedented actions by governments across the world—of the classical right, the centre and the left—to inject fiscal stimulus into their economies in order to bring the global economy and national economies and employment back from the brink. These are the courses of action of responsible governments around the world—responsible governments seeking to deal with the realities with which they are confronted rather than engaging in what I can only describe as a very cheap and inexpensive debate here in terms of real policy credibility, advanced by those opposite to suggest what the honourable member has just suggested in terms of prices. Can I suggest that he, instead, familiarise himself with the facts and base his next question on a set of factual propositions rather than the fancy in which he has just engaged.
Economy
7978
7978
15:13:00
Irwin, Julia, MP
83Z
Fowler
ALP
1
Mrs IRWIN
—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Will the minister update the House on recent positions that have been expressed about Australia’s responsible borrowing practices?
7978
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
Minister for Finance and Deregulation
1
Mr TANNER
—I thank the member for Fowler for her question. As members would be aware, the global recession has knocked a giant hole in projected government revenues in the vicinity of $200 billion over a period of four years. As a result, the government has been obliged to undertake a period of borrowing in order to cover the ensuing deficits, because the alternative would be to crunch the economy into the ground, to devastate the Australian economy, to cause hundreds of thousands of people to lose their jobs and thousands of businesses to close.
In the face of that unprecedented challenge, it is good to see that monetary policy and fiscal policy have been working in tandem to stimulate economic activity, to sustain jobs and to sustain business in the Australian economy in this time of extraordinary challenge. As part of that process, the government is engaging in a modest and responsible borrowing program. It is significant that tonight this has been confirmed by very important players in this process. I would like to quote first the statement by the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Mr Stephens. In evidence to a parliamentary committee on Friday he stated:
… 15 per cent of GDP is a low number by virtually any other standard. So I do not feel that that debt burden, if that is what happens, is going to seriously impair the country’s economy.
I would like to add to that statements made by the Secretary to the Treasury at a business function earlier today, where he stated:
It does seem clear that the measures taken to date, both the monetary policy response and the fiscal policy response, have had quite an impact in supporting aggregate demand.
In passing, I add the statement of Standard and Poor’s when they were reconfirming Australia’s AAA rating. They stated:
… the deficits and associated borrowings do not alter the sound profile of the country’s public finances.
What you are seeing here is the government standing shoulder to shoulder with the Reserve Bank of Australia and with the Australian Treasury to fight the impact of the global recession and to sustain jobs and business activity under enormous pressure.
There are other positions being adopted on the issue of debt and on the issue of the deficits projected. Although the Reserve Bank’s assessment of the likely impact of the debt on the Australian economy is not shared by the opposition in their rhetoric—and we have all heard the scare stories about debt, deficit and future generations—when it comes to their specific position on issues it is quite a different story. When it comes to actually presenting any savings measures to ameliorate the impact of future deficits—when it comes to their own promises about what they might do in the future—then it is very different story. We note, for example, that the report that Frontier Economics produced with respect to climate change last week, which the opposition sort of endorsed and sort of did not, if it were applied, would lead to a very substantial blow-out in the budget deficit over time because of increased reliance on the purchase of international permits for carbon emissions in order to support the electricity industry—a very substantial blow-out beyond $1 billion a year by 2020. I note also that they are still engaged in blocking important government savings measures, important budget initiatives such as reform of the private health insurance rebate and reform of government assistance to dental programs, in the Senate while at the same time proclaiming the great virtues of lower deficits and of lower debt.
In addition to this I note that we now have some of the would-be leadership contenders in the Liberal Party out there parading their virtues in public. Most significant is the member for Warringah, who put out a book last week, which I applaud—good on him.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr Emerson
—He joined the book club!
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr TANNER
—He joined the book club. It is a bit belated, but I welcome him to the club! In that book he proposed a specific initiative. I could not find any savings initiatives. I could not find any tough, rigorous decisions that would help to get the budget back into surplus. But what he did propose was that the means test on family tax benefits should be abolished and that people who have children under five should get assistance from the government for that, irrespective of their income. I am a bit conflicted on this proposition because I have a daughter who is three years old and I would be one of the people benefiting from the member for Warringah’s proposal. Unfortunately, in my role as Minister for Finance and Deregulation I have a different position, which is that this would be a grotesque waste of taxpayers’ money. Hardworking low- and middle-income earners paying the taxes for high-income earners like me to get a free kick is not my idea of good public policy.
I am waiting for some more books from some of the other would-be contenders on the Liberal Party benches. I am waiting for them, but they are not yet here. Maybe there will be one from the member for North Sydney, but he would probably struggle to get out of bed to write one; maybe from the member for Curtin, but she would have to find somebody else to do it for her; and possibly from the member for Goldstein, but he would struggle to find a publisher who thought his works were interesting. So I am not quite sure who is going to step up to the plate to assist the member for Warringah, but I do know one thing: there is a day of reckoning coming for the opposition, and the interesting thing is that it is a trap that they themselves set with things called the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook and the Charter of Budget Honesty, which they implemented in government and which are still in place. What that means is that when we get to an election campaign they have to stand up and say just how they are going to produce a lower deficit and a lower debt and make lots of nice election promises at the same time. We will be watching with great interest as that day of reckoning emerges. You can bet your life the rhetoric will dissolve into the sands faster than you can say boo, because that is what it is: just pure rhetoric.
Indigenous Housing
7980
7980
15:20:00
Katter, Bob, MP
HX4
Kennedy
IND
0
Mr KATTER
—My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. It is our information that the Queensland government still has not set up machinery for enabling First Australians to own their own land—private, deeded land tenure—a right enjoyed by every other Australian. The Queensland government has now promised this right for three, arguably eight, years. Given the 1966 referendum which gave constitutional powers over First Australians to the federal government, would the minister not agree that it is time now for the federal government to exercise its responsibility and undertake the issuance of such deeds, a function already accepted as federal government responsibility in the Northern Territory? Is the minister aware that throughout the latter 1980s 90 per cent of house-building labour in Queensland’s First Australian communities was local and, very importantly, part CDEP? This, along with local concrete block factories, enabled seven houses to be built for every one that is now being built. Finally, occupancy rates in communities were last year averaging around 15 people per home. Could the minister, in line with stated Rudd government policy, implement such policies now? Otherwise, what is already an emergency will become the most serious of crises.
7980
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
1
Ms MACKLIN
—I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. I do know that it is very sincerely put. We have had a number of very good discussions on both of these issues. Could I go to both of them, particularly this issue about the importance of Aboriginal employment in the building of houses, which I know he understands. Like him, the federal government are determined to make sure that, with our historic level of commitment to remote Indigenous housing, we do get very real employment outcomes. So we are insisting on delivering employment as well as making sure that houses are built and refurbished. We are very happy to continue those discussions with the member for Kennedy about the construction that will be happening in the communities in his electorate.
On the other issue of the need for secure tenure, the Australian government do agree with him that it is critical that we have secure tenure over the land on which we build. I understand the point of his question, that the Queensland government moved last year, or the year before I think it was, to 99-year leases to enable the building of housing on Aboriginal land. They, like this government, understand how critical it is that we have secure tenure, that we are in fact able to build houses on land where we have security of tenure. Just like we do in any other part of Australia, when we are building public housing normally we require freehold. In the case of Aboriginal land, we are prepared to go to a lease arrangement but we are going to acquire the security of tenure so that we have the capacity to make sure that the standard of housing into the future is high. I will of course follow up the points that the member for Kennedy has raised and will continue to discuss these issues with him, particularly in relation to his constituency.
Nation Building and Jobs Plan
7980
7980
15:24:00
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
83A
Capricornia
ALP
1
Ms LIVERMORE
—My question is to the Minister for Human Services and Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law. Will the minister outline to the House the evidence on the success of the government’s stimulus package? How important is it that the government maintains a consistent approach to economic decision making?
7981
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services
1
Mr BOWEN
—For the last year, the Rudd government have been focused on cushioning the blow of the global recession on Australia and of course will continue to do so. We are now starting to get a better picture of how Australia is performing in the midst of the global recession. The Rudd government’s policy response has recently been applauded by the IMF in their assessment of the Australian economy. In fact, the IMF commended the Australian government on what they called its:
… timely policy response, which has effectively cushioned the impact of the global financial crisis on the Australian economy.
The IMF also stated that they:
… welcomed the targeted temporary fiscal stimulus which is expected to support domestic demand in 2009 and 2010.
Last Friday, the Governor of the Reserve Bank took a similar approach. Of the fiscal stimulus by the government, he said:
I think any objective observer would say that the size and speed of that response has been one of the important factors supporting private demand over the past nine months.
It is clear that a combination of government and private sector activity has meant that Australia has withstood this crisis with some of the lowest unemployment, highest growth and lowest debt levels in the developed world.
I am asked about the importance of consistency in economic decision making as we deal with the fallout from the global economic recession. When it comes to consistency, there are some important lessons to learn. For example, on April Fool’s Day, the member for Wentworth and the member for North Sydney held a doorstop. The Leader of the Opposition cast judgment on the government’s stimulus package and he declared it not to have worked. He said:
No jobs created, no enduring economic activity promoted or inspired by it.
That was the current Leader of the Opposition. That was their strategy: to cast out and say it has not worked. But then, of course, they had a problem on 3 June, when the Leader of the Opposition received some bad news. The news was that, despite the attempts to undermine the fiscal stimulus packages of the government, the ABS announced that Australia was one of only two OECD nations to grow in the March quarter. Then the Leader of the Opposition changed his tune when it came to opportunism. He conceded:
Well … every dollar a government spends within Australia has some impact on economic activity.
That was version 2 of the Leader of the Opposition’s narrative. Now, as late as last Friday, we have version 3 from the opposition: the stimulation is working too well and overheating the Australian economy and should be withdrawn and that it is putting upward pressure on interest rates. They have gone from arguing that the stimulus package had no impact to arguing that maybe it had some impact to arguing that it is having too much impact. The Leader of the Opposition really should not be so hard on the government’s stimulus package. They actually have a lot in common. The package is targeted and temporary, and so is the Leader of the Opposition.
This morning, the opportunism of the opposition has had further light cast on it. This morning we had a new low when it comes to the members opposite. Today, we heard from one of the shadow leaders of the opposition—in fact, the preferred leader of the opposition. Today, we heard from Banquo’s ghost: our old friend, the member for Higgins. He spoke to the ABC and he spoke of opportunity. He did not speak about Australia being a land of opportunity. He did not talk about the opportunities for Australia as one of the countries that has withstood the global recession better than any other. He did not talk about opportunities for young Australians. He spoke about political opportunity. The member for Higgins has recently been begged by many members opposite to return to the leadership. This is what the member for Higgins said this morning:
Actually, the political times probably suit an opposition because since the election more Australians have lost their jobs. Australians have watched their superannuation go backwards. The value of your average Australian asset—that is, their shares and their houses—has gone down, and it is undeniably the case that since 2007, on average, every Australian has gone backwards, which I would have thought is very fertile ground for an opposition.
Indeed, it gets worse. He went on to say:
So I say there is an opportunity there and the question is to realise it.
Have you ever seen more crass political opportunism from a member of this House than from the alternative leader of the opposition, the member for Higgins? The Australian people are looking for more from a political party than opportunism. They are looking for more than an opposition that say, ‘The times will suit us.’ They are looking for a political party that provides leadership to get through a crisis and provides decisive action, not political opportunism, which the member for Wentworth and the member for Higgins have made an art form of.
Budget
7982
7982
15:29:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is to the Minister for Education. I refer the minister to the thousands of Australian students currently undertaking a gap year in a bid to achieve the independent rate of youth allowance, some of whom have come to the parliament today from their homes in rural and regional New South Wales and Victoria and have met with each of us and explained the real problems they are facing as a result of the government’s changes. Given these students have made their study and life choices based on the advice of career advisers at their school and Centrelink staff and other government information, does the minister believe it is fair to change the rules on them halfway through their gap year?
7982
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. At Senator Fielding’s invitation, I did meet earlier today with a number of young people who came to parliament from Shepparton and Warrnambool, in particular. They were actually sitting at the front of the gallery just over there until an earlier point in question time. I did have a good discussion with them about student financing and about aspirations for young people to go to university and we talked through some of their concerns. The Leader of the Opposition, having had a comparable discussion with them, would be aware of some of their concerns about the student financing package.
What we talked through in the meeting I had with them was that current student financing arrangements are flawed, and there was a general consensus about that. They, like me, were concerned by the evidence that there are higher income Australians with students living at home who have qualified for the full rate of student allowance, and the findings of the Bradley review are very, very clear on this. That is a concern, and they shared that concern. I think they shared that concern because, like me and the government, they want to see dollars spent on student financing going to make the best possible difference.
Our student financing package has been drawn up with those principles in mind. We believe that money should go to low- and middle-income families. The current means test is too low. It means that many lower- and middle-income families miss out. The received message has therefore been that the only way you can get student allowance is to defer for a year and to seek to qualify as independent. The great vice of that, of course, is that many people who do defer for a year actually do not ever come back into education. And we discussed that at our meeting today. We also discussed at our meeting the new scholarship arrangements, with gaps on scholarships under the current system—
HWP
Marino, Nola, MP
Ms Marino
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The gap year students want to know how they will be affected by this and what the government will do for them.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Deputy Prime Minister is responding to the question.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms GILLARD
—I am talking precisely to that question and the features of the new arrangement. We talked about how the features of the new arrangement include all students who qualify for youth allowance getting access to a start-up scholarship and a relocation scholarship, where those things are capped now and there are students who miss out. And we talked about the ability under the new arrangements for students to earn more through part-time work when they are at university before student financing gets withdrawn.
We had a comprehensive discussion. I was pleased to have it. I will certainly be meeting with other young people to discuss these issues. I maintain my view that there is much misinformation and misrepresentation about the package. We want to keep talking it through with people. I was very pleased to meet with the young people today. It was in fact a great discussion. I conclude by suggesting that, in the course of the discussion today, I met a young woman who in her future I suspect may well be the next Laurie Oakes. She was very good at the questions.
Education
7983
7983
15:34:00
Zappia, Tony, MP
HWB
Makin
ALP
1
Mr ZAPPIA
—My question is also to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on new research and approaches to quality teaching?
7983
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for Makin for his question. As a South Australian, I thank him for his interest in the fact that a fellow South Australian, namely my father, celebrated his 80th birthday on Saturday. Happy birthday, Dad. But I have actually been asked about performance pay and better quality in teaching. On the weekend, as well as celebrating my father’s birthday, I did release a report, commissioned by the former government, called Rewarding quality teaching. Like all things associated with education and the Liberal Party, this is testament once again to a track record of failure.
As a result of the question from the Leader of the Opposition, we have just had the opportunity to talk about their failure in student financing and their inability to get dollars to students who needed it the most—a situation which, of course, led to rural and regional participation rates at university declining under a government that included the National Party. This report is another testament to the failure of the Liberal Party on education. Commissioned by the previous government, the report about performance pay for teachers found no support amongst stakeholders for the previous Liberal government’s suggestion that teacher pay and student scores should be put together—one of the dumbest ideas ever floated in Australian politics, which would have been a recipe from the Liberal Party to make sure that every teacher in the most well-to-do schools in this country got a pay rise while every teacher in the most disadvantaged schools in this country got a pay cut.
When it comes to talking about education, what we know about the Liberal Party is that in government they used to talk and do nothing; in opposition, they do not bother to talk about education and they do not do anything. In government, they used to float ideas and not follow through; in opposition, they do not even bother floating ideas. We know that a former minister for education, David Kemp, said in 1996:
The Federal Government will this month begin a national review of the university education of teachers … It will recommend new national standards and guidelines for pre-service teacher degrees by April, 1997.
You guessed it, Mr Speaker—nothing happened. The last minister for education under the Liberal government, the current Deputy Leader of the Opposition, said in February 2007:
We need a teacher training and registration process that is nationally consistent, not only for the benefit of the current teaching workforce, but also to make it easier for potential teachers to enter the profession …
You guessed it—nothing happened. They were all talk in government and no action, with nothing that made a real difference to the circumstances of Australian children.
That stands in stark contrast to the actions of the Rudd government to improve teacher quality. We have entered a $550 million national partnership to do just that. It is already bringing changes to our education system. In New South Wales the funding is being used to create a new category of highly accomplished teachers who will earn around $100,000 a year if they go and teach in the most disadvantaged schools in New South Wales. This is a reform long dreamed of being delivered by the Rudd Labor government. Having pressed this reform through our national partnership and seeing it being delivered in New South Wales, we will be pressing this reform around the nation, because great teachers deserve better pay and kids that need the most benefit from education deserve to have great teachers.
We are also funding the Teach for Australia project—an initiative that will bring high-performing graduates into the most disadvantaged schools. Once again, this is a long-dreamed-of and long-talked-about initiative that would bring highly capable young people into disadvantaged schools to share their passion for teaching and their passion for change to see disadvantaged students succeed. This is an initiative on which we have taken action, and it will deliver.
In government, we are delivering an education revolution. We are doing it because we need to overcome the track record of neglect of the Liberal government. We are doing it because we want every Australian child to get a great, quality education. What do we see from the Liberal Party? Absolutely nothing. The shadow minister has published one speech on his website this year. That is it. He has nothing more to say about education—no ideas, no debate and no consideration about the nation’s future.
Child Care
7984
7984
15:40:00
Mirabella, Sophie, MP
00AMU
Indi
LP
0
Mrs MIRABELLA
—My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth. I refer the minister to her remarks in the press that families will have to share in the burden of increased costs for child care due to the government’s reforms. Minister, where will Australian families find the extra money to pay for increased childcare costs in a climate of job uncertainty and rising interest rates?
7985
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport
1
Ms KATE ELLIS
—I thank the shadow minister for her question. I say to her, and indeed the entire House, that this government is absolutely unapologetic about being committed to accessible, affordable and quality early childhood education and child care. We have shown that in action time and time again. We showed that when we committed over $16 billion for the next four years to this area, which I might add is over $1 billion more than those opposite managed to do when they were in government. We also showed it when we increased the Child Care Rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent, providing a much needed added assistance to thousands of Australian families. And we are showing it because we are dedicated to pursuing a quality reform agenda.
We know that it is really important to Australian parents that they are assured of the standard of care that their children are getting when they drop them off. We also know, from the recent Child care choices report, which the shadow minister has referred to numerous times, that most parents using child care said that one of their top priorities was quality reform, particularly staff-to-child ratios. When we are pursuing quality reform, that is about looking at staff-to-child ratios. It is also about looking at the qualifications of staff members and aiding parents with a quality rating system so that they can make the right decisions for their own families.
We have been absolutely upfront about the fact that there are cost implications in these decisions. In fact, we have been so upfront about this that we engaged in a public consultation process where we put out four different costed options so that the community, parents and stakeholders in the childcare community could come and talk to us. In what is a little bit embarrassing for the shadow minister, when we first came out and did this, her criticism was that we were overconsulting and that we should not get out there and talk to parents. Yet it is interesting to note that when she was asked on the doors this morning, ‘What is your alternative? What would the opposition be doing?’ her response was, ‘We would go out and consult. We would go out and talk to parents about what it is they want.’
We have spoken to almost 2,000 people around the country as part of our public consultation. We have had over 800 people undertake online surveys about the proposed changes.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on the relevance rule. I refer you to page 553 of the Practice, which says that there is a basic requirement that the answer must maintain a link to the substance of the question, which this answer does not. I ask you to rule the minister out of order or to come back to the question.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The minister is responding to the question.
DZU
Ellis, Kate, MP
Ms KATE ELLIS
—It is important to consider that any cost implications would be offset by the government’s 50 per cent Child Care Rebate, which means that the government would effectively foot the bill for half of any increases.
I think it is also important to clarify here that reports in the media today, which include a cost of $125 per child, are an inaccurate reflection of the consultation costs which the government has put out. It is also important to say that no final decisions have been made on this, because we have committed to making these decisions in partnership with the Australian community, which is what we continue to do. While those opposite can flip-flop about whether they want to consult or whether they do not want to consult, on this side of the House we are committed to getting on with the job of supplying quality, affordable, accessible child care to the some 800,000 Australian families who use it.
Health
7986
7986
15:45:00
Saffin, Janelle, MP
HVY
Page
ALP
1
Ms SAFFIN
—My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister please update the House on implementation of the government’s GP superclinics program?
7986
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Ms ROXON
—Mr Speaker, I know that you will have a particular interest in the answer to this question, the government having announced an extra three superclinics to be added to the program—one in your electorate and one in the member for Wannon’s electorate. I did think for a moment that, when the member for Indi was coming to the dispatch box to ask her question, it was perhaps about the superclinic that is to be in her electorate, announced by the Prime Minister and I on Friday, but unfortunately not. It falls to the member for Page, who I know has been taking a close interest in the rollout of her superclinic in Grafton. It was a very heavily attended consultation process. Last month the government announced that a successful bid had been selected and a contract signed. An integrated multidisciplinary model of care will be delivered, tailored to the needs of the local community.
We are very proud that, of the 31 superclinics announced at the election, 24 contracts have been signed, construction at eight sites is underway and nearly 7,000 in the member for Solomon’s seat have used services since December last year when the after hours interim services were started. I know the member for Ballarat is pleased that the superclinic at Ballan is due to be opened this month and the first patients will be able to use the facility in September. Interim services have also commenced in the Blue Mountains where, I know the member for Macquarie will be pleased to hear, an additional GP has been employed. In Devonport, the member for Braddon will be pleased to hear that there has been a commencement of asthma and diabetes clinics to be linked to the services. I understand as well that in southern Lake Macquarie the physiotherapy and rehabilitation centre, including a hydrotherapy pool, has already commenced services and is due to be officially opened shortly.
Of course, the report of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission made it very clear that this strategy is taking the right direction for reform. In fact, the commission takes this even further and suggests that we should invest more in primary healthcare centres across the country, making use of multidisciplinary care—the sort of arrangement that the government flagged at the election and is now delivering. The commission identified that a strong primary healthcare sector is an important way of keeping people in the community healthy and out of hospital. In the Prime Minister’s and my travels, talking at hospitals around the country, consulting on the report of the Health and Hospitals Reform Commission, we were recently in Adelaide. On the same visit we signed three funding agreements for three GP superclinics in Adelaide: one at Noarlunga in Kingston, one at Modbury in Makin and one at Playford North in Wakefield. This means that South Australia will have an investment of $57.5 million in primary health care, delivering better services to South Australians. Interestingly, a fact that I think captured the imagination of all of those who were at this announcement was a report from the South Australian Minister for Health, Mr John Hill, who indicated that when a similar service had opened in Aldinga, in the seat of the member for Kingston, presentations at the Noarlunga Hospital emergency department were reduced from those surrounding suburbs by around 16 per cent.
So those opposite can continue to be dismissive of these investments, but in fact these investments are aimed at delivering better services to the community and at the same time diverting unnecessary presentations from our emergency departments. The MP in this House who has taken the least interest in a superclinic being built in his electorate is the member for Dickson, who did not turn up to the start of construction of the Strathpine superclinic last month, and I am sorry to say that this has been pretty typical of his performance to date. It may be that he already knew that he was going to cut and run from his seat at that time and did not think he would bother to stand up for delivering health services to his electorate. Not only does he not seem to want the $2.5 million investment in his electorate but there are 90 construction jobs in Dickson that do not seem to rate as important to the member for Dickson.
So I would urge others in this House to take the approach of others opposite, perhaps the member for Cowan, who like the Liberal Minister for Health in Western Australia has welcomed this investment, or perhaps the approach of the member for Wannon, who lobbied for the investment that is now being made in his electorate, or perhaps even the member for Parkes, who is still pushing for his. We know that that request is there. These members understand that these investments provide not only jobs today but long-term health services for the future that take pressure off our hospitals. And the member for Dickson should get on board.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
AIRLINES PNG
7987
Miscellaneous
7987
15:51:00
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
0
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I would like to update the House on events related to the air crash in Papua New Guinea. Yesterday, Sunday, 16 August, the last of the remains and personal effects were transported from the site of the crash to Port Moresby. What will now occur will be the painstaking and meticulous and complex task of victim identification. The focus will now shift to Port Moresby, where that will occur. This will be a very difficult time for the families, as we cannot put a timetable on that process, which requires coordination between Papua New Guinea authorities and Australian and Japanese officials as well. In the meantime, officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade continue to be in constant contact with the families, speaking to them about identification and repatriation matters. Our hearts go out to them as they go through this very difficult time, as they want their loved ones returned to them as quickly as possible. We will continue to be in contact with them obviously.
Finally, for the information of members, the Papua New Guinean Civil Aviation Authority has now commenced its investigation into the crash. This will be conducted by the PNG Civil Aviation Authority. With the agreement of the Papua New Guinean authorities, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the ATSB, will assist and liaise in that investigation. Three officers from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau are at the site and one is in Port Moresby, and that deployment will continue. There continues to be very good cooperation between Australian and Papua New Guinean officials, and we are very grateful for that.
I again commend the good work done by our high commissioner in Papua New Guinea and his officials and officials in Canberra in the consular division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This will continue to be a very difficult time for the families and our hearts go out to them as they go through this agonising period and wait for their loved ones to be returned to them.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
7988
Personal Explanations
7988
15:53:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
0
Mr HOCKEY
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—Yes, again—and most grievously.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Please proceed.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—Today in question time the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, who again has walked out of the chamber, misreported what I said on the Today show on 12 August 2009 at 7.50 am. I said:
Look, climate change is real, Karl. You know, whether it’s made by human beings or not, that’s open to dispute, but you’ve got to give the planet the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, the world needs to do things. We went to the last election promising an emissions trading scheme. And we’ve sided with the Government on targets. The question is what’s the best route to get there? That’s where we’re in dispute.
Again the minister for the environment has misquoted me.
BUSINESS
7988
Business
7988
15:54:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Leader of the House
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—by leave—I move:
That:
-
for this sitting standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business after 10 p.m.) be suspended;
-
for this sitting so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent government business having precedence from 8.30 p.m.; and
-
further to the resolution agreed to earlier today, the following items have priority over government business until 1 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 August 2009: presentation of petitions until 12.10 p.m., then the Whips’ determinations for committee and delegation reports and private Members’ business in the House of Representatives Chamber from 8.40 p.m. on Monday, 17 August 2009.
For the benefit of members, the consequence of this motion being carried will be that we will be able to have the debate on the renewable energy target legislation in the parliament this evening. We are deferring, effectively, the private members’ business that was scheduled for tonight until 12 o’clock tomorrow so that we are not detracting from any preparations which I am sure have been made for that debate. We will then go on to government business tomorrow with the education legislation debate prior to question time. That will ensure also that there are no votes held in the House prior to question time tomorrow. This has been done in consultation and in full cooperation with the opposition, and I thank them for that. For the benefit of members and also staff of the parliament, we would hope that we will be able to complete the sittings this evening at a time which is as close to the normal finishing time as possible.
Question agreed to.
MAIN COMMITTEE
7988
Miscellaneous
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Monday, 17 August, at 6.40 pm, as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.
RENEWABLE ENERGY (ELECTRICITY) AMENDMENT BILL 2009
7988
Bills
R4142
Cognate bill:
RENEWABLE ENERGY (ELECTRICITY) (CHARGE) AMENDMENT BILL 2009
7988
Bills
R4143
Second Reading
7988
Debate resumed.
7989
15:57:00
Katter, Bob, MP
HX4
Kennedy
IND
0
0
Mr KATTER
—When I was speaking in this debate previously I pointed out that food prices will rise. Of course they will. I do not know whether people here are aware but we produce about seven per cent of Australia’s fruit and vegetables, a market which is dwindling, of course—we are a net importer of fruit and vegetables now. Those fruit and vegetables go mostly from the Atherton Tableland and the area north of Tully all the way down to Sydney and Melbourne. You can manage the amount of carbon that is produced in carrying the product that far. So I do not doubt for a moment that the figures for the increase in food prices—that seven per cent figure or the four per cent figure, whichever one you choose—that came out in the Australian today are accurate.
Whilst I find confusing the figures that are being put out on the increase in electricity charges, it would appear from the figures that I have seen that the increase in electricity charges will be up around 15 to 20 per cent. So is the government going to continue on with a proposal that will put electricity charges to the consumers up by 15 to 20 per cent, food prices up by four to seven per cent and will cost around 100,000 jobs? It will cost around 100,000 jobs in the mining industries of Australia, directly and indirectly. That figure sounds exaggerated but almost all of the mines operating in north-eastern Australia are operating at a loss. The price for metals such as zinc has dropped to one quarter of what it was two years ago. Mr Acting Speaker, do they think these mines are going to run indefinitely at a loss? If they are running at a loss and you take five per cent off their gross, then that makes their net position infinitely worse. So, Mr Acting Speaker, I find it difficult to—
10000
Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! I remind the honourable member for Kennedy that I am not the ‘Acting Speaker’.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr KATTER
—You are the Deputy Speaker?
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The way to refer to me is ‘Mr Deputy Speaker’.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr KATTER
—Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for providing me with that very vital information. I find it very difficult to believe that the government are seriously pursuing this path. They really have not been around politics very long if they think that there are no political implications, no downside, to a program that is going to increase electricity charges by between 15 and 20 per cent, increase food charges by between four and seven per cent and wipe out 100,000 jobs in Australia at a time of dire financial crisis. It is extraordinary to me that they intend to proceed down this pathway. I hope what is happening here is that there is a lot of noise from the government and then a lot of postponement, exemptions and exceptions. At the end of the day, I would hope that we are not going to see any reality come forward.
As I have said on many occasions here, I am not a global warming person. I am on the anti side of the argument, but I do believe that any responsible government throughout the world should take a bit of a look at the situation and address it. We are in the very happy position in North Queensland of being able to provide renewable energy for the rest of Australia. I represent more than half of Australia’s water run-off, for example. A little tiny one per cent of that could go a long way to providing the sorts of CO2 benefits that we are talking about in this place. There is the North Australia clean energy corridor, as it has become known to everybody. If the projects of the various proponents along this line are carried through to completion, there will be 850 megawatts of renewable energy. To put that in perspective, if my memory serves me correctly I think there are 40,000 megawatts of electricity generated in Australia, so one-fortieth of Australia’s electricity needs would be met. We already produce around 300 to 400 megawatts of electricity in North Queensland now. We have extensive hydroelectricity and in each of the sugar mills we have bagasse being burnt to produce electricity.
It is important for me to tell the House about sugar cane so that members understand. Sugar cane is a grass. By far and away the biggest agricultural man-created crop in Queensland is lawn. When people say ‘run-off’, run-off is mainly coming from your lawns, not from any agriculture. Agriculture is dwindling, diminishing and vanishing. But sugar cane is in fact a grass—it is one of the grass family. It is unlike a grain, which you have to plant every year. With grain, you have to put the steel through the ground four or five times—in cultivation, in planting, in ploughing under and in proper husbandry and management. With sugar cane, of course, you cannot do that. We only replant once every six years, so the steel goes through the ground only once every six years. The sugar cane is covered by a carbon ‘trash blanket’, as it is called, which is about eight inches thick. After we finish harvesting it is left on the ground, which means we do not need to cultivate out any weeds or use weedicides or any of those things, because the only plant powerful enough to force its way up through the six to eight inches of— (Time expired)
7990
16:04:00
Rishworth, Amanda, MP
HWA
Kingston
ALP
1
0
Ms RISHWORTH
—I am very pleased to rise to speak in favour of the bills before us today, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the related bill. As a member from South Australia I am very pleased that these bills will have an enormous impact on the growing South Australian renewable energy industry. South Australia is home to 56 per cent of the nation’s wind power, 30 per cent of its grid connected domestic solar systems and 90 per cent of geothermal investment. With South Australia home to 7.4 per cent of population, it is clear that South Australia is punching above its weight when it comes to contributing to renewable energy in Australia.
The legislation before us today provides further encouragement for companies to invest in renewable energy. I know that many people in my electorate of Kingston want to see an increase in renewable energy and I know that they will be very pleased to see the Rudd government delivering on its key election promise to increase the renewable energy target to 20 per cent across the nation by 2020. This is in sharp contrast to the opposition, which continues to be hopelessly divided and act irresponsibly when it comes to the challenge of climate change. This legislation represents one part of the government’s comprehensive plan to tackle climate change. We have a proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme that creates a pathway to a low-emission future, and this legislation provides a real and effective renewable energy target, showing just how serious this side of the House is about renewable energy here in Australia.
The renewable energy target legislation is widely supported by industry. The Clean Energy Council of Australia has welcomed these bills, indicating they would unleash $28 billon of new investment and create over 28,000 jobs. These sentiments were echoed by Andrew Dickson, business manager for Wind Prospect, a wind energy company based at Christies Beach in my electorate. He said that as a result of this legislation Australia would see a huge surge in renewable energy investment, and he indicated that their company will definitely expand and this would result in more jobs.
In 2010 our annual gigawatt hours target will be 12,500, which is a substantial increase from the previous target of 9,500. And, of course, this target will increase through the decade to the year 2020, resulting in 45,000 gigawatt hours from renewable energy. In my home of South Australia the state government has already introduced a renewable energy target scheme. The bill before us has been designed in cooperation with the states and territories through the Council of Australian Governments and it brings the MRET and existing and proposed state schemes into one national scheme.
The introduction of the national scheme signals this government’s commitment to creating and supporting innovation in the renewable energy sector. The renewable energy target comes in addition to measures that we have already introduced and which complement this target. As part of the 2009-10 budget, the government committed to $15 billion in climate change related initiatives, including the $4.5 billion Clean Energy Initiative, which includes a $1.5 billion Solar Flagships program. This program will aim to generate 1,000 megawatts of solar energy capacity and will be by far the biggest solar generation project in history. This development will also be supported by $100 million for the Australian Solar Institute, which will continue its groundbreaking research into solar energy technology. In addition, there is the $465 million Renewables Australia fund that will support cutting-edge technology research and provide for this technology to make it to market. This has been something that people within my electorate have been very keen for. They do not want to see technology go offshore and be developed offshore. They want the technology that they come up with to be developed here in Australia. The combination of such policies and the renewable energy target means that renewable technology development in this country will drastically increase.
The bill also provides for a review of the operation of the renewable energy target scheme to be undertaken in 2014. This will coincide with the strategic review of the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme—that is, of course, if the coalition can get its act together and support such a scheme. This government has made creating jobs its core business. The increase in the renewable energy target represents the Rudd government taking strong action on climate change, and it will stimulate investment in the industries for our future. I commend the target and the bill to the House.
7991
16:10:00
Oakeshott, Rob, MP
IYS
Lyne
IND
0
0
Mr OAKESHOTT
—I rise to support this Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the related bill. I am fascinated by the continuation of the political debate that has been going on around this suite of legislation and the positioning of who is and who is not politically serious. This is without doubt—and I would hope there is broad agreement—the natural resource management question of our time, and when you drill down into the detail with regard to various positions there is not a lot of difference. I would hope that legislation such as this can move through this chamber quickly so that we can get certainty in the marketplace for the renewable energy industry.
I know there has been debate going on about the coupling and decoupling of various pieces of legislation, and we are seeing a decoupling before us today. I would like to think the real test will be a recoupling with regard to the private member’s bill that I have put forward and which is currently before this House. It is called the Renewable Energy Amendment (Feed-in-Tariff for Electricity) Bill 2009 and it is about trying to get a national feed-in tariff system up and running within Australia. If we are having honesty tests about who is serious and who is not serious with regard to genuinely engaging people in a renewable energy future, I think the fact that the feed-in tariffs and the concept of a national feed-in tariff system are being overlooked at this point is certainly a great shame with regard to setting up a policy framework for the future.
Most of the states have now introduced their own variations of feed-in tariff schemes. The ACT probably has the most progressive, with a gross scheme, New South Wales has a net scheme and most states have now responded with their own state based variation of that theme with different pricing attached. If we think about the real point of forming a Commonwealth to get around absurdities like not being able to catch the one train around Australia because of variations in rail gauge, this is a modern equivalent happening on this government’s watch. We have feed-in tariff systems being established with variations amongst all the various states and territories. So a retailer, for example, offering the same product to a household is going to have different billing systems in place if they offer it in Tuggeranong versus whether they offer it in Queanbeyan. Surely this is an opportunity for national leadership. Surely this is an opportunity, if we are being serious about renewable energies and the renewable industry, to engage people in this process and to establish a national feed-in tariff system so that we can build a future that is as green as possible in the development of a new economy. So I will watch very closely with regard to my own coupling. Whilst both sides will, I imagine, support this legislation going through as far as setting some broad targets, I think the proof will be in the pudding in the next couple of days when we see where people sit on a private member’s bill looking at a national feed-in tariff system.
With regard to the particulars of this legislation, it is a bit of a no-brainer to be supporting this. I think it is certainly long overdue. It is not owned by one side of this debate or the other. I know that there is positioning going on, from the speeches that I have heard so far and from public comments that I have heard so far. The genesis of this does go back to the previous government, with the mandatory renewable energy targets, so I hope I am right to assume that both sides are generally holding hands on the concept of renewable energy targets. We can debate the concept of the size of the target—20 per cent by 2020—and we can debate the demands of the various renewable energy trade-exposed industries and the various vested interests getting their claws into the public policy process. We can debate the rights and wrongs of that and whether this legislation, like others in this suite of CPRS legislation, has been browned down. But, in the end, I think this is as good as we are going to get through the public policy debate and through these two houses. Hopefully we can see this in the marketplace as quickly as possible so that we can start to see some certainty in the many renewable industries that are wanting to do business within Australia.
On that point, I continue to want to break the conflict that seems to be raised in this chamber about the choice of either a clean future or an economy and jobs. I think that is wrong in the framing of this debate. There are many, many jobs attached to the green economies of the future, and we are starting to see some of those in the marketplace already. This is very much a jobs, jobs, jobs piece of legislation that we have before us, even if it is a renewable energy piece of legislation.
If the CSIRO are to be believed—they are talking about a couple of million jobs within the renewable industries in the next 15 to 20 years—we need to be serious in the development of public policy and not afraid to engage in the development of a new economy as we try to establish a market based response to the natural resource management question of our time. It is probably on that point that I raise some continuing concerns about vested interests in the public policy process and what I am seeing as a reinterpretation of the welfare-capitalist state called Australia. When we formed the Commonwealth the concept was supposed to be a safety net that was developed to assist those within the community who are in genuine need—individuals in the community who we as Australians did not want to leave behind. In this debate and in these times, it seems that this is being reinterpreted. When it comes to the natural resources questions in this suite of legislation on natural resource management and climate change, welfare seems to be distributed quite generously to business and it is capitalism for the rest. It seems to be that the safety net is now for the polluters—not for the poor, not for those who are in genuine need in our community. This debate, the policy framing and the discussions that dominate this place and the other place seem to be shaped predominantly around the interests of not an unimportant group within Australia but not the only group within Australia. I do want to start to prick the conscience of a few within the executive to really start to think about who is driving this debate at the moment and who should be leading into the future.
It is something of a myth that we are an energy superpower. It is a term that was used by the previous Prime Minister and it is a term that seems to have been welcomed and adopted by the current regime. We are all in politics, and we love talking it up, but on such an important policy issue we need to be realistic. The industries that are looking for the majority of the subsidies and that are putting the blockers on most of this legislation are, in reality, about eight per cent of our national GDP. They employ about 1.3 per cent of our market. They are majority foreign owned. Look at some of the major mining companies within Australia. BHP Billiton is no longer the big Australian; it is overseas-owned. Rio Tinto, Xstrata, Anglo Coal, even Cement Australia are not Australian owned. My understanding is that Cement Australia is owned by the British, the Swiss and the Mexicans. Queensland Gas and Queensland Alumina are British owned or Russian owned. Japan Australia LNG is a Japanese company. These are players who seem to be capturing the majority of the debate before us today and dominating the thinking of those within the executive who are trying to push through this legislation.
I would ask that the other contributors to national productivity be given a look-in, and they are the people of Australia. They are people like those in the services industry, which is about 75 per cent of GDP. For example, more people work in restaurants and cafes in Australia than do in the entire mining industry. That might surprise some people when they think about what they have heard in this debate over the last couple of months. Where are the subsidies for the cafe worker, the restaurant worker and the restaurant owner as we move forward in this difficult debate before us?
I raise these points again and I repeat: these are not unimportant industries that I am talking about but they are not the only industries and they are not the only voices in this debate. The companies that seem to be dominating this debate at present have already been pinged once. There was a very good article in the Australian Financial Review that raised some comparisons between the lobbying messages on some of these issues that the companies are putting up with regard to impacts on their companies versus the messages they are putting to shareholders and their current state in the marketplace—two very distinct messages.
I raise the same point, or a similar point, in regard to messages from some of these companies within Australia versus some of their activities offshore, and they are two very distinct messages that we are seeing from the very same companies. They are saying the economic sky is going to fall in within Australia if some of these changes happen, when they are intimately and very successfully involved overseas in developing their businesses—in areas such as aluminium, which was raised by one of the previous speakers—with the use of renewable technology. One of the key aspects of smelting aluminium is the use of a good, reliable water source. That is, in essence, a renewable energy answer. Companies in Australia that at times are complaining about some of these renewable energy targets and the move to a new economy are exactly the same companies who overseas in various locations are very successfully and very proactively developing the delivery of exactly the same smelting using hydro power and various renewable solutions. I hope that government is aware of this and that it is calling some of these companies on some of these issues.
And I hope that Australia does not miss the boat. The future economy in regard to energy will be intimately involved in the use of renewable energy. We need to capture it. We need to, where possible, lead on it. We have some great potential in this country. Whether it be the sun, whether it be water, whether it be wind, whether it be geothermal—you name it—we have an abundance of renewable energy opportunities and potential. The only issue that seems to be holding us up is the public policy debate, which is being dragged into the political mosh pit by the vested interests who are trying to protect their various interests in an economy past. I would hope, as we move forward and as we try and get some consensus in this chamber and in the other on not only this renewable energy legislation but the suite of legislation, that we all recognise that in the end we are custodians of building the economy of the future.
Yes, there are some voices—which are not unimportant and which need to be listened to—saying that, where possible, transitional support needs to be provided. But they are not the only voices in this debate. Over the last couple of weeks in particular we have heard some of those voices dominate and some of those voices significantly influence the positions of various members of parliament and political parties as they take a position generally on climate change and in particular on pieces of legislation as they go through this chamber.
It is a no-brainer that I hope this legislation has the support of this place. I hope it gets the support of the other place. I hope that in the future as a group of MPs we can look at increasing targets, lessening subsidies and pushing for greater involvement in a renewable energy industry Australia, because I think it is in our broad economic interests that we do so. It is in the interests of future job opportunities to do so. It is part of our international obligation as good citizens to do so as well. So I certainly support this legislation.
7994
16:26:00
Perrett, Graham, MP
HVP
Moreton
ALP
1
0
Mr PERRETT
—I too rise in support of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the related bill before the House. These bills action another weapon in our fight against climate change—to ensure that 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity is supplied from renewable energy sources by 2020.
I want to take you back a few years before 2020, to the year 1993. Cast your mind back to the must-see movie of the year. In January 1994 at the Oscars it won three Academy Awards. This movie beat ET as the most financially successful film ever when it was released. As I said, it was the must-see movie of the time. There are so many scenes from that movie that have become common culture, that have become part of the cultural consciousness almost. That first encounter with a brachiosaurus has been voted the 28th most magical moment in cinema history by Empire magazine. The scene where the two raptors are in the kitchen pursuing some of the characters has been ranked the 95th scariest scene of all time, according to Bravo magazine. It is certainly a very, very popular movie and a quite significant movie. Obviously I am talking about a movie about dinosaurs called Jurassic Park.
It is a watershed movie for a lot of filmmakers—a lot of famous filmmakers—because they saw that the use of computer generated imagery would allow them to bring a vision to the screen that previously, before computers were so advanced, was unfeasible or superexpensive. After Jurassic Park came out, George Lucas was able to revisit Star Wars and make his prequels, because he knew that the technology, the computer graphics, was such that he could bring his vision to the screen. The New Zealand director Peter Jackson, with his love of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, now had the technology to bring his vision to the screen.
Jurassic Park was a significant film for lots of reasons. Why did it work as a movie? Obviously it had a great starting point: the novel by Michael Crichton. But the movie worked because the great director Steven Spielberg was able to get the dinosaurs to go where he wanted them to go. He was able to move the dinosaurs around. If he needed a triceratops to enter stage right and walk across the screen, he was able to get it to do that. If he needed a brontosaurus to rear up through the trees and greet Sam Neill up in the treetops, he was able to get the brontosaurus to go exactly where he wanted. If he needed a Tyrannosaurus rex to eat somebody who was cowering in a loo, he spoke, the people under him listened and the dinosaur went where it was told.
Obviously the world has changed a bit since the release of Jurassic Park back in 1993. The world has changed since that movie about dinosaurs came out. Unfortunately, when I look across the chamber now, all I see is Jurassic Park. But, unfortunately, the director’s chair is empty—swinging in the breeze—at the moment. There is nobody sitting in the director’s chair. There is no Steven Spielberg on the opposite side to tell the dinosaurs where to go—to try and marshal the dinosaurs, to say: ‘We need to have a certain vision. We need to go in a certain direction.’
Unfortunately, those opposite are a little bit like one of those other movies that also had a great text, a popular novel, as its basis, and I am talking about Tom Wolfe’s The Bonfire of the Vanities. But if you look at that great work of art, Tom Wolfe’s The Bonfire of the Vanities, and the movie by Brian De Palma, you can understand how there can be a great gap between the idea and the actualisation, between the vision and the reality. In fact, Brian De Palma’s The Bonfire of the Vanities is universally known as one of the great dud movies. It barely made any money, had poor direction and was nominated for five Golden Raspberry awards—which, I think, might be a bit of a record—for worst picture, worst director, worst actress, worst supporting actress and worst screenplay.
So I call on those opposite to find someone who can sit in that director’s chair, marshal the dinosaurs and get them to go in the direction that is necessary. The vision for 2020 is to make sure that we have 20 per cent of our electricity coming from renewable energy. Now let us look across the room at those opposite and see how their policy development has taken place since election night. I will give the current person sitting in the director’s chair his due and take it from election night. After nearly 20 months in opposition and two failed leaders, the coalition still do not have a realistic policy on climate change. The dinosaurs are still wandering aimlessly, not heading in any particular direction.
In fairness to the Leader of the Opposition, I acknowledge that last week they did release a report. Unfortunately, it is not coalition policy; it did not get up in the party room. But it is the reason, apparently, that they voted against the CPRS legislation on Thursday. What a sad day that was for the people of Australia. What a sad day it was for people like my four-year-old son, who does love dinosaurs—he is fascinated by dinosaurs. But I wonder, when he has a son and when he has grandchildren, what they will think of the current people who make up the Jurassic Park opposite. What will they say about that decision? On that point, I note that I became a great-uncle today when my niece had a son, Leonard Hastings Kallquist, and I say hello to him, a new arrival in the world. I call on those opposite to find someone who will sit in the director’s chair, give some clear directions and make sure that Jurassic Park’s days are numbered.
7996
16:33:00
Moylan, Judi, MP
4V5
Pearce
LP
0
0
Mrs MOYLAN
—I am very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate regarding the role of renewable energy in Australia’s environmental future. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009, together with the related bill, is the next step for Australia as we strive to find the solution to long-term environmental sustainability.
The reality of our society is that we have become highly dependent on energy. Traditionally we have met our energy needs by using non-renewable forms of energy that not only have contributed to the global greenhouse gas problem but leave us vulnerably dependent upon the world’s contracting resources. Common sense dictates that as Australia and the world have ever-growing appetites for energy we should look to use and promote energy sources that have minimal impact on the environment, both in how they are generated and in the by-products of their use. Australia is indeed blessed with a plethora of renewable energy options that meet these criteria.
The journey of mandatory renewable energy targets internationally started right here, back in 2000. Australia was the first country in the world to introduce a national target and to create a framework, which is still in use today. The fundamental progress being made by the legislation currently before us is that this renewable energy target is being increased so that, by 2020, 20 per cent of Australia’s energy will come from renewable sources. In real terms this will progressively increase the uptake of renewable energy from 9,500 gigawatt hours annually in 2010 to 45,000 gigawatt hours by 2020. And this has been demonstrated in other parts of the world to be achievable.
The operation of this scheme is based on the requirement that wholesale purchasers of electricity meet a share of the renewable energy target in proportion to their share of national wholesale electricity markets. Liable parties can purchase renewable energy certificates from households and businesses that install solar hot-water heaters, small rooftop solar PVs or small wind turbines and surrender them to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
While this is an extremely positive step forward, it is still far from perfect. One of my key concerns is that this scheme has the propensity to massively favour currently viable technology. Whilst it is vital that we have a scheme that can kick into action as quickly as possible, we must not allow short-sightedness to eclipse future opportunities. In particular, there has been a lot of focus on wind power, which has huge potential to supply our energy needs but is only a small part of the diverse range of technologies that must be supported. In Western Australia we do have tidal power, and I know we also have people working on geothermal. A target of 8,875 gigawatt hours, or 25 per cent of the additional target, should be set for emerging renewable technologies, to give full encouragement to upcoming innovation.
The diversity of renewable energy poses significant potential for Australia. Not only is it a key for a reduction in future reliance on traditional sources of energy but it is also a huge growth opportunity for Australian industry, both at home and abroad. With adequate government support, we are well placed to capitalise on a global hunger for renewable energy technology. Unfortunately, in recent months many in the renewable energy sector have not had the stability they need to get on and grow their enterprises. The solar industry, much of which is small business specialising in household installation, has been particularly hard hit by ill-thought-out government policies. What would it take to dismantle the solar industry in our sun-drenched country? It turns out that all it takes is some bad decision making and the prioritising of politics over good policy by the government.
Last year the solar panel rebate scheme became means tested, then it was scrapped altogether and then the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program was axed. The Clean Energy Council’s Matthew Warren has said:
Hardly a solar panel has been sold since the [rebate] scheme was wound up. We need clarity and certainty—
But it is precisely certainty and clarity that to date has been denied by this government. Time and time again when I am out in the electorate, people tell me that they do not want to see the environment turned into a political game, but unfortunately this legislation has come to epitomise the political games of the government. At the eleventh hour there was a triumph of common sense, and the government finally bowed to universal pressure to decouple this bill from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. As I heard the Leader of the Opposition say, this is a victory for common sense. There was simply never any other reason but political stuntsmanship to tie these bills. The Australian summed up the sentiment of Australia in describing this as a ‘ridiculous tactic’ that made ‘the government look cynical’. When so much has already been done by this government to create an atmosphere of uncertainty, one would think that they would have done everything possible to ensure the smooth passage of legislation that has bipartisan support.
All sides of politics would like to see this legislation pass through the parliament, to have the new targets up and running and give some stability to a sector which has been rattled by recent government actions. I urge the government to do all that they can to support the potential that the renewable energy sector offers. The opposition is supportive of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill. I have heard the shadow minister for the environment, the Hon. Greg Hunt, say on many occasions that Australia can become a solar nation and, as I mentioned, there are other renewable sources of energy that Australia is very rich in.
This is important legislation. Probably rarely have we debated such important legislation in this House. I certainly support the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the related bill.
7998
16:40:00
Livermore, Kirsten, MP
83A
Capricornia
ALP
1
0
Ms LIVERMORE
—In rising to speak on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the related bill, I note that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Thomson, have been a true champion of renewable energy in this House for many, many years, so it is very fitting that you should be in the chair for at least part of the debate.
These bills are an expansion of the existing Renewable Energy Target scheme, but to say that it is an expansion does not really capture the scale of the shift that it represents in terms of the investment in and uptake of energy from renewable resources. Yes, it essentially builds on the scheme introduced by the previous government, but no-one should be fooled by the opportunistic and very recent embrace of renewable energy by the opposition. Opposition speakers are trying to create the impression that these bills are merely an incremental change that their scheme was working its way towards. In fact, this legislation is a very significant new signal to business and the community that we are serious about unlocking the huge potential for renewable energy in this country after years of tokenism by the coalition, years in which the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources fell.
The changes in these bills will increase the existing mandatory renewable energy target by more than four times to 45,000 gigawatt hours in 2020 and contribute to meeting Australia’s targets for the reduction of greenhouse emissions. The bills will provide a market incentive to accelerate take-up of Australia’s abundant renewable energy resources, such as sunlight, wind energy and many others, including, in my own electorate, biomass. The changes in the bills will also reduce red tape by bringing state based targets into a single national scheme.
Other speakers in the debate have talked about the benefits of increasing our reliance on renewable sources of energy, the jobs that will be created and the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions that will be achieved. They have also outlined the unprecedented levels of support from this government for research into renewable energy and its commercialisation and deployment.
In the time that I have I will confine my remarks in support of the bills to two points relevant to my electorate in Central Queensland. The first one relates to an exciting initiative being undertaken by Mackay Sugar Ltd, a sugar-milling company in my electorate that has gotten out ahead of the game and is ready to generate green electricity using the gas which is a waste product from the sugar-milling process. There are roughly 950 cane farmers in the Mackay region, and I am sure most of them would be quick to point out the massive energy potential of the crops in their paddocks. That is how the farmers of the future are starting to think of themselves, as producers of energy, and Mackay Sugar is certainly thinking of the industry in that regard as well. Mackay Sugar is well advanced with its plans to build a major cogeneration plant at the Racecourse sugar mill. The 36-megawatt cogeneration project will export 28 megawatts into the grid year-round, supplying 30 per cent of Mackay’s electricity needs. We are talking about a $100 million investment that will abate about 340,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases per year.
The passage of this legislation is critical for the Mackay Sugar project, and such a project is a win for the company, a win for cane farmers and a win for the Australian community. It will help establish for Mackay Sugar and growers a steady, domestically sourced income stream that is not subject to the turmoil and ups and downs familiar in the world sugar market. It is the kind of diversification that will keep these sugar producers in the game. This project and so many other, similar projects across the country is what the mandatory renewable energy target and these bills increasing that target are all about. They will create jobs, drive investment and reduce greenhouse gas pollution. It is also important to note that it is an investment in renewables and the future of the sugar industry in the Mackay region that was not possible under the previous government, the same people who come in here today to lecture us about renewable energy.
Here is a snapshot of what the previous government did to investment in renewable energy. It comes in this quote from the Chairman of Mackay Sugar, Mr Eddie Westcott:
Significant investment has been made in this project since the introduction of the 2% MRET in 2001 but unfortunately the project was shelved in 2006 when the renewable market collapsed due to surplus capacity—
in other words, failure to support the industry through a high enough MRET. In contrast, Eddie Westcott concludes his letter by saying that if the legislation is passed Mackay Sugar’s project will go to tender next week. I will leave that for the coalition members, awaiting the support of their Senate colleagues, to ponder as the legislation goes into the Senate tomorrow. Eddie Westcott has been the champion of this project, and I appreciate the time he has taken to keep my ministerial colleagues, the Deputy Speaker and me informed of its potential and its progress at every stage. I know he would have liked the legislation to pass before this time. He has been incredibly patient. All of us on this side of the House are with Eddie in hoping that we are just days away from it becoming a reality.
The other point I wish to raise relates to the treatment of waste coalmine gas under this renewable energy target legislation. Members would be aware of the extensive coalmining operations in my electorate and, indeed, throughout Central Queensland. In recent years, a complementary industry has developed using the waste coalmine methane gas to generate electricity. Two companies, Energy Developments Limited and Envirogen, established plants in my electorate and have been able to take advantage of the GGAS incentives of the New South Wales government to underpin the viability of the projects. For many months I have been talking to representatives from both EDL and Envirogen about the threat posed to their waste coalmine methane generation activities due to the CPRS closing down the New South Wales GGAS. Both companies currently earn a large proportion of their revenue from generating and selling abatement certificates under the New South Wales scheme.
I want to see a way found to overcome the problem presented by the phasing out of GGAS. The companies operating in my electorate have put forward some proposals to amend this legislation in a way that will allow them to receive renewable energy certificates for energy generated from waste coalmine methane, thus replacing the revenue lost from the phase-out of GGAS. I have had extensive discussions with the Minister for Climate Change and Water, asking her to consider those proposals to include waste coalmine methane in the renewable energy target. We need to ensure that these companies can continue to generate low-emission electricity and provide employment in my electorate. Just as it was on the CPRS, the minister’s door has always been open on this issue and she has been willing to listen to my arguments on behalf of Envirogen and EDL.
These bills can unlock the enormous potential for renewable energy in Australia, which means jobs in new industries, significant numbers of which will be in regional and rural areas like Central Queensland. I look forward to their quick passage through the Senate so that industry has the certainty it needs to take the renewables sector forward to what is undoubtedly a bright future. It is an industry that will play a big role in the future of our country.
8000
16:49:00
Lindsay, Peter, MP
HK6
Herbert
LP
0
0
Mr LINDSAY
—I note we have a number of young people in the gallery this afternoon. What we are discussing here in the parliament this afternoon affects your future as it affects all of Australia. This particular issue is highly significant. That is why there has to be very significant debate and very significant agreement on both sides of the parliament about what we as a parliament might do about clean energy. There has been a very significant amount of discussion about the Senate refusing to pass the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation last week, but I remind those in the gallery that all of the non-government senators, from the far left to the far right, would not support the government’s legislation. That must say something. It must say to you and to the people of Australia that perhaps things are not right.
It was fine for the member for Moreton to talk earlier about dinosaurs on this side of the House. Some, like Professor Bob Carter, who looks at the earth in terms of millions of years, including when the dinosaurs roamed the place, say that what is happening now may have been happening then. I do not subscribe to that view. I do believe that we are seeing global warming. I do believe that humankind is suffering from carbon pollution and that we must do something about it, but what we do has to be very carefully thought through, and that is why the Senate would not accept the government’s position and would not accept the coupling together of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009, which we are talking about in the parliament this afternoon, with the CPRS legislation.
The CPRS legislation effectively has the support of all of the parliament and we want to see that passed. I will say more about that in a minute. But it is very important that we carefully move forward and get it right for Australia and also in relation to what other countries are going to do. We will not know that until we see what is happening in the United States, China, India and Copenhagen at the end of the year. We do not need to rush. We need to have a view and we need to be ready, but we do not need to ram something through the parliament right now if it might damage Australia. Of course, one of the sorts of things that might happen under the government’s current proposal is 80,000 jobs being lost, a lot of those in regional Australia. If you have a job, how would you like your job to be lost because the parliament rammed something through without proper thought?
We will also see very significant cost rises across the economy. For example, food prices, transport prices, fuel prices and electricity prices will all go up. We will see trade-exposed industries lose their capacity to compete and we will see carbon exported offshore to another country. Some of you will have been to the major emitters. Two weeks ago, I was in Beijing. When we were landing in Beijing, it was not until we were 1,500 feet above the runway that I could actually see the ground because the pollution was so bad. Many kids in Beijing have never seen a blue sky. We have to address that. That occurs across Asia. It occurs across Europe. It occurs in the United States. Look at what it is like in Washington. The world truly as one has to move forward and address the issues of carbon pollution, renewable energy and clean energy.
I get a bit tired of the government giving the coalition a flogging and saying that we are all dinosaurs and we do not believe in this. Perhaps they ought to sit down with us, talk to us and hear our views, and take up our good ideas. The people of Australia know that one side of the parliament does not have all the good ideas and the other side all the bad ideas. They know that each of us can contribute, and that contribution should be allowed to happen. We should be able to negotiate with the government. We should be able to speak to the government and say: ‘Here’s a good idea from our side. How about you adopt that and we’ll adopt your good idea?’ That is the way the parliament works best. That is why the shadow minister, the member for Flinders, will be moving 16 amendments to this particular bill. All of these amendments are sensible and are well argued in the shadow minister’s response to the second reading speech on this bill. I urge the government to consider these 16 amendments. I urge the government to adopt all of these sensible matters that have been put forward. I urge the media to recognise that the coalition does have a view and it is prepared to contribute, and it is prepared to listen to the government. In return, it expects the government to listen to the coalition. The amendments will seek, for example, the full decoupling of the RET from the flawed ETS. They will see the inclusion of renewable gas or waste coalmine gases as a recognised zero emission source of energy, as it is in the US and Germany. They seek coverage of the aluminium sector for both its existing MRET and its expanded RET liabilities to the 90 per cent already offered by the government for the latter. They will ensure that food processing is categorised for assistance under the renewable energy target.
The primary bill that we are discussing this afternoon sets in place a renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020. The majority of the parliament supports this and certainly the coalition support it, and strongly support it. We want to see this happen. We want to see this pass through the parliament, and hopefully it will be through the House of Representatives by the end of this evening. But there has been a lot of hypocrisy on these sorts of issues. We saw that when the government came to power. After a lot rhetoric at the last election, it immediately means-tested the former government’s $8,000 solar rebate. That was a broken promise from budget night 2008. Then we saw that solar rebate completely abolished without notice on 9 June this year. The former government introduced the Remote Renewable Power Generation Program, which the current government abolished without notice on 22 June at 8.30 am. Not a very good record for the current government in relation to renewable energy, and it is renewable energy that we are talking about.
The other thing that would underline a poor record is that the government has been talking about what we are discussing this afternoon since 2007. This legislation could have been in the parliament and passed 12 months ago. It could have been, but there has been inordinate delay and then there was its coupling with the CPRS bill. It left all of us shaking our heads and saying: ‘Why is this happening? Is this a political device? Is this a way of trying to wedge the coalition?’ It was, and that is unfortunate for such a great debate in our country. It is unfortunate that we have kept the renewables sector waiting for such a long time. On 16 June this year, the head of the Clean Energy Council picked up on this and said:
Any political tricky manoeuvre to hold the legislation up now will simply end up being a remarkable own goal.
That is what has happened. I think the media are now making that observation, that the government has been forced into a backdown. I do not enjoy seeing the government backing down. I would rather get the bill through parliament in a timely fashion. I would rather get on with looking after our environment and setting these clean energy targets.
The Whip has asked us to limit our remarks. I will do that. I will close with a summary which simply says that I am strongly supportive of the 20 per cent target by 2020, and I do hope that the government will see fit to support the coalition’s amendments.
8002
16:59:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—I rise to speak in support of the two pieces of legislation before the House, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009, which are important pieces of legislation and are integral to our election commitments. It is quite sad that we are having to debate this legislation today and that it is having to be decoupled from the CPRS, because that was a strong election commitment and a mandate given to us by the Australian public in November 2007. We made a commitment and when we on this side of the House make commitments we believe they are serious, that they are matters of trust with the Australian public, and our intention is be stubborn in carrying out our commitments to the Australian public.
It is important that this legislation be passed today. It is important that there be certainty for business—for those in the solar sector, those in the mining sector and those involved in electricity generation across the country. So I am pleased that the coalition want to be part of the game. All last week we saw them take off their jerseys and step off the field. They did not want to play football with us. They did not want to talk to us. They wanted to look at a study when it came to the CPRS. They could not devise a policy. At least today we are having some discussions with them about the renewable energy targets and the modifications and changes that could get this legislation through the House and into the Senate.
This is important legislation. It is important because it underpins a transformation of our economy to a low-pollution economy. It is important because of what it says to the Australian public and what it says to Australian business and Australian industry. The expanded scheme will deliver upon our commitment that the equivalent of at least 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity will come from renewable sources by 2020. The bills before this House clarify the objects of the RET scheme. They increase targets, they implement a solar credits mechanism based on a renewable energy certificate multiplier, they mandate a review of operation of legislation and regulations underpinning the RET scheme in 2014, and there are other transitional changes as well which came about through the COAG process.
It is important that we look at the previous government’s long record of idleness and ignorance on this topic. There was much rhetoric that we heard from the member for Herbert—who I often take notice of when he talks on defence issues. On this particular issue, though, the coalition certainly has form or a lack of practice in the area of CPRS and the RET. The truth is that the coalition has been quite ignorant of climate change issues. We have a division opposite, which creates frustration for those of us on this side of the House who want to get on with giving certainty to business and making sure that we transition our economy to a low-carbon economy.
The Rudd government is doing much in the area of providing assistance to transition our society and our economy. As part of our budget, we committed $15 billion in climate change related initiatives—$4.5 billion for the Clean Energy Initiative; $1.5 billion for the Solar Flagships program, which is aimed at creating an additional 1,000 megawatts of solar generation capacity; $100 million for the Australian Solar Institute, which supports research into solar-thermal and other technologies; and $465 million to establish Renewables Australia to support technology research and to bring it to market.
The legislation before the House is very important. The renewable energy target is important for those companies in Queensland and New South Wales that are involved with waste coalmine gas. Good companies like Envirogen Pty Ltd and Energy Developments Limited have invested millions of dollars and have been advocating for a long time that we have a look at an expanded renewable energy target to ensure that their operations continue to prosper and so they can make an unparalleled contribution to fugitive emissions abatement of waste coalmine methane in Australia. There are hundreds of jobs at stake. There is also much to be gained in ensuring that we adopt similar schemes, similar projects and similar attitudes to other countries that have similar economies to ours—namely, those competitors in the OECD, like Germany and the United States, who also take into consideration the treatment of coalmine methane in relation to RET and other forms of emission abatement.
So I would like to see the government have a look at that particular aspect. There are many jobs in New South Wales and Queensland to be gained and there is much to be expanded in terms of construction and development. Queensland and New South Wales are leading players when it comes to these areas. I am pleased that the government is talking to the industries accordingly. I call upon the government to have a really close look at this aspect because this is important for the states of New South Wales and Queensland.
This legislation is innovative, creative and 21st century. It will go a long way to making sure that our economy and our society look to the future, not to the past, when it comes to renewable energy. The targets in this legislation are terrific in terms of saying where we want to go as a country. This legislation is educative and international, and I ask that the coalition support the bills before the House.
8003
17:05:00
Baldwin, Robert, MP
LL6
Paterson
LP
0
0
Mr BALDWIN
—I rise today to speak on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009. I am a representative of a region, the Hunter region, that not only generates the bulk of New South Wales electricity but also, through industries such as the aluminium industry, consumes a large part of that electrical generation. Given that, you will understand that I, as a part of the coalition, believe in the importance of a clean energy economy for Australia. As such, it is with some reservation that I support aspects of this legislation in its current form, which admirably sets out to achieve a renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2010.
The coalition has a proud history of putting in place measures which ensure the preservation of our environment in a manner that does not burden the back pockets of Australian industry or the public. Former Prime Minister John Howard, along with the coalition, was by and large a strong advocate of putting in place measures which would protect Australia’s environmental future. In the speech entitled ‘Safeguarding the future: Australia’s response to climate change’, the former Prime Minister spoke of targets that would be set for the inclusion of renewable energy in electricity generation by the year 2010.
The mandatory renewable energy target, MRET, scheme was subsequently implemented through the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 and the associated Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Act 2000. As such, the implementation of this bill, with the support of the coalition, reaffirms our strong commitment to a 20 per cent of renewable energy target. We accordingly offer provisional support for the legislation before the House today, subject only to key amendments which we will move in the Senate. Let it be known that we, the coalition, believe in the potential of wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, wave energy, tidal energy and algal energy to contribute to our clean energy future.
Clean energy is, with green carbon, one of the two most fundamental steps to dramatically reducing Australia’s net emissions. It is also about broadening the base of energy security. Clean energy is about creating jobs in rural Australia. In fact, the coalition were so committed to this concept that in the lead-up to the 2007 election we guaranteed 100 jobs would be created with the development of a $360 million solar power plant on the doorstep of the Paterson electorate if the coalition were voted back into government. It was with great pride and passion for the environment and creating Australian jobs that the coalition made this pledge and set aside $20 million in funding for the CBD Energy solar project to manufacture solar power systems for both export and local use. Had the Rudd government supported this project, it would have been fantastic news for the future of renewable technology development and our region in the Hunter. Had the Rudd government supported this project, it would have seen around $400 million per year in exported solar panels that would have helped reduce the global emissions footprint. All we see is rhetoric and spin and little or no action.
The coalition has always been committed to putting into place schemes which will ensure a more sustainable and greener future for Australia. That is why whilst in government the coalition introduced the $8,000 solar rebate, which was widely applauded and utilised by the Australian public. We were as determined then as we are now to come up with clean energy economies. Unlike the present Labor government, we the coalition are determined to be a part of the solution and not the problem. We listen to what the Australian public have to say and we do not disadvantage them, empty their back pockets or put the environment on the backburner. We are proactive, and we want to get it right the first time by conducting the necessary investigations and providing reports which remain open and transparent at all times.
In direct contrast to our well-received initiative of introducing solar rebates, this Rudd Labor government disappointingly broke a major election promise and introduced means-testing for the rebate on budget night 2008. This cut out mums and dads on $50,000 each. It took solar panels beyond the reach of ordinary families in electorates like mine of Paterson. To add insult to injury, the Rudd Labor government put the Australian public offside and disadvantaged tens of thousands when on 9 June 2009 they scrapped the rebate altogether without any prior notice. The Rudd Labor government have to decide: either they are in or they are out when it comes to supporting renewable energy and reducing emissions.
This was an absolute sham, and the Rudd Labor government should be ashamed of their disgraceful actions. By ending the rebate prematurely, they left hundreds of people in the lurch and they all but crashed an emerging industry. They replaced the coalition’s plan with a scheme which will result in most families who invest in a common one-kilowatt system receiving about half of what they would have gotten under a coalition rebate. For a Prime Minister who continually sees the need to ask himself the question, the question the Prime Minister should now be asking himself is: where are the incentives?
Continuing in what is quickly becoming an infamous Rudd Labor government tradition, on 22 June 2009 at 8.30 am, without any notice to the opposition, they abolished the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program. This was a program which helped families, businesses and not-for-profit organisations connect to the power grid or install solar or wind units. With no warning or compensation granted, the axing of this program again sent thousands of Australian families and solar companies into chaos. For a government that claim to represent the hardworking Australian, how can they justify sending an entire industry and its workers into disarray? Solar companies have said that the Rudd Labor government’s decision will cost them an enormous amount of money and that they will consequently have to lay off staff. This is the disgraceful Rudd Labor government, who on the one hand plunge Australia into record levels of debt and on the other hand squash the solar industry and consequently send thousands of jobs flying.
My constituents demand to know how Labor expects to get back into budget surplus whilst at the same time implementing policies that will ensure a greener future for Australia. My belief is that this juggling act will not be possible under the reckless Labor government and that it will take a coalition government to be re-elected to ensure a clean energy economy for Australia’s future.
On the topic of the renewable energy target, I would like to know why the government has delayed its introduction by over one year. As I mentioned before, the coalition openly endorses the setting of a renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020. It would also enable the government to introduce a new solar rebate scheme based on renewable energy certificates that come with small energy units such as solar PV systems. This legislation progressively increases 9,500-gigawatt-hour annual mandatory renewable energy targets to 45,000 gigawatt hours by 2020, which I support. The legislation also replaces the coalition’s solar rebate of $8,000 with a solar credits scheme which issues renewable energy credits to installers of solar photovoltaic systems of 1.5 kilowatts or less. These credits can be traded on the market for a return of between $4,000 and $4,500 for a common one-kilowatt solar panel system.
Under the act, wholesale purchasers of electricity—that is, liable parties—are required to meet a share of the renewable energy target in proportion to their share of the national wholesale electricity market. Those who do not meet the target will face a financial cost. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009 sets that cost at $65 per REC or each one megawatt hour.
I have stood before this House before and openly expressed my concern about the Rudd Labor government’s ETS model. It is my very real fear that, under the Rudd government’s current proposals for an emissions trading scheme, Australian businesses will be left out in the cold, Paterson’s businesses will be left out in the cold and Australian exposed businesses will be left disadvantaged against other competing countries in the market. Thankfully, Labor has come to its senses and agreed to decouple the renewable energy target from the ETS. To have tied the two together would have been to forgo common sense and would have subsequently been the marker of massive risk and uncertainty for Australian businesses over the next 20 years.
The coalition foreshadow moving the following amendments in the Senate: firstly, a full decoupling of the renewable energy target from its flawed ETS, which was voted down in the Senate; secondly, the inclusion of renewable gas or waste coalmine gas as a recognised zero-emissions source of energy, as occurs in the United States and Germany; thirdly, ensuring that food processing is categorised for assistance under the RET; and, fourthly, coverage of the aluminium sector for both its existing MRET and expanded RET liabilities to the 90 per cent already offered by the government for the latter.
The coalition will also seek to, firstly, eliminate a loophole in relation to the multiplication of RECs for industrial heat pumps and, secondly, move that a portion of the RET be banded and reserved for emerging renewable technologies, such as industrial scale solar, geothermal, wave, tidal and biomass. This would be 8,875 gigawatt hours or 25 per cent of the additional 35,500 gigawatt hours renewable energy.
Until the last term of this parliament, Tomago Aluminium was in the electorate of Paterson and, even though it is now in the electorate of Newcastle, many of the thousands of workers, both direct and indirect, are my constituents, as are workers at the Kurri Kurri smelter in the electorate of Hunter. The very idea that the Rudd Labor government has not moved to ensure long-term viability of the aluminium industry through environmental and economic stability is an act of economic and social treason against both workers and businesses alike, not to mention the broader local communities that rely on the economic flowthrough effect of this industry
The New South Wales Labor government has just increased, by 20 per cent, the cost of electricity to consumers, and that is prior to the introduction of any ETS model. The big question that the Prime Minister should be asking himself is: what will the cost be post introduction of his CPRS and what effect will it have on consumers and businesses alike? What will the downstream effect be on business, on costs and on consumers? How will it be sustainable in the face of greater international competition?
The coalition will reserve its final Senate position, subject to the resolution of these issues. But we will negotiate in good faith and we want to see this legislation pass. The government has been its own worst enemy in bringing forward this legislation. It promised action on this target back in 2007 and yet, here we are, nearly two years down the track and the matter has only now been brought up for debate, which has been curtailed in this House to one day for such important legislation as this. The government has only itself to blame for its incompetence and tardiness.
I am committed to ensuring that constructive renewable energy legislation is passed through the parliament. I am very pleased that the government is backing down from its approach of holding hostage renewable energy—that is, solar, wind, geothermal energies—to the passage of the emissions trading scheme.
However, further changes need to be made, and I cannot stress enough the importance of the coalition’s proposed amendments being passed though the Senate. As the Leader of the Opposition said earlier today:
We’ve—
the coalition have—
set out some amendments in detail. They range through a whole … of measures, including protecting trade exposed emissions intensive industry, also making sure that there is room in the renewable energy target for the emerging renewable energies, like geothermal … solar … tidal … wave energy—these are important technologies—
and their potential growth needs to be taken into consideration when considering this legislation. The coalition’s aim is to get the best renewable energy legislation and the best emissions trading legislation through the parliament that it can. To do that we have to work together. The question for the Prime Minister is: does he want to work together, does he want to listen to the views of others and engage positively and constructively with us? There is a right way and a wrong way of achieving a 20 per cent renewable energy target, and the Rudd government must remember this the next time it goes to pull the carpet out from underneath the Australian public and industry by cancelling schemes without notice. Therefore, if the government is willing to consider our reasoned amendments then this legislation will pass.
8007
17:20:00
Zappia, Tony, MP
HWB
Makin
ALP
1
0
Mr ZAPPIA
—I speak in support of the renewable energy target legislation package. It is important legislation, and that is certainly one thing I agree with the member for Paterson on. But I do not agree with his comments in respect of the solar panel rebate and the management of that scheme by this government because, under this government, during 12 months in office, some 80,000 panels were to be installed around Australia. Contrast that with some 10,000, as we heard earlier on in question time today, that were subsidised during the 12 years of the previous Howard government.
These bills, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the cognate bill, form part of the Rudd government’s response to climate change. Let us make no mistake at all about it: this legislation is as much about climate change as is the CPRS legislation that was blocked by the coalition members last week, because the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions underpins this legislation. The objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is driven by the belief that rising greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to global warming and to climate change. The overwhelming body of peer-reviewed scientific opinion subscribes to the view that greenhouse gases are a major contributor to global warming. The overwhelming body of scientific opinion on climate change and the devastating consequences for humanity simply cannot be ignored. We have a responsibility to the people of today’s generation and an even more onerous responsibility to future generations, who have no voice whatsoever in decisions made today.
Raising the nation’s renewable energy target to 20 per cent by 2020 is an important step in the Rudd government’s climate change strategy for several reasons: firstly, it results in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; secondly, it provides targets and certainty for both industry generally and electricity generators particularly; and, thirdly, it provides confidence to those industries investing in renewable energy technologies. Of course, this legislation also underpins the establishment of renewable energy certificates, which are central to the continuation of householder rebates for the installation of solar energy panels.
There is a mistaken view, held by some members opposite, that any policy measure that seeks to reduce carbon emissions will have a negative impact on jobs and economic activity. Treasury modelling has shown that this policy will in fact create jobs, and that modelling has been supported by separate independent modelling by many organisations time and time again. Further evidence of the economic benefits of renewable energy can be seen in some of the stimulus packages put in place by governments around the world in response to the global economic crisis. Investment in renewable energy plays a significant role in these packages. I want to make reference to and quote some of those packages.
According to analysis by HSBC published in the Financial Times, in South Korea 81 per cent of the total of its government’s stimulus package is being spent on renewable energy projects—that is, US$36 billion of investment, which it is anticipated will create some 950,000 green jobs. In China 38 per cent of the total stimulus is being spent on renewable energy, which is in the vicinity of US$220 billion. In the United States 12 per cent of President Obama’s stimulus package is being spent on renewable energy—over $50 billion in combined investment from the two stimulus packages; and this is expected to create 2.5 million green jobs.
Also worth noting is the number of other nations who, like Australia, have made investments in household energy efficiency a priority for their stimulus packages. Programs similar to the Australian government’s energy efficient insulation plan are part of stimulus packages in Germany, Britain and Canada. Polling published in today’s Age shows that 55 per cent of Australians support the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and do not think we should take the path of the opposition’s latest delaying tactic of waiting until the Copenhagen meeting in December.
The Financial Times analysis of the Rudd government’s program said:
Australia has only recently begun to engage seriously with climate change … Canberra ratified the Kyoto protocol in 2007 and now plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions dramatically.
This international analysis by HSBC and the Financial Times reaffirms what we and the Australian people already know: that, after 12 years of inaction by the previous Howard government, Australia finally has a Prime Minister and a government determined to address the issue of climate change and ensure Australia becomes a low-carbon economy. These bills take a significant step along the path of lowering Australia’s carbon emissions. I commend the bills to the House.
8008
17:25:00
Hawke, Alex, MP
HWO
Mitchell
LP
0
0
Mr HAWKE
—I rise today to speak on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009 I think in the same way that all members of this House are rising to praise the idea that we need to be looking at alternative sources of energy, and particularly renewables. I think the search for a source of energy that is renewable and that has as little impact on the environment as possible is an objective which all members of this House would have no trouble supporting and indeed taking steps towards. This is a very noble objective, and that is why I think it is regrettable that we have seen in the last week important legislation such as this before us being coupled to other legislation unnecessarily in a way that delayed the ultimate success of this very important piece of legislation on renewables.
The primary aim of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 is to set in place a renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020. I think that is a wonderful thing. I think the alliteration of ‘20 per cent by 2020’ is a wonderful success for the highly paid political adviser who no doubt came up with it. But, on a serious note, of course we ought to be seeking an objective, and 20 per cent by 2020 is not a bad place to start. I think this government ought to think very seriously about the steps it is taking in terms of supporting our renewable industries, because we have seen a lot of confusion and lack of serious focus on how to get the renewable market up and running. In the mechanisms of this bill we see another attempt by the Rudd government to set up a renewable energy industry. The story of the last year, since the election of the Rudd government, has been a series of measures which have led to a lot of confusion in the industry. One of the themes that we have seen over the last week in terms of responses to climate change and the emissions trading scheme has been about providing industry with certainty and providing business with certainty.
Of course, if you have been in the solar industry since the election of the Rudd government then the last thing you would have had over the past 18 months is any certainty. That lack of certainty has been to the great detriment of the solar industry in Australia. When the Rudd government, suddenly and without warning, scrapped the $8,000 rebate, there was a mad rush of applications to get in before the last day of the deadline. Many people missed that deadline, and I had a number of them make representations to me. I had a number of representatives of the solar industry in New South Wales contact me about that. I lament with them the fact that these decisions were taken without warning and without notice.
Certainly I thought that the attitude of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts here in this place, when he said that the problem he was trying to solve was that the solar industry was overheating, sort of revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of what the government is trying to do with all of its settings that it puts into place. Governments are not there to subsidise continually the behaviour of every person in every sense; we are attempting to create a viable market, something which can sustain itself, ultimately—and as quickly as possible, I might add. So the fact that there was a great demand for solar panels—and the proposition was that it was overheating; that there was too much demand and that the system had gotten to a point where demand was very simulated—is something I think we ought to really celebrate and rejoice about.
However, this is an attempt to rejig the solar industry. Hopefully, this will lead to a situation where there is more certainty in the solar market, because in the last 18 months there has been a litany of decisions that have not provided certainty. I do not think you would find a genuine solar industry representative who would come forward and say, ‘We’ve had a very certain 18 months.’ Indeed, one of the successes of the Howard government was the solar panel rebate in creating the foundations of a market for a sustainable renewable like solar power. If you look at some of the comments, I think that is backed up by many people. Some of the managing directors of different solar companies made comments like, ‘This is the third setback for the solar industry in as many weeks,’ when the rebates were scrapped. There were other comments, such as that they were promised smooth transitions from the $8,000 rebate to the new solar credit scheme, which was pulled with only hours of notice. I think the retrospectivity of it in terms of the renewable energy targets policy was to be regretted.
There is an elephant in the room in relation to energy policy. Certainly renewable energies are to be lauded, but there is also something else that we as a place ought to consider, and that is the viability of nuclear power. Though not specifically addressed in this bill, I think it is important, because while we search for renewable energies—and this legislation before us is an attempt to set the foundations for a market—there is no contention that renewables will be able to provide us with our baseload power into the future. We need to look at options for baseload power generation that will enable us to meet our emissions targets and deal with the problems that we are facing with climate change.
Australia has one of the highest per capita rates of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, primarily because of our reliance on fossil fuels. So, given that undesirable outcome for Australia that we have one of the highest per capita emissions in the world, if we are serious about tackling this then we ought to seriously consider alternative energies that will be sustainable, and there is no proposition that renewables will provide our baseload power into the future. So, while I am a very strong supporter of the renewable energy industry—whether it be geothermal, solar or more power from hydro plants and all of the wonderful things that come with that and the clean energies that can be provided—I believe it is not the case that this is a serious option at this point in time for baseload power generation. Therefore, as a parliament looking forward into the future of this country, we need to consider very seriously that with our uranium reserves and our ability to develop a nuclear industry we can generate the power we need in a cleaner way, with a substantial supplement from renewables and a viable renewable market.
This legislation replaces the solar rebates with a solar credit scheme which issues renewable energy credits to the installers of solar panel systems of 1.5 kilowatts per hour or less. These credits can be traded on a market for a return of between $4,000 and $4,500 for a common solar panel system. This is a mechanism which I endorse. Market based mechanisms are something which we know works and something which can provide a platform for future arrangements.
It is interesting to note that this government seems to lurch from policy to policy in relation to markets. When they are running for election they love markets; when they get into government they hate them. When we are dealing with climate change they seem to discover their enjoyment of market based mechanisms again. But never mind the inconsistency and the inconsistent signals we get out of this government in relation to market mechanisms. Market mechanisms, without any doubt, work. If we are unable to use them as part of our arsenal in dealing with climate change, then we are not serious about handling the challenges that we face as a country. I 100 per cent endorse the concept of creating viable markets as a powerful mechanism for dealing with climate change or the problems caused by the pollutants created by industry.
I think it is regrettable that this legislation is before us after the last week. We have heard a lot of derision from the government but not a lot of openness to negotiating about what is a very important matter. Finally, the government has relented, decoupled this bill and sought to bring it here as its own individual bill, which it always should have been, because I believe that renewables will enjoy the support of members in this place and enjoy the support of the community in terms of what government action will be taken.
The opposition is proposing amendments, and those amendments are very important, especially given the fact that we are looking at the coverage of the aluminium sector for both its existing targets and expanded renewable energy target liabilities to the 90 per cent already offered by the government for the latter. I think those amendments are worth while. I think the government ought to consider them. If they are serious about renewables, if they are serious about making this the best possible scheme that they can, then they ought to be negotiating on these very important matters.
Many of the government backbenchers say they believe that we are in the biggest crisis of our time. We have heard that very dramatic language. I have seen Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister, stand in front of a camera at the Great Barrier Reef and say that, if we do not act, this will no longer be here. That is the Prime Minister of the country standing in front of a television camera and, with quite a high degree of alarmism, warning that a great iconic piece of Australia may not be here if we do not act. If those things are true, then I believe the government ought to be here in this chamber negotiating very seriously with us about this legislation and about the emissions trading scheme legislation and, in particular, accepting the very good ideas that are being put forward by the opposition in the form of amendments to this legislation.
In summary, I think it is easy to say that this House, and I particularly, will almost certainly go on to endorse what is an important step in our energy generation process. Renewables will play an important role in Australia’s future. However, I do not think we should blind ourselves to the fact that we need to be considering very seriously the next step in baseload energy generation into the future. But I endorse this legislation.
8011
17:36:00
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
1
0
Ms GRIERSON
—I rise to speak in support of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009. I have to say that I marvel at hearing the new experts, the weekend experts, in the opposition telling us what we need to do now about climate change and renewable energy. That tourism slogan ‘Where the bloody hell are you?’ certainly applies. Where were they for 12 years? I am incredulous. It is just amazing. It is also amazing to me that there would still be the suggestion from them that we are all over the shop, that we are swapping and changing. Yet we see no clear message from the other side at all. We see no certainty for business in their arrangements, just some suggestion that they are the holders of all knowledge on climate change. I do not think the public agree with that. The public agree—and I think there is absolute consensus in this country—that there must be action on climate change, there must be a CPRS or an emissions trading scheme and there certainly must be legislation and initiatives from government to boost the renewables sector. When you hear the opposition say we have not been consistent, and you look at $15 billion in the last budget alone to support clean energy and renewable initiatives, you have to wonder where their attention has been. We know it has been on leadership instead of doing the work that they need to do to impress us or the public of Australia.
We know that renewable energy is vital in the fight to reduce greenhouse emissions, and we have already agreed to meet certain targets in the Kyoto protocol and beyond that. We have to get on with this legislation. This bill gives effect to the government’s commitment to replace the existing mandatory renewable energy target scheme, the MRET, with a national renewable energy target scheme. It aims to see an annual 45,000 gigawatts per hour of electricity produced in Australia from renewable energy sources by 2020, in comparison to the existing MRET scheme, which had a much lower target of only 9,500 gigawatt hours. The 45,000 target is expected to ensure that the equivalent of at least 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply is generated from renewable sources. That is something that can only come about through leadership and inspiration and it can only happen if we give the certainty to business that this legislation provides.
In this decoupled legislation—of course, dependent on the actions of the opposition—there is assistance; it does provide extra help for business sectors. I heard the member for Paterson, speaking before me, claiming that not supporting the aluminium industry in my electorate and in the Hunter electorate was some sort of ‘social treason’. Mr Baldwin will be very pleased to know that the four Labor members of the Hunter are absolutely united in their support for the aluminium industry and for our other trade-exposed industries—the steel, cement and coal industries. We are blessed in our area not only with outstanding industry but also with outstanding opportunities for energy generation and energy production. And we do not just have the blessing of resources; we also have the blessing of innovation, intellect and initiative, which have been very well supported by the Rudd government. I draw attention to the national Australian Solar Institute, the headquarters of which is in my electorate, and the national Clean Energy Innovation Centre, which is also in my electorate. We are leading the way. We have a carbon footprint that is not to be envied but we are leading the way in finding the solutions for the future. Whilst it is sad to see that there have been attempts to block initiatives such as this today, last week’s announcement by the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, of interim industry assistance arrangements under the RET is a safeguard against the opposition failing to pass the CPRS later this year. We know that there is a move to pass the legislation and we hope that can be achieved. It will take very strong leadership from the opposition and, of course, that is still the missing factor.
The arrangements will set aside the link between the RET and the CPRS legislation until the CPRS has passed through the Senate. If it is not passed then these interim measures will be provided to key electricity-intensive trade-exposed industries like the aluminium industry in my electorate. I think most people would agree that this is a less than perfect way of taking up the dual aims of tackling climate change and providing assistance to industry. But, as the minister said last week, this is a necessary course of action given the opposition’s irresponsibility and its very muddle-headed approach to the climate change debate. It is up to the government to provide the certainty to the renewables sector in the face of the opposition’s failure to do the responsible thing and to pass both the CPRS and the renewable energy target legislation. This legislation will deliver more than a fourfold increase in renewable energy targets by 2020. If passed, it will lead to the largest increase in renewable energy in the country’s history. There is a potential $19 billion to $20 billion of investment out there, and that is the sort of investment we need to drive change. It is the sort of investment that will only come with certainty. The people who met with me in my office today, who will be at the Australian Industry Group dinner tonight, are looking for more guidance and more support from government to make sure they can take advantage. They want to be on the front foot in terms of renewable energy, not waiting for us to make some legislative change to suit the opposition.
Even with the renewable energy target in place, without the CPRS it will be very difficult to give that certainty and to show the leadership that this country is quite capable of. Leadership for Copenhagen is particularly important. I can never believe it when I hear the opposition say we should be followers. We have never been followers. We have always punched above our weight. We have always led on the big issues that face this nation and the globe and that is what we intend to do. We are a government committed to positive forward thinking and we will provide the leadership that has been so sorely lacking for over 12 years. I support this bill and commend it to the House. I certainly know that the support of the public has been vocal and strong and I hope that the opposition will remember that when they face the CPRS debate.
8013
17:44:00
Ramsey, Rowan, MP
HWS
Grey
LP
0
0
Mr RAMSEY
—It is inevitable if man is to survive on this planet that we will have to wean ourselves off fossil fuel not only because of the imperative of reducing carbon emissions but because fossil fuels are finite and the oil shortages of last year underline just how this has become of increasing importance. I make the point from the outset that this Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 will receive my support, even though I believe there are a number of unintended consequences, and I fully support the amendments foreshadowed earlier today by the shadow minister. I will come to that later.
Investment in the renewable energy sector promises to pay dividends in the longer term. This bill is designed to support what otherwise would be unlikely investment in these industries. It is of great importance that the shifts in the emphasis of the economy like this are orderly and steady and not placing our industries at competitive disadvantage. It is of immediate concern that this legislation be passed, as the renewable energy industry has been making decisions based on the publicly stated intent of the major parties. That is why the moves of last week by the government to link the RET bill to the CPRS were reprehensible and just a shot at short-term political advantage and overturned after pressure from the opposition and the electorate at large.
South Australia—and my electorate of Grey—is almost uniquely placed to take advantage of a new low-carbon world. Vast spaces with cloud-free skies offer an abundance of opportunity for solar energy electricity generation, and I am aware of at least two companies considering projects as we speak, including the innovative solar storage project by Wizard Power at Whyalla. South Australia currently has nine wind farms operating and it is anticipated that by 2014 it will have 20 per cent of its electricity generated by wind energy. Many of these developments are in my electorate. I know the current government would like to claim credit for all these developments, but in fact all of the investment decisions of the plants currently operating were made under the Howard government and its policy framework, which included the MRET. MRET was the first step and the renewable energy target is the next. New developments are being based on current policy, which in this case are broadly endorsed by the coalition, and there is much on offer.
Some of the most exciting areas of interest involve new technologies such as wave generation. Currently Wave Rider Energy are assessing possibilities on the Western Eyre Peninsula, where there is an almost unlimited resource. The Grey electorate encompasses 70 per cent of the South Australia coastline, and it should come as no surprise that I have great hopes for the establishment of this industry.
Perhaps some of the most exciting prospects are in geothermal electricity production. Last year I visited the Geodynamics site at Innaminka in the state’s far north where I was more than impressed by the prospects but, more importantly, by the vision of those who are driving the drilling and testing program and investing in this new industry, which is very close to bringing its first one-kilowatt generator on stream. Two weeks ago, I inspected Petratherm’s new drilling rig near Beverley in the northern Flinders where they are developing another hot rocks venture. It is a fascinating and exciting prospect: pumping water nearly five kilometres underground through fissures in hot granite and bringing it back to the surface at temperatures approaching 200 degrees Celsius is a technological marvel. This renewable energy represents the Holy Grail of clean energy as it is baseload. It is estimated that just one per cent of the thermal energy in Australia’s foundations could supply all of our energy needs for the next 300 years.
One of the great criticisms of renewable energy is its ability to supply baseload, that is, the wind does not blow all the time and the sun does not shine on one side of the earth all the time and even wave and tidal energy has lulls; thus, we need fallback power generation systems, which inevitably lead to higher total costs. There are a number of technologies being explored at this stage, including thermal carbon block and the ammonia battery process being developed by the Australian National University and Wizard Power at Whyalla, whom I mentioned earlier.
It is worth noting that, even though one may think from listening to the government’s rhetoric nothing had been done in Australia to stimulate investment in renewable energy before their election, in reality the previous government established the Australian Greenhouse Office and the mandatory renewable energy target, introduced solar rebates and supported numerous developments in the renewable industry. In my electorate alone, there was significant government support for both Geodynamics and Wizard Power in the development of their projects.
The legislation will help a number of these industries, but it also has some dangers in that the support may be soaked up fully by mature technologies which can quickly meet the targets when the aim should be to encourage new technologies to be able to come of age and compete in the marketplace. That is why the opposition will move an amendment stipulating that 25 per cent of the renewable energy target should be reserved for new and emerging industries, and I urge the government to support this amendment. The renewable energy credits or RECs will be most valuable at the start of the program and will deteriorate in value as 2020 and the 25 per cent target near. This 25 per cent will give protection to those industries through to that period and give the new industries the opportunity to start up and come on stream.
If we look at the possibilities of technologies such as solar or wave energy, there are likely to be quantum leaps in the efficiency or cost-competitiveness in these areas over the next 5, 10 and 20 years. It will be necessary to watch this space and make sure they do not miss out on the encouragement they need to advance their cause while the dollars run to industries which are fully mature but may be surpassed in efficiency in the longer term. It is all about balance. It is always dangerous for an economy to place all its eggs in one basket. This means we will almost certainly have to revisit the incentives to ensure we are developing balanced industries. It will be a threat to the competitive generation system, which must supply our industries and homes, if we have investment in too few of those industries.
This bill is about supporting and hastening that change. It should be remembered by all that this will come at a cost. After all, there would be no need for a renewable energy target if this were not the case. Certainly, the policy will make electricity more expensive in the short to medium term. However, the greater good should be served by providing a more favourable environment for new technologies to come on stream. Steady, predictable policy is good government. The recent move to, once again, make a sudden attack on the $8,000 solar rebate program, resulting in its premature termination despite its making a commitment to a seamless transition, was not good government by the government.
Its earlier attack, which introduced a means test, caused problems which took time to adjust to. Things had just settled down and business was brisk, only for the government to reintroduce chaos by cutting the program before the new renewable energy target could be introduced, despite its commitment. While it was true that there was a backlog in installation of panels, this unpredictable policy has created a complete stop in the sales system, leaving staff sitting around with very little to do.
In closing, I say renewable energies offer great opportunities for Australia and the world, and more will have to be done to support these fledgling industries. But the renewable energy target is a good piece of legislation, and I offer it my support.
8015
17:52:00
Campbell, Jodie, MP
HWC
Bass
ALP
1
0
Ms CAMPBELL
—I rise today to add my voice to those in this House who actually believe in climate change and who acknowledge that we must act and act now. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and cognate bill form part of a raft of measures to which the Rudd government is committed in order to respond to climate change. The Minister for Climate Change and Water, the Hon. Penny Wong, made the point as she addressed the National Press Club recently that as a government we are asking much of this generation. We are being asked to repair the damage of generations past, doing so largely for generations to come. This is not an easy task, and in some sectors it is not popular. With that said, it is necessary.
I made an election commitment to the people of Bass and to the communities of Northern Tasmania. That commitment was that, as a government, Labor was staunch in its approach to renewable energy and that it would set a renewable energy target of 20 per cent of our electricity supply to come from renewable sources by the year 2020. It is a key measure within the government’s comprehensive approach to tackling climate change. This legislation will amend the act to implement the government’s commitment to expand its mandatory renewable energy target scheme, which includes a statutory target of 9,500 gigawatt hours in 2010, to a national renewable energy target scheme, which includes a target of 45,000 gigawatt hours in 2020. The expanded scheme will deliver the government’s commitment that the equivalent of at least 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity will come from renewable sources by 2020.
This legislation and the intent underpinning it will have dramatic effects in my electorate of Bass and across Tasmania. Hydro Tasmania is the country’s largest generator of renewable energy. With almost 30 hydro power stations across the state, worth close to $5 billion, it is clearly a major player in the renewable energy sector. Indeed, Roaring 40s, a Hydro Tasmania joint company, is well advanced towards the Musselroe Wind Farm. This farm is located in the north-east of Tasmania, around 100 kilometres from Launceston. It is anticipated that the project will comprise around 60 wind turbines, with a potential to generate almost 140 megawatts. Roaring 40s also says that its project will include the construction of a transmission line to connect the wind farm site to the Tasmanian electricity grid at Derby. This project will have both long-term and short-term benefits to the community and also to the environment. The employment created through the construction phase will have significant and positive effects in Northern Tasmania. Once operational, there will be ongoing employment opportunities. That is to say nothing of the obvious environmental benefit. According to Roaring 40s’ own figures, the Musselroe Wind Farm will meet the electricity needs of up to 55,000 Australian homes and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by around 300,000 tonnes a year.
Australians understand that climate change is the biggest threat to our prosperity and our way of life. Australia is one of the nations most vulnerable to climate change. In my home state of Tasmania, the impact threatens to be profound. Tasmania is expected to become warmer, with more hot days and fewer cold nights. Growth in peak summer energy demand is anticipated due to air-conditioning use, which may increase the risk of blackouts. By 2030, the average annual number of days over 35 degrees in Hobart could almost double, while in Launceston the average annual number of cold days below zero degrees could fall from 35 to 16. Warmer temperatures and population growth are likely to cause a rise in heat-related illness and death for those over 65, increasing in the state’s capital from the current five annual deaths to eight by 2020 and to between 10 and 14 by 2050. Warmer conditions may also help spread vector-borne, waterborne and food-borne disease further south. These health issues could increase pressure on medical and hospital services. Urban water security may be threatened by increases in demand and climate-driven reductions in water supply. An increase in annual rainfall, combined with higher evaporation, may lead to uncertain effects on run-off into rivers by 2030. By 2020, a 10 to 40 per cent reduction in snow cover is likely, with potentially significant consequences for alpine tourism and ecosystems. By 2020, the average number of days with very high or extreme fire danger in Launceston could increase. Increases in extreme storm events are expected to cause more flash flooding, affecting industry and infrastructure—including water, sewerage and stormwater, transport and communications—and may challenge emergency services. In low-lying coastal areas, infrastructure is vulnerable to sea level rise and inundation.
The effects of doing nothing are frightening, yet there are some among those opposite who in their hearts continue to deny the existence of climate change and who argue against the reality of global warming. These are attitudes I find, frankly, quite alarming, and I will say it again: doing nothing is not an option. In fact, those opposite cannot even get their facts right as they attempt to attack the government over this necessary response to climate change. It was with some amusement that I read on the website of Nationals Senator Ron Boswell that both the member for Hunter and the member for Corio will be joining me, the member for Bass, in facing what Senator Boswell called a ‘day of reckoning’ over Bell Bay jobs. For Senator Boswell’s future reference, Bell Bay is indeed in Bass, and I have no qualms about supporting legislation which is preparing Australia for the low-pollution future by tackling the challenge of climate change. If only those opposite were prepared to do likewise! I commend these bills to the House, optimistic about a future where action is taken in response to climate change.
8016
17:59:00
Marino, Nola, MP
HWP
Forrest
LP
0
0
Ms MARINO
—I rise to speak on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009. As we know, the coalition is committed to clean, renewable energies and strongly supports a 20 per cent renewable energy target. There is a raft of clean energy options, from the commercial-ready algal proposal through to emerging energy concepts and industry growth options in tidal, wave, solar, geothermal resources, bioenergy and others.
The coalition offers provisional support for the legislation, subject to key amendments. The coalition will seek four key amendments in the Senate. The first is the decoupling of the RET from the flawed CPRS, and I know the shadow minister has already been in discussion with the government today on this issue. Renewables and clean energy options are widely acknowledged as current and future commercial and employment opportunities.
My electorate of Forrest encompasses a number of dairy farms. The chairman of the Australian Dairy Industry Council, Allan Burgess, said as part of his inquiry submission:
The industry understands the need for increased development of renewable energy sources. However we have significant concerns that the double burden of both the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) and the Renewal Energy Target (RET) will place significant further cost increases on the dairy farming families with little environmental benefit.
… … …
The cumulative increase has the potential to seriously impact the industry.
The coalition’s second amendment is the inclusion of renewable gas, or waste coalmine gas, as a recognised zero-emissions source of energy as in New South Wales, the US and Germany. This amendment is vital for sustaining hundreds of rural and regional jobs, such as those in my electorate of Forrest. These jobs potentially face the axe, and this is fundamental not only for rural economies but also because the process itself will save 90 million tonnes of CO2 between now and 2020. I note that the World Wildlife Fund anticipates that, if unamended, the loss of rural and regional jobs will b greater under the government’s CPRS than under the Frontier Energy proposal. The expanded RET requires approximately 10,000 megawatt hours of new power generation to fully satisfy the 20 per cent target by 2020. The coalition believes that this target will be very difficult to achieve without the inclusion of waste coalmine gases.
The third amendment is the 90 per cent coverage of the aluminium sector for both its existing mandatory RET and expanded RET liabilities. The Australian Aluminium Council has said:
If unamended, this Bill will have significant economic consequences for the aluminium industry, its employees and the communities in which they live—
such as in my electorate. The Australian Aluminium Council estimates that the bill in its current form will cost the industry an additional $700 million over the first decade of this scheme and will force most smelters to reduce their workforces and to wind back capital expenditure. The council has called for a true 90 per cent exemption from the RET for industries that are both electricity intensive and emissions intensive, not the current exemption figure for aluminium smelting, which is estimated to actually be 55 per cent.
The coalition’s fourth amendment is to ensure that food processing is categorised for assistance under the RET. Rural communities are seeking a 90 per cent coverage of the food-processing sector, particularly the dairy industry. On that note, an article in the Australian on 17 August stated:
It’s going to be a high cost to the consumer—the food manufacturer gets an ETS charge, then there’s delivery, and the retailers use refrigeration and lighting and the cost of that is all going to be handed on.
The article, like this government, actually made no mention of the increased cost to farmers and growers, who will bear this additional cost to produce Australia’s food from day 1. How will Australian farmers recover these additional costs when they are often absolute price takers? And how will they compete with imported products that do not have the additional costs of a CPRS?
I note the Australian Financial Review highlighted food processors’ issues on 17 August, saying:
Australia exports 65 per cent of farm produce. Our food producers are exposed to global competition, which has critical implications for jobs, export markets, food supplies and net global emissions.
The food processing sector, like the growers, will be forced to compete against cheaper imported food because agriculture is excluded from emission trading schemes around the world. David Crombie from the National Farmers Federation recently reinforced the fact that Australian farmers already contribute to reducing greenhouse emissions and that primary industries have slashed emissions by 40 per cent since 1990.
The final amendment the coalition is proposing is to help build the clean and renewable energy sector in Australia. In my electorate there is the Pinetec facility, situated next to the Muja power station in Collie, where sawmilling residue is converted to electricity. In the process, this displaces some 45,000 tonnes of coal each year, saving approximately 90,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year.
Perdaman Industries is another company investing in innovative and clean coal gasification technology in my electorate. They are implementing a US$2.5 billion plant that will transform sub-bituminous coal via gasification into urea. The coal to urea plant will produce lower emissions than an equivalently sized coal-fired power plant. A further example is the Shire of Nannup and Verve Energy, who are currently investigating the potential for building a wind farm in the south-west of WA. The planned farm will entail 30 wind turbines, with a combined capacity of up to 55 megawatts. It is anticipated that the output of the wind farm would be enough to supply about 26,000 households and will reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions by about 160,000 tonnes per year.
The south-west of WA is considered a reasonable wind resource, meaning there is huge potential for further wind plants to be located in the Forrest electorate. A recent article in the Australian Financial Review summed up the common-sense approach that there should be public support for research and development of all promising technologies, and ultimately the renewable energy technologies will have to compete on their own merits.
The coalition strongly supports clean and renewable energies and the concept of a 20 per cent RET and wants this legislation to pass subject to the coalition amendments.
8018
18:06:00
Neal, Belinda, MP
B36
Robertson
ALP
1
0
Ms NEAL
—I rise in the House today to speak in support of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009. The bill will expand and enhance the current mandatory renewable energy target scheme. The Australian people have shown the government that they expect bold action on climate change, and this bill demonstrates that the government is delivering on this expectation.
The revised renewable energy target scheme will implement the government’s commitment to a renewable energy target of 20 per cent of our electricity supply to come from renewable sources by the year 2020. This represents a fourfold expansion of the nation’s renewable energy sector. The current target of 9,500 gigawatt hours of electricity to be provided from renewable sources will be expanded to require that 45,000 gigawatt hours—or some 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity—be produced from renewable sources by the year 2020.
Electricity generation currently accounts for more than one-third of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. That is why it is vital that Australia move towards higher targets for renewable electricity production. These expanded targets will accelerate the development and deployment of a range of renewable energy technologies, such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal power. The new scheme will create a guaranteed market for additional renewable energy deployment through the use of tradeable renewable energy certificates. These measures will in turn attract additional investment and create additional jobs within the expanded renewable energy sector.
It is estimated through Treasury modelling that by 2050 the renewable electricity sector will be 30 times larger than it is today. The expanded RET scheme will accelerate green jobs and, together with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, will drive around $19 billion in investment in the renewable energy sector in the period to 2020. The RET scheme will assist Australian households with the up-front costs of installing small-scale renewable energy systems such as solar, wind, micro-hydro and solar photovoltaic systems. This ‘solar credits’ mechanism will allow owners of small-scale renewable energy systems to earn multiple renewable energy certificates for their microgeneration systems.
A new element of the renewable energy trading scheme is an increase in the penalties for those liable parties who do not meet their obligations to purchase renewable energy certificates. In a related bill, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009, this shortfall charge will increase from $40 per megawatt hour to $65 per megawatt hour. The bill also provides for partial exemptions from liability under the expanded renewable energy target. These partial exemptions will apply to those activities that are classified as emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
These exemptions recognise that renewable energy obligations will have an impact on emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries. The exemptions take into account not only the impact of the current global financial crisis on Australian industries but the cumulative effect on industry of this legislation and the obligations required from industry under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. A comprehensive review of the renewable energy target scheme will be undertaken in 2014 to coincide with a planned strategic review of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. This government has made great efforts towards positioning Australia to meet the challenges of climate change.
The bill before us today represents a significant opportunity to reduce Australia’s energy sector emissions while driving $19 billion of investment and creating significant numbers of green jobs as part of an estimated 30-fold increase in the renewable electricity sector by 2050. In facing this future, Australia must employ a range of responses. Our nation must, however, always find cleaner and more efficient ways to produce energy. The Rudd Labor government has shown its credentials in moving towards a low pollution future for Australia. I commend the bill to the House.
8019
18:11:00
Simpkins, Luke, MP
HWE
Cowan
LP
0
0
Mr SIMPKINS
—I welcome the chance to make a contribution to this debate regarding renewable energy and, in particular, these bills regarding mandatory renewable energy targets, the 20 per cent by 2020 target and the shortfall charge issue. Before I speak to the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the cognate bill, I would say that it is great news that the government have at last agreed to the decoupling of the ETS legislation from the renewables legislation. The government’s original plan showed that their interest was not in achieving what was best for Australia but rather in trying to force all the non-Labor Party representatives into an agreement with the original legislation. Now is the time for negotiation, but it is a pity that the government’s intransigence has caused these delays to date. Yet it is time to move on constructively, and I will now address the bill in this debate.
Prior to speaking on the detail, however, I say that the overall point of this bill is to ensure that by 2020 all electricity wholesalers have 20 per cent of their electricity attributed to renewable production. If they do not then they will be liable for a shortfall charge of $65 per megawatt hour. It is also worthwhile to note that, despite the Rudd Labor government’s strident statements that the former government did nothing for 12 years, the fact that this bill that we are discussing today is an amendment suggests that the government is once again wrong with its rhetoric. The facts are that there are two pieces of legislation and one set of regulations on this matter alone that prove this government wrong. Clearly, from the year 2000, legislation was raised, being the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Charge Act 2000 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Regulations 2001.
With specific regard to this bill, it is intended to increase annual targets for renewable energy from 2010 and includes a 45,000 gigawatt hour target in 2020; a solar credits mechanism based on energy certificates; multipliers for solar photovoltaic, wind and micro-hydro systems; a review of the operation of the legislation in 2014; and provision for partial exemptions from liability for electricity-intensive trade-exposed activities and the transition of state schemes into the federal framework. Specifically, the bills provide for a new solar rebate scheme based on RECs, or renewable energy certificates, generated, so to say, from the existence of the solar photovoltaic systems. With regard to those systems, the $8,000 rebate the coalition created is to be replaced with a solar credit scheme, where renewable energy credits are issued to the installers of solar photovoltaic systems of less than 1.5 kilowatts. Those credits, for a common one-kilowatt system, are expected to be tradeable for between $4,000 and $4,500.
The legislation maps out the progressive increase in the mandatory renewable energy target from 9,500 gigawatt hours to the 45,000 gigawatt hours I mentioned before. The bottom line is that electricity wholesalers will have to ensure they have 20 per cent of their energy produced by renewable sources. They can achieve that by obtaining electricity produced by solar, wind, geothermal or other options. If they cannot then they have to buy RECs. If they still cannot reach the target then they have to pay the shortfall charge of $65 per megawatt hour. That is what this legislation is meant to do and we offer our support for it, subject to some amendments that are being negotiated at this time.
It is certainly the coalition’s position to pursue a clean energy economy and with no equivocation we support the 20 per cent target. I will make the point again that the target set by the coalition of 9,500 gigawatt hours represents some 10 per cent of electricity production, and I am keen to see that figure advance to 20 per cent. I question, however, how the government have assisted the sector to achieve these targets when they have moved the goalposts so rapidly in the past. The great examples came from the solar industry: firstly, the surprise means-testing of our $8,000 rebate, and then the no notice close-down of the scheme 21 days early on 9 June this year. With such a track record, it is hard to have confidence in the government setting the rules and then not changing them—and you can add to that list the no notice abolition of the coalition’s Remote Renewable Power Generation Program on 22 June.
It is clear that the government have struggled to maintain any consistency on solar policy, and it should be noted that the renewables sector as a whole did not appreciate being bound up in the ETS legislation when they knew that there was significant bipartisan support for renewables legislation if it stood alone. The point is obvious that the Labor Party used solar for politicking before the election and used renewables for politicking regarding the ETS but, through the dual faults of political opportunism and ineptitude, they have not taken the opportunity to support and add certainty across the renewables sector.
Again, renewable energy was one of the issues that the Rudd Labor government highlighted as something we had supposedly not acted upon when we were in government. That was clearly false; however, it worked for them in the political environment. When faced with the opportunity to act, to achieve and to work on the high expectations they had created, there has been nothing but vacillation on existing measures we had created and delay until now, when something of substance has been introduced to the parliament. Sadly, the Rudd government have been about smoke and mirrors, and no more so than in using the renewable energy sector for political gain and abusing the sector for the last two years.
With regard to the amendments sought, first and foremost we have the expectation that renewable energy targets are a separate issue and divorced from the ETS. Beyond that, we have made our position clear with regard to zero emission sources of energy such as renewable gas and waste coalmine gas. I understand that they are recognised as zero emission in both the US and certain parts of Europe.
In speaking of recognition of emerging and alternative renewable energy production, it is important that we be careful regarding renewables that already exist. It is my view that renewables must be constant and not dependent on weather fluctuations. A point well made by an earlier speaker was that a renewable source of energy that requires a redundancy or a backup to be constantly running is not an effective energy source. The member for O’Connor also raised the point that the Premier of South Australia is looking for 30 per cent of his state’s electricity production to be generated by wind power. Yet coming with that goal is the inherent risk of having to shut down turbines in hot weather. The potential loss of 30 per cent of the state’s power in extremely hot conditions is a major problem and a risk that should not be readily accepted.
The point I am making is that all that glitters is not gold. While many people may feel better having wind power as a major element of renewable targets, the reality is that renewables must be virtually certain of 24 hour a day, 365 day a year production and supply of baseload power. It is therefore far better to pursue technology that has such capacities, and we should look to those options.
It is not my intention to speak very much longer, because there are still plenty of people waiting to speak on this legislation. Again, we should not limit ourselves to the pursuit of renewable options that are high profile but with limitations that are yet to be resolved. This is about real action and options that will see sustainable and viable renewable energies, not about ticking boxes and feeling good about having done something that is green. I look forward to these bills being amended for the better and passed quickly, allowing progress towards a 20 per cent target via viable and reliable energy production sources.
8021
18:19:00
Saffin, Janelle, MP
HVY
Page
ALP
1
0
Ms SAFFIN
—I speak in support of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009. Climate change is a fact, global warming is a fact and major catastrophic weather events are becoming more common and more intense. Floods and droughts are more frequent, more catastrophic and more intense. Over the last couple of years in the seat of Page, we have experienced the worst frost in 27 years and the worst hailstorm on record, which was followed by a flood that year’s end, then another flood and, a few months ago, major flooding. Farmers notice it. They know something is up. They know something is different. Farmers are pretty good watchers and knowers of the land, the seasons and how things work.
The community expects the government to take decisive but considered action. That is what the government is doing. We know we are moving to a carbon constrained world and we have to be prepared to meet the challenges. We know that we are moving to a lower greenhouse gas emission world and we have to be prepared to meet those challenges. The government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which is the whole policy framework and the legislative framework to deal with this, does just that. The CPRS legislation that was introduced in May was the first key plank. When that passes the Senate it will do a lot to move us to lower greenhouse gas emissions. But the amending bills that I speak to today are the second plank of the government’s salient institutional set of changes in environmental and economic policy, and the two have to go hand in hand as we move to combat climate change. The government’s commitment to a renewable energy target whereby 20 per cent of our electricity supply is drawn from renewable sources by the year 2020 is a major action of the government’s comprehensive 10-point plan to tackle climate change.
There are some people who want us to go to 100 per cent almost immediately. We know that we cannot do that, but this is a wonderful start. It means that by 2020 20 per cent of our energy supply will be renewable, particularly in the area of electricity. The government taking the lead by setting the legislative target of 20 per cent is the key measure that helps set us on the path to a lower pollution future. We live in the land of plenty when it comes to renewables, but not when it comes to the non-renewables, and we have used the non-renewables at an unsustainable rate.
The renewable energy target scheme does another key thing: it brings a mandatory renewable target and current proposed state and territory schemes into one scheme—a national scheme—and it will facilitate the Victorian scheme which is already established. We know that electricity generation makes up more than a third of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. This scheme means, then, that one-fifth of the biggest greenhouse gas emissions must be gone by 2020—indeed a good start. That has been one of the points about this whole debate. We have to get it started. We cannot wait any longer.
I want to say some general things about these amending bills within the framework of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in which they are located. Firstly, I want to say thank you to the minister in this place, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Water, for his excellent work in this area and the discussions that I have been able to have with him on issues arising in this area, such as on how to assist households and how to have household actions brought into the overall Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. We have discussed the science and the work of people like James Hansen and other scientists who are all part of this debate, the various books that we have read in the area—some of which have been given to me, such as Climate Code Red and Scorcher—and a whole range of other things.
I get exposed, as we all do, to views that run right across the spectrum from deniers to sceptics to the almost fundamentalism at the other end that says that, if we do not do something tonight, things will drastically change forever. But it is really the incredible science—and the science that exists in Australia comes out of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—that is driving this debate. That is the science that the government’s policy and plans are based on and that forms the basis of the legislative and policy approach that the government has taken. With those comments, I commend the bills to this House.
8023
18:25:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
0
0
Mr HARTSUYKER
—I welcome the opportunity to talk on the very important issue of renewable energy. It is certainly a form of energy supply which should be encouraged. Increasing the amount of electricity that we generate from renewable sources is something that is going to benefit our nation in the long term and benefit the environment. The measures that are contained within the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009 build on the measures that were first implemented by the Howard government—a very visionary proposal to increase the amount of electricity sourced from renewable supplies.
I certainly commend the target that has been set of 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply being provided by renewable sources by the year 2020. The desirability of increasing the size of our renewable energy sector is often lost in the heat of the climate change debate, because there are many other reasons for maximising the output from this sector apart from the obvious climate change ramifications. That is why I deplore the government’s insistence on linking these measures to its flawed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and welcome its apparent change of heart. Whatever the arguments over climate change, one of the very good ways of reducing our carbon emissions is through renewables and also through energy efficiency.
The vast majority of our current energy needs are met through the burning of fossil fuels, and the total production of energy from renewable sources in Australia is currently in the order of 8½ per cent, which leaves some 91½ per cent of our energy coming from those fossil fuels. Our way of life and our use of cars, computers and domestic appliances have built a great dependence in this country on the use of coal and on the burning of oil. One day those supplies will run out. As we approach that day, we will see prices for those fuels increase rapidly. We will see the need for increased international competition for the remaining reserves. We will see our way of life threatened to an extent that we have never seen before.
Consumers rightly complain about petrol prices. Certainly, the Rudd government made great promises to the electorate during the 2007 election campaign that they were going to put downward pressure on petrol prices. We have seen very little happening by way of concrete measures in that regard except for the failed Fuelwatch scheme. They rightly claim that, when pump prices fail to follow the falls in the price of crude oil, they expect someone in that supply chain is lining their pockets. However, what tends to be forgotten in the fuel debate is that oils and fossil fuels are a very finite resource. They are a resource we should be attempting to conserve, and the use of renewables in all their forms is a very good way of doing that. We can look at a range of measures in transport such as hybrid cars that allow us to conserve resources but, certainly, in the field of electricity generation there are many opportunities to use alternative types of generation of electricity, be it geothermal power, solar or wind.
The use of alternatives is certainly tailor-made to a stationary type of operation such as power generation. Electricity prices in Australia are among the cheapest in the world. One of the challenges we face as a nation where we derive our competitive advantage from relatively cheap energy as opposed to other competitive advantages, such as cheap labour in other countries around the world, is: how do we maintain that competitive advantage against a backdrop of increasing our use of renewable energy? In virtually every case renewable energy comes at a significant cost penalty as compared to coal-fired power stations, which can provide large amounts of baseload power at very reasonable prices. Look at electric cars, for instance. We see them as a solution to pollution and a way of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. But where does the electricity come from? Electric cars are usually plugged into a socket, so once again we go back to dependence on fossil fuels and coal-generated baseload power.
For a society that is so heavily dependent on the finite resources of fossil fuels, it is only proper that we double our efforts to increase our use of renewable energy. In my electorate of Cowper, we have a range of businesses that use and specialise in renewable energy. But we certainly have a lot more work to do in that regard. China and India are often criticised for their carbon emissions. They produce 14.2 per cent and 30.1 per cent respectively of their total primary energy supply from renewable energy sources, as compared to a much lower level in Australia. We need a fundamental shift in our thinking as to how we source our energy needs, and this legislation goes a considerable way to moving down that path. I certainly commend the increased use of renewables in Australia. It is very important that we move down that path. We must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and increase our use of renewable energy. I commend this legislation to the House.
8024
18:31:00
Bidgood, James, MP
HVM
Dawson
ALP
1
0
Mr BIDGOOD
—I rise to speak in strong support of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009. This legislation implements the expanded national renewable energy target scheme to deliver on the government’s commitment to ensure that 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity is supplied from renewable sources by 2020. The RET legislation package implements a key climate change election commitment, and we in the Rudd Labor government are in the business of delivering on election commitments. The Rudd Labor government is delivering for Dawson, and RETs will deliver jobs and investment to the seat and allow the building of electricity-generating infrastructure that is good for the environment.
The passage of this legislation is essential to prosperity and jobs in my electorate of Dawson. The passage of this legislation is sought to provide renewable energy investors with legislative certainty—and we are delivering. One such investor is Mackay Sugar, who operate the Racecourse Sugar Mill in my electorate. Mackay Sugar have my full support for their proposed co-generation and ethanol plant. Mackay Sugar are ready, willing and able to commence construction of a 36 megawatt renewable biomass co-generation plant in Mackay. This cannot occur without certainty around the 20 per cent RET legislation. This is an innovative, clean energy project that will deliver important benefits for North Queensland, the entire sugar industry and the environment.
Mackay Sugar have indicated that, on the passage of this important piece of legislation, they will be ready to commence construction of their co-generation plant in Mackay. This represents real investment by business as a result of this legislation. Australia’s largest sugar refinery is at the Mackay Sugar Racecourse Mill site. Sugar cane has a significant energy value and is well placed as a renewable energy source, as electricity is produced from a by-product of the sugar production process. Mackay Sugar’s co-gen plant will only be the beginning for other co-generation plants in sugar mills throughout Queensland and New South Wales, if successful.
Mackay Sugar produce around two million tonnes of bagasse each year, a by-product of the sugar-milling process. This has an energy value equivalent to 700,000 tonnes of coal. The difference is that bagasse is 100 per cent renewable biomass fuel. The bagasse will also eventually generate steam and electricity for a 60-megalitre green ethanol plant at the Racecourse Mill. This is exciting and it is great news for the region. This $112 million project will directly generate 270 construction jobs and, importantly, it will diversify the sugar industry for the future—an industry which peaks and troughs through world sugar prices, fluctuating exchange rates and fierce international competition.
The Racecourse plant alone will power 33 per cent of Mackay’s power requirements. Environmentally, emissions will be reduced by 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. Mackay Sugar have indicated to me that engineering, finance, relevant approvals and capital costs have all been basically finalised. This expansion will not only benefit Mackay Sugar’s 950 canegrower shareholders, 540 permanent employees and 340 seasonal employees; it will also mean jobs, jobs, jobs and growth, growth, growth for the entire community.
The industry has projected that co-generation will supply up to 70 per cent of Far North Queensland households by 2016. In the north, around the Burdekin, Herbert and Townsville, they are talking about supplying greater capacity than is required for household consumption by 2016. The industry is even looking at supplying about 80 per cent of the estimated number of households around the Whitsunday and hinterland area and Mackay. This long-term projection can only be possible with the investment certainty this legislation provides. This large co-generation plant is ready for construction, ready to go. The Labor government is ready to go too. While the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal and National parties are divided and still debating whether climate change even exists, the government stands ready to act for the economy, for the environment and for jobs.
In conclusion, we are talking about real employment security for North Queensland. This legislation is about supporting the existing jobs in the sugar industry and generating new employment during project construction. More money in the sugar industry will have a flow-on effect for regional communities which are dependent on their local sugar industry. Millers, growers, harvesters, suppliers and contractors will all put money back into regional economies as a result of this. On behalf of people of Dawson, I wholeheartedly commend this legislation to the House.
8025
18:37:00
Coulton, Mark, MP
HWN
Parkes
NATS
0
0
Mr COULTON
—In reference to the previous speaker, I suspect that the people of Dawson are also waiting with bated breath to see how the emissions trading scheme legislation goes in a couple of months time and where their representatives are going to vote on that and the negative impact that it is going to have on regional Australia. I feel a little uncomfortable in here debating the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009 while at the same time negotiations on amendments are taking place outside this room, so I will keep my comments to general terms because as of yet we have not seen the final shape of what agreement or otherwise may be made before we vote on the legislation.
Under this scheme high energy users will be disadvantaged and energy will become very expensive, and I am hoping that, in discussions that are taking place on this legislation, they are looking at the effect on high electricity and high energy users. Aluminium is the standout industry that will be severely disadvantaged. In my electorate I have a town called Kandos and it is well known for cement. The people of Kandos will proudly tell you that the pylons of the Sydney Harbour Bridge are made of cement from Kandos. Cement is a high energy use and a high emitting industry, and one of the concerns I have if cement is not adequately taken into account is that that plant will close. In this place we speak about adjustments to employment and slight negative downturns or to things in quite clinical terms, but for the people of Kandos, if that plant closes, it is the major employer in town. It is not like Australia is going to be using any less cement; it is not like we are not going to be building roads, buildings or anything else that we use cement for. It just means that we have exported the jobs from Kandos to a country somewhere else that does not have restrictive legislation and higher charges. Just out of interest, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the proposed redistribution of electoral boundaries in New South Wales the Electoral Commission is putting the town of Kandos into the seat of Hunter. I think it would be very important for the member for Hunter, if he is intending to represent that area, to indicate to the people of Kandos whether he supports legislation that could lead to the closure of their plant.
I do not want to be entirely negative in this. My electorate has great potential for alternative energy. Indeed, the western part of my electorate has been identified as being as good as anywhere in Australia for solar energy production. I know there are a couple of proposals in their early stages where communities are looking at putting a solar power station adjacent to the town, hopefully to become self-sufficient in electricity generation and even have a little surplus to put back into the grid. The town of Moree is even looking at solar powered desalination to clean up the water that goes through the mineral baths. They would use a combination of solar powered desalination and algae to clean up the water to enable it to be reused and not go into the Mehi River in its current form.
As we are rushing headlong into a lot of this legislation, I believe there is great potential in something we have barely scratched the surface of. One of the things that I think is extremely exciting is algae. As I speak, there are three prototype plants going into the three largest power stations in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. The beauty of algae is that they are great sequesters of carbon. If you feed the emissions from a power station through algae and water, the algae thrive on the carbon dioxide, which despite being described in this place as a pollutant is actually the major building block of life. Algae grow at a rate of 20 per cent a day, doubling their mass every five days, so 20 per cent can be harvested every day and put through a centrifuge to get algae oil, which is essentially fish oil—that is what fish live on—which can then be further processed into biodiesel and can go into all sorts of power generation or motor vehicle fuel. What is left, the biomass, is a very high protein stockfeed. It could be used in human food consumption or even, if it is co-located with a power station, put back into the power station to provide fuel.
We should be careful that we do not tax our industries to such an extent that they do not have the ability to invest in and look at a lot of these alternatives. Some months ago I travelled to Townsville and went to James Cook University and met with Professor Rocky de Nys, who started working with algae and looking at algae as a fish food. The more algae is studied, the more the potential it has for biofuel production has been realised. As a country, as we look at our responsibility to feed the world—we feed not only the 20 million people who live in Australia but also 70 million people around the world—and as we have to balance up agricultural production, biofuel production and renewable energy, algae is going to have a major part to play in our future.
Although I think we need to be encouraging renewable energy, we need to recognise that we have only taken baby steps so far. The potential in a range of things is enormous, but we are only just at the beginning of this journey. I will support this bill, for what we know about it. I think this is highly irregular and I would like to place on record that I believe—and I know that these decisions are made by people who have been here longer than I—it is highly irregular to be debating a bill when the amendments and agreements between the two major sides of the House are still under negotiation. With that caveat I support this bill.
8027
18:45:00
Cheeseman, Darren, MP
HW7
Corangamite
ALP
1
0
Mr CHEESEMAN
—I rise today to speak primarily on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and cognate bill. I believe this is a historic moment and a great opportunity for my region and for south-west Victoria. My electorate of Corangamite and south-west Victoria are uniquely placed. Running right through the middle of my electorate and south-west Victoria is an extremely well understood wind corridor. Flanked by the Otway Ranges to the south and by the northern plains to the north-west, this unique geography creates a substantial wind corridor which has been measured by numerous scientists. This wind corridor also overlays a major arm of Victoria’s power grid. Because of this situation, there is around $7 billion worth of investment in wind projects right across south-west Victoria that either have received approval or are awaiting approval. Once this legislation has been passed, as I suspect it will, I believe this level of investment will grow further because of the geographic circumstances that exist and also, importantly, because of the power grid.
I will be convening a meeting of the wind sector within my electorate in the not-too-distant future to talk about the opportunities that do exist and to point out the opportunities that will exist if this legislation is passed. Right now, there is the potential for the creation of about 2,000 construction jobs and many hundreds of ongoing jobs once this legislation is passed. But, importantly, this legislation also plays a significant role in addressing the great moral challenge of our generation—that is, climate change.
I believe that the broader Geelong region and south-west Victoria can play a leading role in capturing green jobs because of our unique set of circumstances. Not only do we have a greater opportunity to play a substantial role in the generation of wind energy but also, because of our geographic setting, we have a massive opportunity to capture geothermal energy, ocean energy and a number of other renewable energy opportunities throughout the south-west of Victoria. I note that when Germany reinforced its renewable energy laws between 2004 and 2006 it was able to increase its renewable energy workforce from 160,000 to over 236,000 people.
This legislation is not just about creating jobs but also about addressing the great risk of climate change. As I have said in the past, Victoria has very high carbon emissions proportionally and this legislation will go some way to addressing those circumstances. I believe we have a very clear moral obligation to pass this legislation—to start our contribution not only to tackling climate change but also to creating an investment opportunity within our region that can create thousands of construction jobs and hundreds of ongoing jobs.
There are many places across south-west Victoria where it would be inappropriate to put wind turbines, but there are many places where there are very strong opportunities to invest in a way that will not only create jobs and reduce our carbon foot print but also provide an alternative income source to the landholders within my region. As I mentioned earlier, I will be holding a high-level forum in the not-too-distant future at which industry stakeholders, state government representatives and I will continue to explore opportunities for wind energy within my region to ensure that we are working closely to enable us to be able to deliver this investment to my region. I believe we have a moral obligation to lead. I believe this parliament will do that by passing this legislation, and I commend the bill to the House.
8028
18:51:00
Secker, Patrick, MP
848
Barker
LP
0
0
Mr SECKER
—I want to first back up the thoughts of the member for Parkes, who talked about algae as one of the future possibilities. In fact, I can relate a story. In my electorate there is a small village—although you could hardly call it that—called Salt Creek, and it is along the Coorong. I think that many people in this chamber would know a fair bit about the Coorong. The fact is that there was a black oily substance that they thought was oil. They put down a drill to find more of this oil and found that in fact it was algae. There is huge potential to use that resource. It has been around for a long time and I think we need to do a lot more research into it and make it a commercial possibility.
It may interest members of this chamber to know that I have been using renewable energy basically all my life. I live on a farm and we have heaps of windmills. It is just a normal part of our life. It is virtually impossible to get power out to many remote parts of the farm, so we use windmills. I may not have been fixing up windmills at three or four years of age, but I think I was climbing them—which you did as a young person on a farm. Of course, they have been supplying energy for probably centuries and they are quite a good form of power.
The coalition’s vision for a clean energy economy supports the potential of emerging technologies such as tidal, hydrogen cell, geothermal and wave, and it is a vision that I share. These technologies should have and deserve a portion of the renewable energy target reserved towards a clean energy future for Australia. It would be of concern if this legislation were to mean just more windmills or more turbines and did not include these other technologies that can produce reasonably efficient baseload power. It would be of great concern if this legislation, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009, were to lead to increased demand for coal and wind power at the expense of gas generation, for example, which is much cleaner than coal. It seems to me that this legislation does nothing to stop that happening. In fact, it is quite unusual to be debating a bill in parliament when we actually do not know what the end results are going to be. This is the first time, apart from when we had the CPRS legislation last week, that I have been in a situation where I do not know the final outcome or the regulations, and we have just got to trust that it is all going to happen.
I know from our experience with MRET that it seemed to produce only wind power generation, which unfortunately produces only intermittent, expensive energy—albeit at some benefit to parts of my electorate. Clean energy is fundamental in reducing Australia’s net emissions and providing jobs in rural Australia, including in my electorate of Barker. Renewable clean energy is a positive step towards our goal of reducing net emissions. Renewable energy is energy generated from natural resources—such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, wave and geothermal heat—which are renewable, meaning that they are naturally replenished.
In my electorate of Barker we have three promising projects which are working towards our vision for a clean energy economy. Of course, unlike the previous speaker, I do not claim to be having a ‘high level forum’ on the idea. These sorts of things are happening without politicians actually saying that they should happen. The projects are: an established wind farm in Millicent; a proposed site for wave power around Port MacDonnell, which is just below Mount Gambier; and a site in Penola, and also around Millicent, where drilling has commenced for geothermal energy.
Wind power is the conversion of wind energy into a useful form of energy, such as electricity, using wind turbines. Millicent, situated in the south-east of my electorate, is home to the largest wind farm development in the southern hemisphere. The site cost $92.5 million and it hosts 23 turbines capable of generating approximately 46 megawatts of electricity. This is enough electricity to provide the power needs of around 30,000 homes. Each turbine blade spans 39 metres, making them some of the largest installed in Australia. Electricity from this wind farm is produced up to 34 per cent of the time. That is the weakness of wind energy: for two-thirds of the time it will not produce energy. Thirty-four per cent is actually a high yield by global standards, but it is still not a baseload that can be relied upon for all of our needs. The wind farm created hundreds of jobs during its installation period, and it continues to provide some jobs into the future.
Geothermal technology is an emerging renewable energy technology that uses heat from the earth’s crust. This is a far more exciting area of renewable energy because it can provide a baseload that will be there for some time to come. It is designed to run continuously, which makes it a reliable source of clean energy. Geothermal is an important renewable energy resource and should be reserved as an emerging renewable energy technology by the government. Drilling has commenced for geothermal purposes 40 kilometres north of Mount Gambier in my electorate, in the Penola Trough. The Penola Trough forms part of the Otway Basin, a rift basin which was initiated during the Cretaceous period on the now southern margin of the Australian mainland. It is an exciting project that is helping our country move towards a clean energy future.
Wave energy is a renewable energy resource created by large storms hundreds of kilometres offshore. These storms generate and transmit huge amounts of energy, which travels great distances via swell and mixes with local influences in the seas to arrive at our shores. It is a genuinely renewable energy source, distinct from tidal energy—although I do support tidal energy.
The World Energy Council has estimated that approximately two terawatts—that is, two million megawatts, about double the current world electricity production—could be produced from the oceans via wave power. It is estimated that one million gigawatt hours of wave energy hits Australian shores annually. Wave technology can operate efficiently in swell in the one- to two-metre wave height range, greatly increasing the number of potential baseload sites globally. For example, much of southern Australia receives significant wave heights, in excess of one metre, 100 per cent of the time. Port MacDonnell, situated in my electorate, has been earmarked for a wave power site with a 99 per cent available wave resource at the site, the second highest percentile wave resource site in Australia. The other beauty of wave energy is that, being based in sea water, it can provide clean energy to desalinated sea water—instead of using the high powered consumption models which are now in use in Australia and planned for the future and which use power that is generated mostly by coal or gas. All three projects boost our clean energy future, and I fully support them and am proud to have them occurring in my electorate of Barker.
Hydrogen cell generation does not seem to be part of this government’s priorities but it is a useful addition to alternative fuel and its emissions are basically steam. And, of course, the government continues to keep its head in the sand on nuclear power. It is quite happy to export uranium to other countries, where they can reduce emissions; but it is not prepared to have the vision or the strength to even contemplate nuclear power in Australia, even though it has been proven to be a safe and reliable baseload power. I support our vision of a clean energy economy and encourage the inclusion of these renewable energy technologies in the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009. And it would be nice to actually find out what is going to be there.
8030
19:01:00
Irons, Steve, MP
HYM
Swan
LP
0
0
Mr IRONS
—It was interesting to hear the member for Barker give his contribution. I just had to check my speech, because there were a few similarities there—he and I are on the same wavelength. Today I was reading through a submission made by Ross Macmillan to the WA Greenhouse Task Force back in 2003. In that submission was the statement:
… as long as our primary energy sources are fossil fuel based, all our best efforts to reduce consumption will not deliver a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and will have a negative economic impact.
I could not agree more with this statement. The only way we are going to seriously reduce carbon emissions is by finding alternative energy sources to coal and oil. Looking for efficiencies will only get us so far. It is in this spirit that I rise this evening to speak on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009. I am a keen supporter of renewable energy. I believe in a clean energy economy and I want to see Western Australia as an Australian and a world renewable energy hub. I will declare from the outset that I am a shareholder in the renewable energy industry—because I believe it is the future.
The renewable energy target we are debating today comes from an excellent piece of legislation that has its origins in a speech by John Howard in 1997. It carries the support of just about every member of the House, and I look forward to it being implemented. As environmental legislation usually involves long-term targets, it is imperative that there is broad support from all sides of the chamber. I am of course pleased to see that the government is likely to decouple the bills in the Senate, after calls from every other non-Labor party and most newspapers to do so.
However, let us not look back but forward. The government is likely to decouple the legislation, and the bills are, subject to some amendments articulated by the environment minister, good bills. The legislation is, of course, designed to ensure that electricity retailers and other large electricity buyers are legally required to source a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. The bills set a new renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020. The initial Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 legislated for 10 per cent by 2010. In other words, this legislation progressively increases the 9,500 gigawatt hour annual mandatory renewable energy target to 45,000 gigawatt hours by 2020. The scheme works through the generation of renewable energy certificates, or RECs, from renewable energy sources in excess of a 1997 baseline level. One REC equals one megawatt hour of renewable energy power.
At the excellent renewable energy forum held by the coalition environment and water committee last week, Mr Dave Holland of Solar Systems Pty Ltd spoke about how difficult it is for solar companies to get one of only a few government funding contracts. Some companies have given up because of the time and effort required with little chance of success. The solar industry does not need complicated government red tape; it simply needs a little nudge here and a nudge there to become competitive. It is disappointing that there are very few or no solar projects starting up in Australia currently yet hundreds are scheduled for the US, where there is much less red tape.
I support the amendments that the coalition is putting forward on this bill, in particular the amendment to move that a portion of the RET be banded and reserved for emerging renewable technologies such as industrial-scale solar, geothermal, wave, tidal and biomass. Western Australia is full of geothermal potential and—with respect to the member for O’Connor—I can say that I am a strong supporter of geothermal energy as the renewable source of our future power needs. Geothermal energy is the only natural renewable energy source that does not originate in the sun.
I have personally had involvement with geothermal technology since the late eighties or early nineties in my industry, which was the air-conditioning industry. The company I worked for actually tried to introduce geothermal air-conditioning in Australia back in the early nineties. But it was not seen as a competitive alternative. It was very expensive to install, the capital equipment was quite expensive and, at that stage, the costs of energy in Australia were quite low, so it was easier for companies or building owners to find ways other than looking at geothermal technology. So it is great to see that it is coming back into vogue. All we need to do is develop extraction methods that are globally applicable and we will have a virtually unlimited, continuous, reliable, emissions-free energy source available to any nation on earth.
Hot-rock energy is of particular interest to Perth, with the Perth Basin providing a significant resource. The technology works by pumping water deep into the rock for heat transfer. According to the Australian Geothermal Energy Association, approximately five to 15 per cent of the total energy achieved is used to pump this water into the rock. The submission I have been reading estimates that the energy content in one lease is equivalent to 50 billion barrels of oil, about 20 times Australia’s known oil reserves. It also estimates that there is enough thermal energy contained in hot rock at depths of less than five kilometres below the surface in Australia to meet our present energy needs for 7,000 years.
Hopefully, this bill will encourage energy generators to look into this technology in more detail. With the right government investment, Australia could quickly become a world leader in this technology. At the recent coalition renewable energy forum, we heard from the Australian Geothermal Energy Association of the great possibilities of this technology but also of the great capital expense involved in establishing it. Often a proof of concept will cost up to $30 million, yet the government only has $7 million on offer, which again is difficult to get hold of. We can do better than this. In the absence of finance, the geothermal industry in Australia is working with universities. UWA have just been given the rights to start WA’s first geothermal project, which will attempt to harness the geothermal energy below Perth for modern-day energy needs. A geothermal Perth could form the cornerstone of WA’s renewable energy hub.
Geothermal is not Western Australia’s only renewable option. WA is the sunshine capital of Australia. Wind patterns are almost perfect south of Jurien Bay, and the member for O’Connor has spoken at length about the potential of the second most tidal region in the world up in Derby. There are certainly some exciting wave power developments as well, with one company in Western Australia proposing to set up the world’s first baseload wave power electricity generation and desalination plant. It is currently running a pilot program in Fremantle called CETO. Wave energy is a renewable energy resource created by large storms hundreds of kilometres offshore, which generate and transmit huge amounts of energy that travels great distances via swell and mixes with local influences, seas, to arrive at our shores. It is a genuine renewable energy source and distinct from tidal energy. Wave energy is generally considered to be the most concentrated and least variable form of renewable energy. The high power density of wave energy suggests that it has the capacity to become the lowest cost renewable energy source. The World Energy Council has estimated that approximately two terawatts, two million megawatts, which is about double the current world electricity production, could be produced from the oceans via wave power. It is estimated that one million gigawatt hours of wave energy hit Australian shores annually and that 25 per cent of the UK’s current power usage could be supplied by harvesting its wave resource.
In conclusion, I support a 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020. This is a positive statement by the whole parliament of a commitment to renewable energy, which would be our focus, and it is certainly mine. I support Western Australia as an Australian and a world renewable energy hub. If our focus as a nation were more towards renewable energy, maybe we would not have to worry about an ETS.
8032
19:10:00
Jensen, Dennis, MP
DYN
Tangney
LP
0
0
Dr JENSEN
—I rise to support the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and related bill, albeit with some small misgivings, which I will get on to a little bit later. Clearly, it is advisable to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, not only due to the fact that they are non-renewable but also due to emissions of all sorts. This House will know that I am not particularly concerned about the carbon dioxide aspect; however, I am very concerned about sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide and particulates, which are significant emissions from fossil fuel power stations and fossil fuels more generally. They clearly have significant adverse health effects.
My concern with this bill is that the way that renewables are viewed is fairly prescriptive and tight and that, in particular, issues such as substitution are inadequately addressed. For example, the member for Barker was talking about the potential for using wave power to directly desalinate water. This is a substitution for electricity but it is actually not included in the ‘20 per cent renewable’ which is put forward in this bill. Additionally, we need to realise that there are problems associated with many, if not most, forms of renewable energy at present. For example, if significant portions of the electricity grid have wind generated power then you have grid instability. In fact, in 2006 all of Europe went down for half an hour. The half-hour blackout was the result of problems with a wind farm in Germany which, due to the total instability in the system, propagated through the system. Additionally, you cannot generate solar power when the sun does not shine. Proponents of these forms of electricity generation will argue that not only are these forms of generation capable of providing baseload power but they are capable of providing it economically, yet when you speak to many of these proponents privately they will acknowledge that they are not capable at present of providing baseload power and, in terms of the power supply more generally, in order to be economically viable they are reliant on government legislation which benefits their industry.
As well, one of my concerns is the issue of increased costs associated with the proportion of 20 per cent renewable for our electricity. It would be a very good idea to put an increased amount of research and development money into renewable energy. We need to be very careful about betting on winners, however. Historically, we have seen so many times with scientific advances that the winners are not where we perceive them to be. Indeed, in the 1950s there was a chance for Australia to get to the forefront of the solid-state electronics industry; however, the assessment in Australia at the time was that newfangled transistors and so on did not have a future and the world was going to be reliant on valves. You do not see too many valves made these days.
What about other generation methods? The current reality in the Australian context—and here I will ignore hydro because for both environmental and resource reasons more hydro in Australia is highly unlikely—is that the only methods at present that can generate baseload power are coal and gas. My question to members opposite is: an awful lot is being bet on geosequestration; what if geosequestration does not work as advertised? It has not been completely proved in terms of the entire system anywhere in the world, and all we need is something like a Lake Nyos situation with a burp of carbon dioxide killing multiple people. That sort of situation would very quickly put the geosequestration argument to bed. Can we be sure how stable that resource would be, given that we have drilled in there and formed a plug, if, for instance, you had an earthquake?
Given that, the only other low-carbon or no-carbon technology you have that is capable of generating baseload power is nuclear power. It is rather interesting that one of the methods of generating renewable power that is being considered and potentially could generate baseload power is hot-rock technology. The interesting point is that hot-rock technology is, in fact, nuclear technology; the reason those rocks are hot is the radioactive decay of uranium in those ores. It is interesting that the government will not consider nuclear power at all, particularly given their statement that this is the great moral and ethical imperative of our age. If it is such a great imperative, you would think that everything would be considered to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. But nuclear is not to be considered. If nuclear is so terrible and so dangerous, why are we exporting uranium? Isn’t that gravely irresponsible?
Another thing we should be talking about is putting money into research and development. We need to look at putting money into generation IV reactors, which have significant advantages over conventional reactors because not only, in many cases, can those reactors use the uranium resource for 50 to 60 times longer than conventional reactors but they can also use depleted fuel from conventional reactors as the fuel for these reactors, and the waste form that you are left with is literally safe to handle with your hands in a period of 300 years.
Another technology that we should invest in—and this would even be for people who are somewhat paranoid about fission power—is nuclear fusion. At present there is a great international program called ITER—it stands for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor—in France. It is one of the largest scientific projects in the world. In effect, it is a preproduction fusion prototype. This is a very clean energy resource, and I think it is foolhardy for Australia not to be involved at the ground level. If we are not one of the major program partners we should certainly be one of the subpartners in the project, because Australia is one of the world’s energy superpowers in terms of nuclear energy, be it fission or fusion. You talk about uranium; you can talk about thorium and, indeed, about lithium. Western Australia has one of the largest resources of lithium in the world. We should be looking at becoming more energy independent, and getting involved in these sorts of areas would certainly make us more energy independent.
I will leave this debate by saying that if the government believes in the moral and ethical imperative that is reducing carbon emissions, they really should be considering nuclear energy. Certainly they should be investing in fusion energy even if they do not believe in fission energy. Having said that, I support this bill, albeit with the reservations that I have mentioned.
8034
19:19:00
Scott, Bruce, MP
YT4
Maranoa
NATS
0
0
Mr BRUCE SCOTT
—I rise this evening to speak on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009. I welcome the government’s commitment, firstly to decouple this bill from the flawed emissions trading scheme legislation and, secondly, to a renewable energy target of 20 per cent of electricity supply by 2020. Of course, it is a long time coming. The Rudd government promised this legislation back in 2007 and now, more than 18 months later, we are finally debating it in this House.
Clean energy can create jobs in rural Australia, and this is no more obvious than in my own electorate of Maranoa. Maranoa has the potential to become one of the nation’s powerhouses for renewable energy. My vast electorate spans an area from Poeppel Corner in the west to about an hour and a half’s drive from Noosa on the Sunshine Coast of Queensland in the east. We are witnessing exciting developments in solar, wind and algal technology in the electorate, and the fledgling but fast and furious development of the Surat coal basin has provided many opportunities for resource companies to implement planet-friendly measures to decrease their carbon footprint. One such exciting opportunity for the resource companies based in Maranoa is the utilisation of algal energy. On the eastern edge of my electorate, at a major coal-fired power station, a leading energy company will be establishing a test plant to convert carbon to energy by using algae. This incredible process involves the capturing of carbon emissions at the base of the emissions chimney before they can be sent out into the atmosphere. The CO2 gases are then transferred to an algal farm, and through the process of photosynthesis the algae will consume the carbon. Amazingly, the algae have the capacity to consume twice their weight in carbon in just 24 hours. At the end of this process, two products are created. One is algal oil, which can be used for plastics, biodiesel or fuel such as jet fuel. The other product is an edible algal product or meal, which can be used as feedstock, fertiliser or biomass for electricity production and bioplastics. I support the money that has gone into research, particularly at James Cook University, into the further development of this technology.
Nearby that soon-to-be-built test plant in my electorate there are plans by another company to build a wind farm—the Coopers Gap wind farm. This wind farm will see 252 turbines built and have the capacity to power approximately 320,000 homes. At the other end of my electorate in Windorah, which has a population of just 150, that community in the Barcoo Shire can boast its very own solar farm. In fact, it is the solar farm that the Prime Minister visited with the Premier of Queensland a few months ago to talk about the renewable energy target. The five solar dishes there are expected to save 300 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the town’s reliance on diesel power. The project, which is funded and driven by Ergon Energy, has been wholeheartedly welcomed by the town. In the outback of my electorate and in many parts of outback Australia there is an abundance of sunshine and there is no concern about the sun not shining most days. In fact, there is not enough rain. The challenge of course of putting solar farms in the outback is the transmission of that power to the market. I will talk a little more about that later.
Just outside my electorate of Maranoa off the Birdsville Track is Innamincka, in South Australia’s north. It is home to a hot rocks energy project, established by the company Geodynamics, which had support from the Howard government for their research and development of hot rocks power generation. Aside from the world’s volcanic region, the Cooper Basin, which stretches from South Australia and back into my electorate of Maranoa, has the hottest rocks in the world. But the potential for hot rocks energy is not exclusive to the Cooper Basin. There are other areas across rural Australia, in South Australia and the Flinders Ranges, and near my own hometown of Roma, which offer the same potential and favourable conditions for the generation of power from hot rocks.
The harvesting of energy from these hot rocks, which lie about three kilometres below the surface, is quite simple. The heat is trapped between the age-old rocks and by circulating water through them the heat can be extracted which can then be converted into electricity. Hot rocks are a truly renewable, zero emission, baseload energy source. They do not rely on the sun, the wind or the tides. They are a renewable, baseload energy source that is able to provide huge amounts of power. Hot rocks technology has the capacity to fully replace fossil fuels and the potential to meet all of Australia’s electricity requirements for centuries to come. According to Geodynamics, one cubic kilometre of hot granite at 250 degrees centigrade has the stored energy equivalent of 40 million barrels of oil. The potential for geothermal energy is vast and, according to Geodynamics, could be used for concrete curing, milk pasteurisation, wool processing and the preheating of water for coal-fired power stations.
The challenge, of course, is that these energy sources are located a long way from the large consumer markets in our capital cities. I think one of the technologies that we will see more of in the near future is high-voltage, direct current, HVDC powerlines, both underground and above ground. They have the capacity to bring this power from the remote parts of Australia to the larger consumer markets with a limited loss of energy. That is another thing that we must talk about in the future if we are to truly realise the potential of solar and, in particular, in this case, hot rocks producing electricity for the clean, green energy market across Australia.
For those living in rural Australia, there is nothing new about harnessing the energy from the earth’s natural heat. Geothermal energy is the same resource responsible for warm artesian baths and warm artesian bore water. Birdsville, in my electorate, is home to a geothermal power station that harnesses the energy from the hot water taken from the Great Artesian Basin. It is doing it tonight as we speak in this House. The power station provides approximately 30 per cent of the town’s electricity needs, reduces diesel consumption by about 130,000 litres per year and abates 390 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year. This is just another example of the role rural and remote Australia is cast to play in Australia’s renewable energy future. Madam Deputy Speaker Saffin, I am sure you will appreciate that the only thing Maranoa will not be able to offer is tidal energy—perhaps in your electorate that will be possible. Maranoa is landlocked, so it will not happen there. I know the member for Bowman, who is in the chamber, would understand that.
While this bill is about renewable energy, I just want to put on the record some exciting developments in clean coal technology in my electorate of Maranoa. Whilst coal is of course not renewable, this technology provides enormous potential to reduce our carbon footprint and implement various new technologies. That is why I particularly support the opposition’s amendments, and the one in particular which calls for the inclusion of renewable gas or waste coalmine gas as a recognised zero emissions source of energy. The Liberal-National coalition introduced the nation’s first mandatory renewable energy target. When in government, we also committed to a 15 per cent clean energy target and former Prime Minister John Howard indicated support for a 20 per cent target.
We must continue to hold some healthy scepticism about the Labor government’s alleged green credentials. This Labor government promised that they would not means-test the $8,000 solar rebate, which the coalition introduced. But on budget day last year, what did they do? They introduced a means test. Then this year in June, without any warning, they prematurely abolished it, leaving many people in my electorate furious at the Rudd government. When they were still getting their paperwork done and getting contractors together, they were told they had just eight hours to lodge their application.
The Rudd government also abolished without warning the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program. This program allowed families, businesses and not-for-profit organisations that relied on diesel electricity to install solar or wind units. In June this year, just weeks after scrapping the $8,000 solar rebate without notice, they abolished this program, leaving many rural families and solar businesses in the lurch. Of course, we cannot be surprised about the actions of the Rudd Labor government—all spin and no substance. They have also linked this legislation to the flawed ETS. That was a callous move and what they were trying to do when they did that was to make the opposition look unfriendly about doing something about renewable energy. However, the amendments that we are putting forward are reasonable and responsible, and recognise some of the areas that this Labor government have failed to look at. It is shoddy legislation. We want these amendments put forward. Our shadow minister has addressed the amendments, and I fully support those particular four amendments.
I certainly want to make sure that this Prime Minister and this Labor government take a much smarter approach, and by taking a smarter approach it will be a bipartisan approach. However, from this side of the House, we support renewable energy targets and we want to make sure, with these amendments, we have a much smarter approach to reducing our carbon footprint. We did not support the ETS because it was not a smart approach. The Prime Minister and his Minister for Climate Change and Water should be breathing a sigh of relief that the non-government senators, after we were unable to stop it in this House because we do not have the numbers—have given them a chance to go back to the drawing board. I support our amendments. I support this bill and I look forward to the government support for our amendments in the passage of this legislation.
8037
19:30:00
Laming, Andrew, MP
E0H
Bowman
LP
0
0
Mr LAMING
—What a refreshing debate we have enjoyed today by effectively decoupling the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009 and cognate bill from the ETS. To my National Party colleague from Maranoa, it is wonderful to hear the support that we have from Queensland’s largest seat for this legislation. Coming from a relatively tiny outer metropolitan seat, I would wish to echo his views. Some have said that Bowman is the only seat in Australia that doubles in size at low tide. You are quite right: we have a deep and abiding passion for the potential for tidal and also ocean current technology. That is all ahead of us, and it is an exciting future. I congratulate the government for finally taking that important step of decoupling this legislation. The government has also effectively revealed the enthusiasm for renewable energy on both sides of this House. Our country can only benefit from that.
I do not think that now is the appropriate time to go through the history of the struggles we have had with the ETS legislation, except to say it is probably also a good time now to move on from the 2007 notion that you are either a denier or a believer, that either you are a sceptic that needs to be shunned or you are evangelical about some sort of greater issue than any on the planet, that of emissions trading. It is a part of planning for the future of Australia and we are far better to be pulling together the diverse and disparate views in Australia. We know they exist all around the world, and I would be concerned about a political party that did not have those diverse views within it. We are effectively debating the key issues that will determine the success of our tradeable goods, the success of Australia as an economy and our ability as Australians to preserve the quality of life we enjoy now. The emissions trading system can potentially impact that.
This small piece of legislation that has been decoupled today is very important because industry have been telling us that this is where they want to go. They need such a target to have the certainty to invest, and I think that is why you have seen the support from both sides of the House being so strong. So often in the Westminster parliamentary system you try to protect the government from its own pigheadedness. We have seen a little bit of that today where there was a reluctance to consider very constructive amendments that were put forward by our shadow minister. I am pleased to say that there has been some ground given and, particularly and certainly for the member for Maranoa who may or may not have realised it, that the waste coalmine gas issue being recognised as a zero emission source of power really had to be included in this legislation. I am very glad that that has occurred.
What has been potentially a bridge too far has been the issue of banding. In a recent shadow policy discussion of renewable energy producers the clear message was that is an important move forward to ensure the future of renewable technology. This bill needs to recognise that banding can play a very important role in protecting about a quarter of those gigawatt hours for emerging technologies that are not yet ready to take advantage of this legislation. There is a range of those, from geothermal right across to large solar plants, that may not be quite ready yet to take advantage of this legislation.
What we have, though, right now is a very murky and somewhat unhappy triad of stumbles by this government around solar energy that prefaces the debate that we are having tonight. We do not need to trawl through the history of budget night when there were decisions and announcements made that effectively betrayed industry. On 9 June, it effectively summarily cut off the opportunity for those renewable incentives for solar providers. Then we saw it again with the remote renewable program on 22 June. These three hits to the sector, I think it is worth mentioning, have somewhat shaken the solar sector’s confidence in the government to be able to make the long-term decisions that provide some certainty. I am not going to stand here and convince everyone that the old economic incentives stacked up, nor that it was necessarily something that could have been ignored but what we really needed to do was give business more certainty than the government provided.
All I can say to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change is that he should take some lesson from the economic stability that was provided by this side of the House when in government and learn from that that by giving business certainty we can allow them to plan ahead, they can look forward and they can make the decisions that in the end are going to be right for the consumer. Please do not use small business—in fact, do not use business in general—as something that can be kicked around when rules change and the carpet pulled from under them simply because you can. We know the government can, but try to find a way to give as much certainty as possible to some of these very, very small providers who have faith and who have placed their trust in government that the decisions they make will be there for some time. If government does have to change policy—obviously decisions do and policies have to change—give small business some chance to react rather than what occurred in my electorate and in many others on this side of the House. We had people who had effectively placed deposits and ordered solar equipment ready for installation but had not necessarily got to the point where they could be guaranteed of getting the rebate. That was tragic. Families were running around trying to contact the father who was off at work and who could not sign on the dotted line with solar companies which had all of these bonds and deposits collected yet were unable to fulfil contracts. That was an ugly piece of federal government undermining of the work of small businesses right around this country—businesses which in the end were only responding to government incentives to implement renewable energy. That was an act of faith that I think was somewhat betrayed by this government.
I am glad to see that there has been some concession, again following the decoupling, with the waste coalmine gas, but I would urge the government once again to consider this very important banding issue so a quarter of those gigawatt hours can be protected for the renewable technologies we know are only years away but cannot yet benefit. I would urge the government to give this issue further consideration.
But, nonetheless, let us not forget that today has been, after months and months of somewhat disappointing polarisation around the issue of the ETS, a small moment where there has been relative agreement on this vital transition. We are seeing the move where technology may well find us the solutions to this very important area of global emissions. Australia is playing its role—in fact, more than that. Australia is gifted geopolitically, with our location, our weather, our coastline, our tides and our rivers, not only to make a massive contribution but to be able to provide and deliver renewable and clean power at potentially a fraction of the cost at which other continents can do so. That can set Australia up, but what we will need to get there is not only this legislation but, I think, a full consideration of emissions trading, not a dogmatic, pig-headed approach that no idea can be improved. We need a government that will be responsive and that can work cooperatively not only with the whole country but particularly with those who are working in the sector who are coming forward with great technology—to name one, the Better Place initiative, which has just recently signed the electric car agreement with the ACT government, the third jurisdiction that will be considering plug-in options for electric vehicles worldwide.
An organisation and an initiative like Better Place relies on certainty, stability and predictability, not a policy that shifts and changes with political fortunes or the immediacies of daily political life, where suddenly a program is changed and business has to pay the price. We need to be encouraging the world to see Australia as a stable platform for renewable technology. The first step, I believe, will be taken tonight. It is great to see support on both sides of the chamber, and I look forward to the next step: finding a solution to global emissions that also has the support of both sides of this chamber, that works to protect Australian interests, that prevents the export of jobs and the leakage of carbon—a solution that finds Australia as a member of the lead pack of global economies which crafts and delivers a solution to this most pressing of global challenges.
8039
19:39:00
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
SE4
Mackellar
LP
0
0
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP
—The word ‘coupling’ applied to bills—the RET bill and the CPRS Bill—has become the jargon of the day. What did the coupling really mean? How was it done? Basically, it is in the legislation that the RET bill will become law only when the CPRS Bill is passed. So, in order to allow the RET bill—the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009—to stand alone, it is probably necessary to have an amendment that says that the bill will become law upon assent.
But what does that, in effect, do? It still means that the provisions that are in the CPRS Bill—the so-called carbon pollution reduction bill—that give relief to electricity-intensive trade-exposed industries are contained in the second bill. So it is perfectly open to us to argue, in fact, that the bills are not truly decoupled—they are only partially decoupled—because the impact on those industries will be that they will be obliged to pay for 20 per cent of their electricity from renewable sources at the higher rate.
Those of you who receive your electricity bill now will probably find—certainly in New South Wales—that there is an option for you to pay 10 per cent more for your electricity on the basis that that is coming from renewable sources. The effect of the bill will be to turn that voluntary payment of additional money for your electricity into a compulsory payment for your electricity. For industry, it means that they too will be paying an increased amount of money for their electricity, because that part of the plan to give them relief from that increased cost is contained in the other bill.
So the question is: will we see amendments come forth from the government which say that they will take that part of the CPRS Bill that contains the relief for the electricity-intensive trade-exposed industries and place it in the RET bill, thereby making it a stand-alone package, or will they continue with the fiction that they have decoupled the bills wholly when all they are doing is changing the date on which they shall become law? I think we are entitled to know that, and I think we are entitled to know it as this debate is progressing, but all we have at the moment is the statement that we have decoupled the bills.
The people who are really hurting and who come to people like me as their local members—they have done so in quite considerable numbers—are the people who plead for the passage of this bill and for it to become law because it also contains the provisions that will pay the subsidy for the installation of solar panels. Under the previous government, the Howard government, we had put in place a scheme where you got an $8,000 subsidy, and John Howard said that that scheme would be uncapped—in other words, it would go on indefinitely. So individuals who wanted to use solar panels and source their electricity from an alternative renewable source could do so. But virtually overnight that scheme was cut off, the reason being that it was just too successful; more people were taking it up and the amount of money that had been allocated for that program had been used. So, instead of allowing it to be an uncapped scheme as we had said, this government, which says it is all in favour of alternative and renewable energy sources, cut off the program, and it said, ‘But don’t worry about that; we’ve got another “you beaut” scheme coming in, and you’ll get, basically, $4,000 a time.’ Well, the poor installation people have been waiting and waiting. They have been paying the staff, their individual employees. They have been trying to keep their businesses together. There have been virtually no solar panel installations sold into this market for months, and they are at breaking point.
When one reads a letter from a constituent that says, ‘Please let this bill have passage so that we can start our business operating again,’ one feels an enormous amount for these small business people. They are being punished by a piece of politicising by the government, which is trying to say, ‘If you want these people to have the subsidy paid for them and their businesses to continue and the people they employ to have jobs then you have to also pass the hugely flawed CPRS Bill.’ It of course brings in the new green tax, or whatever other name you like to call it, and makes Australia uncompetitive in so many areas.
I hear a lot said about the term ‘certainty’—‘We have to have these bills because business wants certainty.’ I thought agriculture was a business too. There is absolutely no certainty for them because in that CPRS Bill it says, ‘Agriculture will come into the scheme in 2013 and we will know all about it by 2015.’ If that is certainty then I think we must be using a different dictionary from the one used by the government. What about those people who, again in the name of certainty, look at the future trade in derivatives that come from carbon trading and see that they can make a fortune. It will be the next big thing—out with credit default swaps and CDOs and in with derivatives from carbon trading. Perhaps certainty for them is something that is not deserved. Perhaps certainty for people like farmers and small business owners is what is indeed required.
We are very keen to see the RET bill passed because we want certainty for those small businesses that are currently being forced to the extent that they may well have to fold. We want their businesses to be able to continue. We want the people they employ to have jobs. So I would simply put it to the government that we need some certainty too. We want to see what the nature of the proposed amendments of the government are. We want to see whether not the provisions that are contained within the CPRS Bill are going to be translated into the RET bill so that we can see that the aluminium industry, the cement industry and so on are being granted the exemptions they need.
There is an interesting quote in an excellent article written by John Kerin and Adrian Rollins in the Financial Review today. It said:
Australian Aluminium Council executive director Miles Prosser said Ms Wong’s less generous interim assistance arrangements only made it more certain that aluminium producers would face higher costs than overseas competitors. He said the RET scheme as proposed by the government would impose costs of $700 million over the next decade on smelters in Gladstone, the Hunter Valley, Portland, Geelong and Bell Bay, while the CPRS as currently proposed would add another $3.3 billion.
I think this debate has a long, long way to go. Whereas I hear a lot of people say that we must give the benefit of the doubt to the planet, I say we have to give the benefit of the doubt to the Australian people. What we have to do in this place is find out what is in the interests of the Australian people and make sure the laws that we pass do not in fact push wages down, push the cost of living up and push the standard of living down as well, all in the name of trying to reduce our emissions, which contribute just over one per cent of the world’s emissions.
I think we should look at ways in which we could help the people in China and India, where it has been shown by people who associate themselves with the IPCC that it is the emissions from stoves in those countries which account for 18 per cent of global warming. We could have a human face and actually improve their health and their way of life. We could be doing something constructive to better human life and also meet the requirement to lessen emissions in a really humane and meaningful way.
I repeat my comments from right at the beginning. We need to decouple the RET bill from the CPRS Bill. It needs to be total and not partial. The provisions in the CPRS Bill which provide relief for trade-exposed industries who use large amounts of electricity need to be completely taken out of that bill and put into the RET bill.
8041
19:50:00
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
EM6
Murray
LP
0
0
Dr STONE
—I rise to speak on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009. These bills will set a renewable energy target of 20 per cent to be met by the year 2020. Of course the coalition strongly supports the concept of the 20 per cent renewable energy target. After all, it was our government, the John Howard led government, which first introduced into Australian legislation some very serious attempts to make our economy more responsive to renewable energy sources which we knew would not only lower harmful greenhouse gas emissions but also be better for the Australian economy, giving us an alternative to being captured by a complete dependency on fossil fuels.
We in our government understood that stimulating the renewable energy sector and a whole range of new research and development into interesting and unusual new technologies had to be in the context of making sure that that new development always took into consideration job prospects, not beggaring one part of the economy at the expense of another. That is because we are a very vulnerable economy when it comes to our trading partners, such as the European Union and the United States of America, who are more likely to reach for subsidies to support an industry in trouble than to let free competitive forces reign.
I refer in particular to agriculture. We are a nation with an export dependent agricultural sector. Where and if we can reduce our costs by using more efficient energy inputs, fertiliser inputs or any other inputs necessary for good agricultural development and production then we will, and we will do that with great vigour. The difficulty for us is that, even if we reduce our costs, when we compete in international markets we face competition from others who are subsidised—and we have no hope of competing with those industries despite having world’s best practice.
I grew up at a time when you could hear the clanking of the windmills, and as you looked around the great northern Victorian plains you saw windmills on every horizon. We took them for granted as a part of the energy options. If you wanted to pump water out of your dam, you did not have a diesel pump and you did not have a solar panel; you had a windmill. That iconic image of the windmill standing out on the plains has been adopted by many as a symbol of agriculture across the country. Australians are no strangers to alternative energy sources. A lot of us also grew up with wood being burned in stoves to generate heat and hot water. We grew up too with alternative means of transport that did not depend on the consumption of fossil fuels.
But here we are in this House with the government of the day trying to put across the idea that they are the first to imagine or think about renewable energy. And so they have tried to wed this particular set of bills to their CPRS. Their emissions trading scheme is a flawed policy and one which would leave the country devastated in terms of pushing it too far, too fast ahead of international developments. Of course we must address greenhouse emissions problems. Of course we have climate change affecting our country—no more so than in my electorate, which is facing its seventh year of drought and some of the hottest and driest conditions on record. But why would you, except for political mischief and attempts to wedge, link this set of bills, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009, with the deeply flawed CPRS, which is generally spurned by industry. We have of course requested that the two bills be decoupled.
I think the Rudd Labor government are now realising, through the conversations and debates in the media and around the barbecues of the nation, that they have been too smart by half. These two bills need to stand alone so that they can be properly considered, so that the different sets of issues can be properly understood and debated and so resources can be appropriately allocated without any attempt to simply play political games at the expense of the country’s future.
When I was in the environment portfolio—I was parliamentary secretary for some five years—I had the privilege of working with Minister Robert Hill, Minister for the Environment and Heritage. He was an international leader in introducing the business of vegetation consideration into the Kyoto discussions. He chaired what was called the ‘umbrella group’ of other like-minded developed nations, who understood the significance of burning forests and of clearing forests, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, in Indonesia and in South America, and how the devastation of huge forests was leading not only to enormous biodiversity degradation but also to emissions, which were going to mean that we would have more and more difficulty in the future sustaining life as we know it. Robert Hill was a champion internationally, and when he helped introduce the MRET of our Howard government he was one of the first to do that globally.
Let me also say that while I was responsible for the Australian Antarctic Division I had the full support of the John Howard government in introducing wind turbines to the Antarctic. We knew it was a cost but we also understood that if we could replace the diesel-powered generators in our Antarctic stations then we would be making an enormous contribution, both symbolically and in practical terms, with a renewable source of energy that was going to reduce emissions in that sensitive part of the world. We were hugely successful. The world’s biggest wind turbines were installed at our Antarctic bases. We were able to reduce the use of diesel by over 90 per cent almost immediately.
It was under our government too that we tried and succeeded in stimulating the infant wind farm sector across Australia. One of our problems of course, and I face this particularly in my electorate, is that while there are places for wind farms which have been selected, there are locals more than keen to rent out their land and there are local governments anxious to see those wind farms established, we have a huge constraint on the capacity of the power grid to take that additional energy. Therefore it is a policy-setting problem. It is not a mindset problem in terms of rural and regional Australians wanting to have alternative sources of energy in their landscape and generating alternative and renewable energy.
I have to say that the Victorian government in particular must hang its head in shame as it sets about introducing yet another use of fossil fuel derived electricity for a white elephant—the north-south pipeline. We know that that pipeline will not have the water to take across the Great Dividing Range to the toilets, gardens and dog-washing clinics of Melbourne and Geelong. The water is to be taken out of the drought-stressed and near-empty Eildon Dam and the Goulburn River system. It is to be pumped over the Great Dividing Range using electricity generated through the burning of coal. It is estimated that 103,680 megawatt hours of power will have to be used in the first year of operation of the north-south pipeline alone to pump the 75 billion litres to be stolen from the Goulburn River—water that is going to be absolutely necessary for food production not only next year but in the years following. This will also take the environmental reserve out of the Eildon Dam. Pumping this, using electricity, across the Great Dividing Range is going to deprive the Goulburn River of its environmental reserve, which was for use in trying to overcome any blue-green algal bloom, which invariably comes when rivers get so low.
I have to say that the north-south pipeline is a white elephant. This pipeline will deplete the Murray-Darling Basin of the last of its precious water in northern Victoria. When we heard that on top of that environmental assault the water was to be pumped over the great divide using 103,680 megawatt hours a year, we were doubly appalled. What environmental vandalism! Minister Garrett, in this government, has made this whole business of the north-south pipeline a controlled action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. He has not said a word in this place about the taking of water that does not exist from the Murray-Darling Basin. Water does not exist beyond what is finally left in the dam, but there has been not a word, despite the controlled actions which he has in writing, sitting somewhere in his archives. He has not complained that the Victorian government is moving forward ahead of schedule despite his controlled action conditions, which include making sure there is no further environmental degradation. Using fossil fuel at such a rate to pump the last of this water out of the Murray-Darling Basin from northern Victoria to Melbourne and Geelong, leaving this huge carbon footprint, surely is further environmental degradation. I call on Minister Garrett to stand up in this place and condemn the Victorian Labor government for that environmental vandalism.
Our own shadow minister for the environment has done his best to make the Victorian government, much less this federal government, see reason, but we have an election coming up in the state of Victoria next year and all Mr Brumby wants to do is stand up in this pipeline—a pipe so big that he can stand up in it—and refer to the wonders he has performed, rather than have Melbourne recycle its water, harvest stormwater or even use his desalination plant or perhaps build another dam in Gippsland. So we have this double obscenity: taking water that does not exist from food producers using energy generated through burning fossil fuels that should not be used for such a purpose.
Of course, what happens when you beggar the food producers in northern Victoria is that you render inefficient and virtually obsolete a gravity fed irrigation system which does not depend on fossil fuels to push the water around. It is a completely gravity fed system, which requires no energy and which was producing food through what was called the food bowl of Australia. It is an absolutely appalling situation when agriculture in our country is under threat not just from drought caused by climate change but because of policy settings that this government has put in place with absolutely no consideration of the costs which its CPRS legislation will impose and without giving agriculture any chance to use offsets to try and mitigate those additional costs.
We know the food-manufacturing sector is going to face extraordinary hardship if it is not given some special carbon emissions considerations in terms of how it manages the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions into the future. The food-manufacturing sector of Australia is extraordinary in its quality and in its world’s best practice. It has hugely reduced its consumption of energy over time but it is going to be facing, for example, competition from New Zealand, the United States and the EU, where the agribusiness sectors have been given special carbon emissions consideration. They have been given incentives, not simply a hit over the head with a blunt instrument. So we are seeing agriculture facing the onslaught of climate change in the shape of floods, fires and drought but being given no policy settings which will help it continue to feed the country.
I think we need our consumers, Australian men and women who go shopping, to start to ask themselves: do you really want to scan the shelves in the fresh food market section or the processed food section and find nothing that has been home grown? Today we met with representatives of the horticulture industry. They are in despair. They have tried to meet with the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister Julia Gillard, to explain that the new conditions that they are supposed to work under with workforce agreements or the new settings for penalty rates, weekend rates and so on are going to double their costs for employing labour. People from the food manufacturing sector have also been trying to meet Senator Penny Wong, the Minister for Climate Change and Water, to say, ‘Please, will you understand the impacts of not giving us certainty about our policy settings, not taking into consideration our export exposure and our energy intensive characteristics? Give us a chance to survive in the new world.’
As the dairy-manufacturing sector in particular reel under the impacts of prices below the cost of production brought about by global economic circumstances, and while they try to deal with the seventh year of drought in northern Victoria, it is just obscene to think that they cannot get time with the minister, Senator Penny Wong, to get her to focus on food manufacturing as needing special consideration and understanding. Food manufacturers need to be able to adopt alternative energy strategies. They need to be included in the future thinking and the short-term thinking about how they manage their emissions, but instead they are being told, ‘Wait around—by 2015 we might have come up with a good idea.’ That is not good enough. Let me tell you that the dairy industry alone employs 40,000 people and it is worth some $4 billion a year. How is it that the retail sector, the automotive sector and the textile and footwear sectors get a hearing? They can knock on the door and be admitted to the ministerial suites, but not agribusiness.
I find it quite extraordinary that people are so cynical about rural and regional populations. Today for the first time Minister Julia Gillard agreed to see face-to-face young rural people who have a serious problem with the independent youth allowance. They are the same people who are tomorrow’s food producers. They are the ones who will have to deal with the climate impacts of more heat in the north of Australia, more storms and more fires throughout Australia and they are being treated with contempt.
When we were in government, we in the coalition understood very well that there is not one renewable energy solution. We knew about solar and wind; they are fairly commonplace understandings. But we were also most keen to stimulate other, less common ways to generate alternative energy. They include things like tidal and geothermal energy and potentially some use of biofuels and algae. There are a whole range of these technologies and some of them are well advanced in our country. But the legislation that is being proposed by the Rudd Labor government does not have the breadth and intellectual rigour behind it that would stimulate a whole range of responses to our need to have different types of renewable energy in the future.
We have seen the debacle where some people thought that they were going to have some solar powered energy relief. In my electorate in particular they put up their hands. They thought they were all going to get grants to help them to get new solar panels installed. They wrote up their applications and went to their accountants. They were committed to solar energy. Then they were left in the lurch because they trusted the cut-off date for the applications that the government gave them. They thought they had so many days or weeks to get their applications in, but this government simply closed the date of application for the solar energy grants without warning. That has left a lot of people very cynical about this government’s real intentions. The axing of the solar rebate of $8,000 before the due date of 30 June has been a huge loss for individuals, as it had the potential to replace their fossil fuel derived energy costs. It has also enormously damaged this government’s reputation. They are not now taken seriously in the community because the community has been bitten too often. The solar panel industry itself has been caught out too often in trusting this government and imagining that it actually was credible—that it had some integrity when it came to using taxpayer funds to try and stimulate a particular type of technology response.
So I repeat: we, the coalition in government, understood renewables. We have grown up with them. We have grown up with windmills and with gravity fed irrigation systems that produce the food of the world and can keep on doing that. We know what to do. We are deeply concerned that in trying to couple this bill with the CPRS, political games are being played. But we do support an MRET. We particularly strongly support the concept of a 20 per cent renewable energy target. We will therefore continue to do our best to get an outcome which helps save this country and which ultimately contributes to the global response to reducing carbon emissions. We can do it if we work together. We just ask that you take this problem seriously, not as a political game.
8046
20:10:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—I rise to support the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and related bill. I will go into some detail in a moment as to why I support it, highlighting some of the aspects of this legislation. But first I must say I listened with great interest to the previous speaker’s contribution to this debate. I was interested to hear her say that those on the other side of this House understand renewables and that they know what to do. For a party—or parties—that know and understand renewables, their record is pretty damn deplorable. Renewables went backwards—note that: they went backwards—when they were in government. If they were serious, they would have done something in government. But they are the ones that understand renewables. They understand them so well that they actually went backwards under them when they were in government. ABARE figures show that renewables contributed 10.5 per cent of our electricity supply in 1997 compared to 9.95 per cent in 2007. There are the figures that demonstrate just how committed the opposition are to renewable energy. They give lip service. They are the sceptics on that side of the House and they are actually working to see that we do not have a strong renewable energy industry. It is interesting to note that in 2003 the Howard government’s own review recommended an increase in mandatory renewable energy targets above five per cent to ensure investment was not stifled. This was rejected time and time again.
The interim arrangements will set aside the link between a RET and CPRS legislation. We have decided that we will agree with the decoupling, and this will sever the link between the two pieces of legislation. Now that this link has been severed, I would expect the opposition to wholeheartedly support this legislation. I pointed out some of the flaws in the opposition’s approach to renewable energy—how their so-called commitment and knowledge of the renewable industry had benefited Australia to the extent that there had been a decline in the renewable energy sector. If you compare that to the Rudd government’s record of support for renewable energy, you will find that in 18 months this government has done more to support renewable energy and associated jobs than those in opposition did in 12 years.
00AMV
Hunt, Gregory, MP
Mr Hunt
—Provocation! Don’t provoke me. I’m a time bomb. I will go off.
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms HALL
—I know that the shadow minister for climate change, environment and water would be exceptionally disappointed by that because I think in his heart he is not one of the sceptics. He is one of the ones who would like to see his leader be a little bit stronger and support more of the legislation that we put through on this side of the parliament.
A 2009 Climate Institute study showed that $31 billion worth of clean energy projects are already underway or planned in response to the government’s climate change policies. One of those is in the region that I come from, the Hunter, and up there we know just how important that is. These projects will generate around 26,000 new jobs, mostly in regional areas like the area I represent in this parliament.
There are more solar panels going onto Australian roofs under the Rudd government than at any previous time. This government has funded more than 80,000 solar rebates since we came to government. How many do you think were funded during the coalition’s 12 years? They had around 10,500 installations of panels. That is 80,000 in 18 months versus 10,500 in 12 years. I think that demonstrates just how much those on the other side of this House understand renewables and just how committed they are to renewable energy and the renewable energy industry.
I also noticed that the previous speaker talked about the breadth and intellectual rigour that the opposition apply to looking at legislation. Well, I think that the Australian public and we in this parliament have seen how that intellectual rigour and that breadth operates, with slanging matches between members of the opposition—and it is not all in the party room; it takes to the airwaves and shows that there is much division. It also shows that the members of the opposition are more interested in arguing with each other about renewable energy and the CPRS than they are about formulating good, sound policy that is going to address the issue of climate change. And that is what this legislation does.
These bills will amend the legislation underpinning the current mandatory renewable energy target scheme to implement a design developed through the Council of Australian Governments for a national renewable energy target scheme that expands on the current scheme and includes a legislated target of 45,000 gigawatt hours in 2020. That is really significant. That is making a real impact. It is showing that the Rudd government is committed to renewable energy. It is showing that we take climate change seriously and we are about acting now. Since the Rudd government has come to power, our record in relation to climate change and renewable energy has been second to none.
The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 includes in it the clarification of the objects of the scheme; increased annual targets for renewable energy generation from 2010, including a target, as I have already mentioned, of 45,000 gigawatt hours in 2020, to be maintained until 2030; the implementation of a solar credit mechanism based on a renewable energy certificate multiplier for small-scale renewable energy, including solar photovoltaic, wind and microhydro systems; and a mandated review of the operation of the legislation and regulation underpinning the RET scheme in 2014. So it is not only about implementing the scheme; it is about reviewing it and ensuring that the scheme is working. It will provide for a partial legislative exemption from liability under the scheme in respect of emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities, and for the transition of existing and proposed state renewable energy target schemes. This scheme has been designed in cooperation with the states and territories through COAG, and it brings the renewable energy targets, and existing and proposed state schemes, into a single national scheme.
Once again, I see this as a contrast between the Rudd government and the Howard government. I think it shows why this legislation has been able to be developed, because the Rudd government has worked with the states to develop legislation for the whole of Australia whereas the Howard government worked against the states. It did not consult with the states. It tried to bully them into submission and blamed them if anything was not working.
What both ministers and the parliamentary secretary—and the minister at the table, Minister Combet, when he was Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change had a very influential role in the development of it and has continued in that role now that he is Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change—have developed here is world-class legislation. It is legislation that can be a model for the rest of the world—legislation that we in Australia can be proud of.
I commend the legislation to the House, and encourage the opposition to move their mindset, not even into the future—into 2009. I encourage them to accept the fact that climate change exists and accept the fact that we need to act now. They should accept the facts that this legislation is outstanding legislation and that under their administration nothing was done—all they had to contribute was to have the renewable energy sector going backwards—and acknowledge that under the Rudd government the renewable energy sector has thrived and this legislation will place Australia well into this century.
8048
20:22:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—in reply—Firstly, I thank all members of this House for their contributions and their efforts in contributing to the debate on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009. The Rudd Labor government is pursuing through this legislation a number of important changes as part of its efforts to combat the challenge of climate change. Principal amongst them is the establishment of a renewable energy target, such that 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply should be provided by renewable energy generation sources by the year 2020. That represents a fourfold increase in the renewable energy target and is expected to unlock, in partnership with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, up to $19 billion worth of investment in renewable energy.
The renewable energy scheme target which the government is establishing in the current legislative arrangements is based on a statutory target of 9,500 gigawatt hours to be achieved in 2010. The government is significantly expanding that target and establishing a target of 45,000 gigawatt hours from renewable energy sources by the year 2020. The expanded scheme will deliver on the government’s commitment that I outlined a moment ago, and that is to have 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply coming from renewable sources by 2020. As I said when I introduced the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 to the House some time ago, the bill will clarify the objectives of the renewable energy target scheme. It will increase annual targets for renewable energy generation from 2010 on a yearly basis, including the 45,000-gigawatt-hour target I mentioned a moment ago, which will be maintained from the year 2020 when it is achieved through to the year 2030.
The bill also implements a solar credits mechanism based on a renewable energy certificate multiplier for small-scale renewable energy including solar photovoltaic, wind and hydro systems. The bill also mandates a review of the operation of the legislation and the regulations underpinning the renewable energy target scheme in 2014. The bill also, importantly, provides for partial legislative exemptions from liability under the scheme in respect of some electricity-intensive activities. There is an amendment dealing with that issue that I will speak to in due course. The bill also provides for the transition of existing and proposed state renewable energy target schemes. On that front, the renewable energy target scheme has been designed in cooperation with the states and territories through the Council of Australian Governments and brings the mandatory renewable energy target and existing and proposed state schemes into a single national scheme. The legislation underpinning the current mandatory renewable energy target scheme comprises the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Act 2000 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Regulations 2001.
Under the principal act, wholesale purchasers of electricity are required to meet a share of the renewable energy target in proportion to their share of national wholesale electricity markets. The act provides for the creation of renewable energy certificates by generators of renewable energy. One renewable energy certificate represents one megawatt hour of electricity from eligible renewable energy sources. Installations of solar hot-water heaters and small generation units are able to generate renewable energy certificates under deeming arrangements prescribed in the regulations. Once registered, the RECs, as they are called, are able to be generally traded and sold to liable parties, who may surrender them to the renewable energy regulator to demonstrate their compliance under the scheme and avoid paying what is called the shortfall charge.
The Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Act 2000 sets the level of the shortfall charge for noncompliance. In relation to the charge act there is, of course, a related bill, to which I will also speak in summing up the debate, and that is the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009. That amendment bill increases the level of the shortfall charge under the renewable energy target scheme from $40 per megawatt hour to $65 per megawatt hour. The shortfall charge in effect encourages compliance with the renewable energy target scheme, as liable entities who do not meet their obligations to purchase renewable energy certificates will need to pay this charge. Increasing the shortfall charge to this level will act as an incentive for investment in renewable energy in order to meet the government’s significantly increased renewable energy targets. That presents something of the context concerning these bills and the work that is done by them.
I would like to briefly address a number of the specific comments and propositions that have been raised, in particular by those in the opposition, during the course of the debate. I will turn first to the renewable energy target and the interim arrangements that the government has announced in relation to the operation of the target and its relationship with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Yesterday the Minister for Climate Change and Water announced interim arrangements that will provide interim assistance under the renewable energy target until such time as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme passes the Senate. This is about providing certainty to the renewables sector in the face of the opposition’s failure to do what the government regards as the responsible thing, and that is to pass both the CPRS and the RET legislation. The RET interim arrangements represent a less than perfect way, in our construction of it, of tackling climate change and delivering assistance to industry. But it is a very necessary course of action, given the coalition’s opposition to the CPRS legislation and their decision to vote against it in the Senate.
The government decided—by way of providing some context to this issue—and the Council of Australian Governments agreed on 30 April this year to provide assistance under the RET to activities that are emissions intensive and trade exposed under the CPRS legislation. This was in recognition of the cumulative cost impact of the RET and the carbon price to be delivered by the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. However, the COAG agreement was made in the context of the CPRS legislation coming into force. The cost impact of the RET alone is small for most industries. But, in the absence of legislation implementing the CPRS, the scope and basis for assistance under the RET has had to be reconsidered by the government. The government, therefore, is proposing an amendment, which I will speak to, to allow for RET assistance to be provided to highly electricity- and emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities in the period before the CPRS legislation is in force. The government remains committed to providing assistance to all emissions-intensive trade-exposed areas to help manage the cumulative costs of the CPRS and the RET once both pieces of legislation pass the Senate.
A number of comments have also been made in relation to the aluminium industry. Those opposite have raised concerns about the impact of the renewable energy target on the aluminium industry and have suggested that the sector should receive more assistance by our providing a 90 per cent exemption for both the existing and the new renewable energy target obligations. The government does not intend to provide exemptions from the existing mandatory renewable energy target scheme, which has after all been in place since 2001—and under which all aluminium entities, like other sectors, have been bearing their share of the MRET liability. As assistance under the new renewable energy target only applies to the expanded portion of the target, all industry will continue to make a contribution to supporting the deployment of renewable energy. Having said that, the government is mindful of the position put forward by the aluminium industry and which is represented, I guess, by the coalition amendment; however, the government is unmoved by that and we adhere to the position advanced in the bill.
Thirdly, there have been a number of contributions in relation to waste coalmine gas. There were some foreshadowed amendments that I think are now not necessarily prosecuted by the opposition in relation to this issue—and it is an important issue. The government is also introducing an amendment today which recognises that the cessation of the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme, known as GGAS, once the CPRS commences to operate may impose a significant cost under the new arrangements on existing electricity generators using waste coalmine gas. Recognition of these existing generators in the legislation as proposed by the government is intended as a transitional measure to underpin the continued viability of projects that have already been committed and which are operating under GGAS. Over time, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will provide an increasing incentive in favour of low-emissions generation such as waste coalmine gas. To target this transitional support appropriately, eligibility is restricted to existing waste coalmine gas projects. It is time limited to the year 2020 and it includes caps on the amount of eligible generation for each year.
The government’s amendment clearly differentiates between waste coalmine gas and renewable energy sources and includes higher targets to ensure that no renewable energy is displaced—that is, that the energy from waste coalmine gas generation is additional to the renewable energy target. This will ensure that the 20 per cent target of renewable energy in Australia’s electricity mix is maintained and does have integrity. The amendment will also help meet the need to smooth the transition from GGAS to the CPRS for the waste coalmine gas sector. It is something about which there has been much interaction between the government and the generators in that area.
Issues have also been raised by the opposition in relation to the food-processing industry. What I can say in relation to that is that the government does not intend to provide a 90 per cent exemption for food processing. There is currently no emissions-intensive trade-exposed category of food processing. Indeed, food processing is a diverse range of activities with, of course, significantly different levels of exposure to electricity prices. The impact of the renewable energy target on entities carrying out food-processing activities such as dairy processing is expected to be modest, and it would be inappropriate, therefore, in the government’s view, for the renewable energy target assistance arrangements to be provided to businesses in the food-processing sector when there are other activities markedly more exposed or more sensitive to movements in electricity prices. Food-processing businesses may qualify for transitional assistance. I can add as an aside, though, that under the Climate Change Action Fund to implement new low-emission technologies and upon passage of the CPRS, which the government keenly anticipates, I would encourage such businesses to investigate those opportunities.
The next issue that has been raised by those opposite during the course of debate of these matters relates to what could be described as banding of the renewable energy target. It has been suggested that the renewable energy target should be banded to ensure the deployment of less-mature renewable technologies. The renewable energy target scheme encourages, however, the deployment of renewable energy, without picking winners, within the target range—that is, the mandated portion of electricity supply to come from renewable energy sources. The government has this view—that banding is undesirable within the overall target—because the expanded renewable energy target is in fact very large. It increases the current mandatory renewable energy target scheme, as I said, by over four times, from 9,500 gigawatt hours to 45,000 gigawatt hours by the year 2020, and it is held at that level until the year 2030. Modelling indicates that, due to the large size of the target, the renewable energy target will pull through a range of technologies, including wind, biomass, solar and geothermal energy. Part of the argument that has been advanced is that, because wind power is perhaps a more mature technology than something such as geothermal, wind power would crowd out the opportunities for investment in geothermal energy. The government, of course, will closely watch the operation of the renewable energy target, but we are not of the view that the situation demands that we should adopt a proposition to provide for specific bands for particular types of technologies within the overall RET target.
Over time, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will be the primary driver of renewable energy and will provide significant support over the next two decades in addition to the RET. The RET is complemented too by significant direct support for the development, commercialisation and deployment of emerging renewable technologies. For example, the government’s $4.5 billion Clean Energy Initiative announced as part of the 2009-10 budget includes $1.6 billion to support research and development of solar technologies as well as $465 million to establish the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy. In combination with the support under the RET, these policies will promote a diverse portfolio of renewable energy technologies.
Finally, issues have been raised in the debate about heat pumps. Heat pump water heaters draw renewable thermal energy from the atmosphere and so decrease consumption of fossil-fuel sourced energy. They are an eligible energy source under the mandatory renewable energy target. At its meeting of 30 April, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to examine further by the end of this year some of the eligibility provisions of the renewable energy target for heat pumps and new small-scale technologies that are not currently eligible under the renewable energy target. The government considers this the best process to consider the eligibility of heat pumps and new small-scale technologies.
I will conclude by making some further brief comments. The renewable energy target scheme is part of the government’s economically responsible approach to tackling climate change and moving towards a low-pollution future. It will drive significant investment, accelerating the deployment of a broad range of renewable energy technologies like wind, solar and geothermal power. Through a single national scheme for the first time, the renewable energy target will transform the electricity sector over time and it will ensure that 20 per cent of our electricity supply comes from renewable sources by the year 2020. It is an extremely important institutional change.
There are several things that the government is prosecuting in an endeavour to act firmly in dealing with the challenge of climate change. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is critical. It is the key mechanism by which we will go about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, by ensuring that a carbon price is imported into the economy. It will shift investment and it will work in close cooperation with the second major institutional change, which is represented in the bills before the House—that is, the establishment of the renewable energy target. The third set of components that the government is prosecuting is energy efficiency measures. We are investing a significant amount of funding in a whole host of energy efficient measures—for example, almost $4 million in the installation of household insulation. These measures are extremely important for Australia as a nation, and I commend this component of the government’s steps to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill and proposed amendments announced.
Consideration in Detail
8052
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
8052
20:41:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
0
Mr HUNT
—by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (13) together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit the table item, substitute:
3. Schedule 2
The day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.
(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 14), after item 3, insert:
3A At the end of section 21
Add:
(4) Certificates must only be created for the bona fide installation of a solar water heater intended to remain in its original configuration and location for the life of the unit.
(5) Certificates must only be created for the installation of a solar water heater having a volumetric capacity of not more than 700 litres.
(3) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 14), after item 7, insert:
7A After paragraph 39(3)(a)
Insert:
(aa) for a year after 2014 and before 2031—the required GWh of emerging renewable energy source electricity for the year; and
(4) Schedule 1, page 6 (before line 1), after item 8, insert:
8C At the end of Division 2 of Part 4
Add:
40A
Required GWh of emerging renewable energy source electricity
(1) The required GWh of emerging renewable energy source electricity for a year is set out in the following table:
Required GWh of emerging renewable energy source electricity
Year
GWh
2015
1375
2016
2875
2017
4375
2018
5875
2019
7375
2020
8875
2021
8875
2022
8875
2023
8875
2024
8875
2025
8875
2026
8875
2027
8875
2028
8875
2029
8875
2030
8875
(2) The required GWh of emerging renewable energy source electricity for a year specified in subsection (1) is a component of the required GWh of renewable source electricity for that year specified in subsection 40(1).
(3) The following table sets out the emerging baseload technologies and their features that qualify as providing emerging renewable energy source electricity for the purposes of subsection (1):
Type of technology
Features
Solar thermal energy or Solar concentrator energy
·
evacuated‑tube collectors
Geothermal energy
·
flash steam power plants
Ocean thermal energy
·
closed cycle electricity conversion systems
Tidal energy
Wave energy conversion systems:
·
channel systems
Biofuels
·
bioethanol
Biopower (or Biomass power)
·
direct‑fired biopower plants
(4) The regulations may provide for additional emerging baseload technologies to be added to the table in subsection (3).
(5) A generation unit for a technology listed in subsection (3) must be 1 MW capacity or greater to qualify as emerging baseload capacity capable of providing emerging renewable energy source electricity for the purposes of subsection (1).
(6) The regulations must make provision for the inclusion of emerging renewable energy source electricity in relation to:
(a) the acquisition of electricity by a liable entity;
(b) the creation and transfer of certificates;
(c) the calculation of the renewable power percentage for a year;
(d) the required renewable energy of a liable entity for a year;
(e) the surrender of certificates by a liable entity for a year
(f) the renewable energy certificate shortfall of a liable entity for a year.
(5) Schedule 2, item 2, page 7 (lines 14 to 16), omit the definition of emission‑intensive trade‑exposed activity, substitute:
emission‑intensive trade‑exposed activity means an activity that is taken to be an emission‑intensive trade‑exposed activity under the regulations.
(6) Schedule 2, item 3, page 7 (lines 17 to 21), omit the item.
(7) Schedule 2, item 8, page 8 (after line 15), after section 38A, insert:
38AA
Regulations in relation to emissions‑intensive trade‑exposed activities
(1) The regulations must determine the activities that are emissions‑intensive trade‑exposed activities for the purpose of a liable entity receiving a partial exemption for a year that is used in working out the liable entity’s renewable energy certificate shortfall for that year under section 38.
(2) Regulations made for the purpose of subsection (1) must commence on or before 1 January 2010, which must be after the end of the disallowance period for the regulations (subject to section 42 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003).
(3) In this section:
disallowance period for regulations means the period:
(a) beginning on the earliest day on which the regulations are laid before a House of the Parliament in accordance with section 38 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003; and
(b) ending on the day on which 15 sitting days of each House of the Parliament have passed since the regulations were laid before the particular House of the Parliament.
(8) Schedule 2, item 8, page 8 (line 17), section 38B, omit “The”, substitute “(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the”.
(9) Schedule 2, item 8, page 8 (after line 22), at the end of section 38B, add:
(2) If the aluminium production industry is determined to be an emissions‑intensive trade‑exposed activity in regulations made under subsection 38AA(1), the partial exemption of an aluminium producer is to be calculated to be equal to 90% of the producer’s total acquisition of electricity during the relevant year.
(10) Schedule 2, item 8, page 8 (after line 22), at the end of section 38B, add:
(3) Regulations made under subsection 38AA(1) must determine a food processing activity, to the extent that it is trade‑exposed, to be an emissions‑intensive trade‑exposed activity. The partial exemption of an emissions‑intensive trade-exposed food processing activity for 2010 and any later year is to be calculated to be equal to 90% of the additional renewable source electricity acquisition obligation of the activity during the relevant year.
(4) In subsection (3):
additional renewable source electricity acquisition obligation means the amount of renewable source electricity that the activity is required to acquire under this Act after the commencement of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Act 2009 in addition to the amount of renewable source electricity that the activity was required to acquire under this Act before the commencement of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Act 2009.
(11) Schedule 2, item 8, page 8, (line 23), omit “Authority’s”, substitute “Regulator’s”.
(12) Schedule 2, item 8, page 8 (line 23) to page 9 (line 9), omit “Authority” (wherever occurring), substitute “Regulator”.
(13) Schedule 2, item 14, page 10 (line 11) to page 11 (line 29), omit “Authority” (wherever occurring), substitute “Regulator”.
The coalition clearly and strongly supports the passage of a 20 per cent renewable energy target for Australia. We believe in the vision of solar, geothermal, wave, tidal, wind and other emerging technologies. We also believe that it is possible to improve this legislation, so for that reason we propose six amendments today. One of those amendments in relation to the renewable gas source, otherwise known as waste coalmine gas, has in large part been met by the government. We accept those changes, and I will speak to the government’s amendment in particular. We thank them for that consideration and we therefore withdraw our amendment. We believe that more could be done, but that will be for discussion between the industry and the government. We will support the industry in that. Today we have guaranteed a future for 400 jobs and we have guaranteed the beginning of the saving of 90 million tonnes of CO2.
There are five other remaining amendments which are encompassed within this package. Firstly, we seek a full and complete decoupling of the energy intensive sector from the emissions trading scheme. I believe that there may have been some in good faith misunderstanding in negotiations that the government may well be willing to consider. I advocate very strongly that what we have presented is critical to our support of this bill. What we propose is very simple—that the decoupling process ensures that all recognised emissions-intensive trade-exposed sectors are covered under the renewable energy legislation, under either the 90 per cent or the 60 per cent exemption category, but that the date on which that coverage will be provided will not be tied or coupled in any way to the emissions trading scheme and that the commencement will not be linked but will begin on 1 January. So there will be no trigger from the CPRS and no delay in commencement. If that is met, it will go a very large way to meeting the concerns of the opposition. I commend these amendments most strongly to the government and I stress how important they are. Otherwise, key sectors will remain uncovered and there will be a significant risk. If this amendment is passed then we can make real progress in getting the legislation passed over the next few days.
The second of our outstanding amendments is in relation to aluminium. What we seek is very simple. We seek to ensure that the 35½ thousand gigawatt hours of new energy carries with it a 90 per cent exemption for the aluminium sector, because it is perhaps the most energy-intensive and trade-exposed sector of all. Because the margins are thin, those jobs could pass. We also seek to ensure that the first 9½ thousand gigawatt hours, because of changes in world circumstances and because of the threat of what might happen in other conditions, will now be covered. This is also very significant to us. These concerns in relation to the aluminium sector must be underlined as being extremely important. I note, however, that we have had good-faith discussions. I thank both the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, and the minister assisting the minister. We are making progress on these issues.
Food processing is also an extremely important issue. We want to see progress which will guarantee security for the food processing sector. In addition—I will speak more about this in the second round of discussions—we wish to ensure that a loophole in relation to the heat pump sector is dealt with. We see that there is the multiplication of units and that they are effectively being given away under a subsidy which was never intended. It began under us, it has been distorted during the current year and now it is time to close that loophole. The last area is in relation to emerging technologies. We are deeply concerned about a crowding-out effect. I will address that in more detail in the coming five-minute period. Very simply, we want to see that there is banding— (Time expired)
8056
20:47:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—I respect that the shadow minister has some further submissions to make in relation to the amendments which he has moved and will respect that in the forthcoming five-minute contributions. I speak to a number of the issues that the shadow minister has raised in support of the amendments that the opposition has moved. Firstly, there is the relationship between the renewable energy target and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the so-called issue of decoupling the two pieces of legislation. Yesterday, as I remarked before, the Minister for Climate Change and Water announced interim arrangements that will set aside the link between the renewable energy target and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation until such time as the CPRS passes the Senate. The government decided and the Coalition of Australian Governments agreed on 30 April this year to provide assistance under the renewable energy target to activities that are emissions-intensive and trade-exposed under the CPRS legislation.
That was a position that was consistent with the arguments of the industries that are emissions-intensive and trade-exposed, because they wished to see consistent application of the regime between both pieces of legislation. The government respected that. COAG respected it and also recognised the cumulative cost impact of the renewable energy target and the carbon price to be delivered by the CPRS. However, the Coalition of Australian Governments agreement was made in the context of the CPRS legislation coming into force. As I remarked earlier, the cost impact of the renewable energy target alone is certainly small for most industries. In the absence of legislation implementing the CPRS—at this point in time, at least—the scope and basis for assistance under the renewable energy target has had to be reconsidered by the government because of our commitment to the passage of the renewable energy legislation. It is fundamentally important to ensure that it pass in order to unlock the significant investment that will be made in renewable energy sources. The government does not support the amendment that has been moved by the opposition in relation to this decoupling, as it provides assistance to all emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries, not just those that are electricity-intensive.
As the shadow minister has indicated, the government has had good-faith discussions with the opposition in relation to this issue, but at this point in time I think it is also evident that the government is unmoved by the submissions that have been made to it by the opposition. Discussions will continue in this respect; however, the renewable energy target assistance, in the absence of the CPRS, should, in the government’s view, be targeted to highly electricity-intensive emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities in the period before the CPRS legislation is in force. The government remains committed to providing assistance to all of the so-called EITE industries to help manage the cumulative costs of the CPRS and the renewable energy target once both pieces of legislation are in force.
The shadow minister has also moved an amendment concerning the aluminium industry. As I foreshadowed in my second reading summation, the government does not support this amendment. The opposition amendment would give the aluminium sector more assistance by providing a 90 per cent exemption for both the existing mandatory renewable energy target—the 9,500 gigawatt hour MRET that is to operate in 2010—and the new renewable energy target obligations. The government, on this point, has been clear from the outset that its intention is not to provide exemptions from the existing mandatory renewable energy target scheme, which has, after all, been in place since 2001 and under which all aluminium entities, like other sectors, have been bearing their share of the mandatory renewable energy target liability. As assistance under the renewable energy target only applies to the expanded portion of the target, all industries will make a contribution to supporting the deployment of renewable energy. I will address the remaining opposition amendments as time permits.
8057
20:52:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
0
Mr HUNT
—The final amendment I turn to concerns the reservation of a portion of one-quarter of the new renewable energy certificates to be generated for the emerging technologies. These are the great technologies of solar thermal, solar concentrators, geothermal, ocean, tidal and biomass. These different forms of energy are the energy sources of the future. We have a deep and legitimate concern, backed by groups such as the WWF and the Geothermal Association, that the way in which this target is currently designed and will operate will crowd out these great visions of clean energy for the future. Therefore, this amendment seeks to achieve a target of 8,875 gigawatt hours by 2020, or exactly one-quarter of the 35,500 gigawatt hours of additional energy contained in this bill as the new and additional renewable energy target. We seek to ensure that that quarter—that 25 per cent or that 8,875 gigawatt hours of energy—is reserved for the emerging technologies. We would begin this in 2015 and ensure that 1,375 gigawatt hours are reserved and that each year thereafter an additional 1,500 gigawatt hours are reserved for the great technologies of the future. Solar thermal, solar concentrators, geothermal, ocean and tidal are the great energy sources which we wish to promote. We believe that there is a risk to them within this bill and we seek in good faith to present these amendments.
Let me just say this: negotiations are proceeding on the amendments all up in good faith. We thank the government for the two concessions they have made. We believe that they are important concessions and go some way towards ensuring passage of this bill. We want passage of this bill through the House. There are critical elements on which we are still to agree and critical elements which will determine the final position in the Senate. But there has been good faith today. There has been a resolution of the waste coalmine gas issue, and we believe there is the ground for significant progress on the other issues. There has been progress but not completion of the decoupling issue.
I thank the government for their engagement. I note that there are still fundamental critical concerns which need to be addressed in relation to emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries, the aluminium sector, heat pumps, food processing and the reservation of a portion of the new renewable energy for the great emerging sectors of solar thermal, solar concentrators, geothermal energy, ocean energy and tidal energy. I hope that we can have these amendments passed tonight and that we can work in good faith and continue the work of today and the weekend with the government. I commend the amendments to the House.
8058
20:55:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—I continue my remarks in responding to the amendments that have been moved by the shadow minister, and appreciate the observations that he has made about the efforts on behalf of the government in trying to address the issues that have been raised. However, regrettably, I must report that the government do not support any of the amendments that have been proposed by the opposition. I seek to make some further comments in relation to the food-processing industry, which is also the subject of one of the amendments advanced by the shadow minister. As I said, the government do not support this specific amendment and, as I think I mentioned earlier in the second reading summation, there is currently no emissions-intensive trade-exposed category for food processing.
This issue in this industry has been identified, I imagine, for particular reasons by the opposition, but it does not appear to be supported on some evidentiary basis that distinguishes the industry in respect of the potential cost of meeting the expanded renewable energy target. Indeed, food processing itself is a very diverse activity within the economy and can include anything from the processing of dairy products to canned foods, and a whole host of other fast-food processing activities. It would be very difficult to define for the purposes of prosecuting an amendment as advanced by the opposition. There are, as a consequence of the diversity of the manufacturing processes engaged across the food-processing industry generally, some things in relation to which I have had some exposure in some of my previous work over the years, significantly different levels of exposure within the sector to electricity prices—that is, due to the different levels of consumption there are quite significantly varying levels of sensitivities to movements in electricity prices.
The impact of the renewable energy target on entities carrying out food-processing activities such as dairy processing is expected to be quite modest, in the government’s view and on the basis of the work that has been done. It would be inappropriate in the government’s view for renewable energy targeted assistance to be provided to businesses in the food-processing sector where there are other activities markedly more exposed to electricity prices. In approaching an issue such as this, consistency of application of the arrangements is absolutely critical to ensure that all industries and businesses are dealt with in an equitable way under the legislation. Food-processing businesses may qualify for transitional assistance, as I indicated earlier, under the Climate Change Action Fund in their implementation of new low-emission technologies. Of course, that is the avenue for entities within the food-processing sector, if they are substantial consumers of electricity, to look to once the legislation becomes operative.
The opposition also advanced an amendment, which the government also does not support, which suggests that the renewable energy target should be banded to ensure the deployment of less mature renewable technologies. The RET scheme encourages the deployment of renewable energy without, as I said before, picking winners within the mandated part of the electricity market that this legislation would entail.
As I said before, the expanded bounded renewable energy target is quite significant. It increases the current MRET scheme target by over four times, from 9,500 gigawatt hours to 45,000 gigawatt hours, by the year 2020. Modelling indicates that, due to the large size of the target, the RET will pull through a range of technologies including wind, biomass, solar and geothermal energy. In the area of geothermal energy, one of the barriers to investment has been the assumed distance of the potential resources for geothermal power generation from existing electricity grid infrastructure. Just recently in the region in which I reside, and where my electorate is located, a potentially significant geothermal field has been progressively discovered within the Hunter Valley, which is in the approximate location of the New South Wales electricity grid. That may well of itself change the investment calculus for geothermal energy. (Time expired)
8059
21:00:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
1
0
Mr HAYES
—At this stage of the evening in debating the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009 I would like to congratulate the government on their position on waste coalmine gas. As I explained earlier this evening, I have for some time had an association with Energy Developments Ltd. As a matter of fact, I worked for that organisation. I happen to know not only the extent of their operations and how much processing of coal seam methane activity in and about coalmines the company undertook but importantly the amount of CO2 greenhouse gas abatement that occurred. Sixty-five per cent of the electricity generated by Energy Developments came from landfill gas or coalmine gas. These gases produce methane, which is a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than CO2. But, when we talk about coal seam methane gas, the original project I worked on with Energy Developments was at Appin-Tower mine—which is slightly out of my existing electorate near Appin, about 15 kilometres south of my electorate—which produces 97 megawatts of continuous power that is fed into the grid. Importantly, that mine alone abates over two million tonnes of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas emissions each year.
Another mine at German Creek in Queensland, at which I also had the opportunity to work, is operated by Anglo Coal. At that mine EDL produces 32 megawatts of continuous power but, importantly, abates 800,000 tonnes of CO2 greenhouse gas equivalent each year. They are huge numbers and that is just two mines. A third mine—I cannot say that I worked at this one but I am aware the figures—is at Moranbah in North Queensland, which is abating 500 tonnes of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases per year and produces 45 megawatts of continuous power into the grid. These are very good figures for the abatement of gases which would otherwise have been fugitive gases from coalmine production. These gases are actually being used to generate electricity which is now being put directly into our national grid.
The amendments the government has now introduced ensure that those figures will be addressed in the ongoing application of the RET system. I understand that they will not go into the calculation of the 20 per cent requirement for 2020. These organisations—and this is the important thing—raise their capital in the share market and they need the financial incentive to invest, to innovate and to develop these technologies. These companies—and it is not just Energy Developments but other organisations similar to Energy Developments—will use these provisions to be able to generate incentives to invest in the development of these technologies and are doing well in respect of the CO2 equivalent gases that they abate. If the government had not picked up these amendments and enacted these amendments of their own volition, these companies, these coalmines, would simply have flared these gases to atmosphere, which would have caused untold damage. Consequently, the government needs to be congratulated.
Question put:
That the amendments (Mr Hunt’s) be agreed to.
21:10:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms S Bird)
60
AYES
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Forrest, J.A.
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E. *
Hunt, G.A.
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A. *
Katter, R.C.
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
Markus, L.E.
Mirabella, S.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Pyne, C.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
73
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Kelly, M.J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
O’Connor, B.P.
Oakeshott, R.J.M.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Swan, W.M.
Symon, M.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Vamvakinou, M.
Zappia, A.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
8060
21:15:00
Oakeshott, Rob, MP
IYS
Lyne
IND
0
0
Mr OAKESHOTT
—by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 4), omit ‘The Minister must cause an’, substitute ‘An’.
(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (lines 10 and 11), omit ‘the Minister’s opinion’, substitute ‘the opinion of the Independent Climate Change Authority’.
(3) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 13), before ‘Minister’, insert ‘Independent Climate Change Authority and the’.
(4) Schedule 3, item 3, page 15 (line 15), omit ‘Australian’, substitute ‘Independent’.
For the interest of all members in the chamber, I will not be moving for a division, so everyone can go about their business. It is because I think in the next 4½ minutes I will win this argument and convince the government of the merits of the amendments! But if I do not then it is to again make a point that I have made consistently through the suite of legislation under the general CPRS banner via amendments. That point is that our role in the delivery of a market based response to the natural resource management question of our time should be as framework makers, and then we should let it go and be at arm’s length from the process in the future to let it establish a sense of—dare I say it—independence in a lot of the delivery of the market indicators on many of the principles and concepts that are evolving from this suite of legislation.
The point is being made again, via this renewable energy amendment bill, that we are seeing once again the centralisation of power. In the future, in some of the key decision-making issues around some of these principles and concepts, power will sit fairly and squarely in the hands of the minister and the executive. If we are going to talk about building a good investment environment in the future, trying to get genuine engagement with the community and letting the market rip in what is a market based response to these natural resource questions, then I would once again urge the government to consider some time in the future, if not now, the establishment of that independent authority to oversee some of the issues, principles, concepts and finer details of the market framework.
The response that I have previously had from the minister on duty in the chair, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, is that the government believe this issue is so important that it should have parliamentary scrutiny. I philosophically disagree. We could argue the same about interest rates. I would hope that we all believe interest rates and monetary policy in this country are incredibly important. However, we do not therefore give it parliamentary scrutiny. What we do is give it arm’s-length independence from the parliament so that we do have certainty and so that some of those hard decisions can be made in the greater public interest. This is no different. There will be tough medicine in some of this suite of legislation going through, and no-one who is involved in the political process—by our very nature we are populists—will want to deliver that tough medicine. So it is as much in the government’s interest as it is in the public interest that there be a sense of independence and a sense of being at arm’s length from the political processes so that we do let the science fly.
What we have seen over the last fortnight is a political mosh pit. We have seen and continue to see political rather than science reasons for decisions taken in what should be about the science of climate change and not the politics of climate change. If we do not see this establishment sometime in the near future, if not now, I am concerned that we will see the science of climate change by election cycle, by vested interests and by political donor. That is not a system of good government and it would not deliver on what is, as I say, the natural resource management question of our time.
If they are serious about this, I would ask the government, if they cannot consider it now through these amendments, to consider it at some point in the future. Governments will change; there will be different ministers in the chair. This is as much to protect the work that is being done now and delivering it for the future as it is about delivering good public policy for today. I would encourage the government to consider this amendment.
I might also make a point about the Greens amendment to this legislation, which will be discussed in the other place. It is exactly in line with the private member’s bill that we will see tomorrow. I will be interested in everyone’s response to that one as well. (Time expired)
8062
21:21:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—I thank the member for Lyne for his diligence in pursuing this amendment. He is certainly extremely consistent on this theme. I am endeavouring to come to grips with his imagery about a political mosh pit; it is a theme that I am sure can be developed. However, as respectful as the government is in relation to the contribution by the member for Lyne concerning the amendments, the government does not support the amendments he has proposed—and the government does not support them because they suggest that the regulator would have the power to initiate the review, which is the subject of this issue, and also approve the qualifications of the person to conduct the review and to receive the report. That is not, in the government’s view, an appropriate role for the regulator.
The government’s bill provides, alternatively, that the review is required to be independent and to provide a report for the government’s consideration. The review is, however, a review of government policy approaches to achieving the government’s policy objective of accelerating the deployment of renewable energy to ensure that 20 per cent of electricity supply comes from renewable sources by the year 2020. As the minister has policy responsibility for the effective operation of the renewable energy target, it is appropriate in the government’s view for the minister to initiate the review and select the person who will undertake these functions. Having said that, I move:
That the question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Original question negatived.
8062
21:23:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum and move government amendments (1) to (20) on sheet CA209:
(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 11), after item 2, insert:
2A Subsection 5(1)
Insert:
2008 WCMG limit has the meaning given by section 14.
2B Subsection 5(1)
Insert:
eligible energy sources means:
(a) eligible renewable energy sources; or
(b) eligible WCMG.
2C Subsection 5(1)
Insert:
eligible WCMG has the meaning given by section 17A.
(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 14), after item 3, insert:
3A Section 8
Omit “eligible renewable energy sources”, substitute “eligible energy sources”.
(3) Schedule 1, page 4, after proposed item 3A, insert:
3B Paragraph 12A(2)(c)
Omit “eligible renewable energy sources”, substitute “eligible energy sources”.
(4) Schedule 1, page 4, after proposed item 3B, insert:
3C Subparagraph 13(2)(ba)(i)
Omit “eligible renewable energy sources”, substitute “eligible energy sources”.
3D After subsection 13(2)
Insert:
(2A) An application that lists eligible WCMG as an eligible energy source from which power is intended to be generated cannot be made after 30 June 2010.
(5) Schedule 1, page 4, after proposed item 3D, insert:
3E Paragraph 14(2)(a)
Omit “eligible renewable energy source”, substitute “eligible energy source”.
3F Paragraph 14(3)(b)
Omit “eligible renewable energy sources”, substitute “eligible energy sources”.
3G After paragraph 14(3)(b)
Insert:
; and (c) if some or all of the power generated by the power station is generated from eligible WCMG—the 2008 WCMG limit for the power station.
3H Subsection 14(3) (note)
After “baseline”, insert “or the 2008 WCMG limit”.
3J Subsection 14(4)
Omit “and (3)(a)”, substitute “, (3)(a) and (3)(c)”.
(6) Schedule 1, page 4, after proposed item 3J, insert:
3K Subsection 15A(1)
Omit “The”, substitute “Subject to subsection (3), the”.
Note: The following heading to subsection 15A(1) is inserted “General rule”.
3L At the end of section 15A
Add:
Applications that list eligible WCMG as an eligible energy source
(3) If an application that is properly made under section 13 lists eligible WCMG as an eligible energy source from which power is intended to be generated, the Regulator must decide the application on or before 31 December 2010.
(4) If the Regulator does not decide the application on or before that day, the Regulator is taken, on the following day, to have made a decision under section 15 refusing the application.
(7) Schedule 1, page 4, after proposed item 3L, insert:
3M At the end of Division 3 of Part 2
Add:
17A
What is
eligible WCMG
?
(1) Waste coal mine gas is eligible WCMG if:
(a) the waste coal mine gas is used in the generation of electricity by a power station in the period:
(i) starting on 1 July 2011, or if a different date is prescribed by the regulations, starting on that different date; and
(ii) ending on 31 December 2020; and
(b) either:
(i) the power station was generating electricity from waste coal mine gas at any time in May 2009; or
(ii) if subparagraph (i) does not apply—the power station had generated electricity from waste coal mine gas before May 2009, and, as at the end of May 2009, the owner or operator of the power station has a plan for the power station to resume generating electricity from waste coal mine gas before the end of September 2009.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, the regulations may provide that waste coal mine gas has the meaning prescribed by the regulations.
(3) For the purposes of this Act, the regulations may prescribe limitations (in addition to those in subsection (1)) that apply in order for waste coal mine gas to be eligible WCMG.
(8) Schedule 1, page 4, after proposed item 3M, insert:
3N Paragraph 18(4)(a)
Omit “eligible renewable energy sources”, substitute “eligible energy sources”.
3P At the end of subsection 18(4)
Add:
; or (c) to the extent that the electricity was generated from eligible WCMG and is in excess of the accredited power station’s 2008 WCMG limit.
(9) Schedule 1, page 4, after proposed item 3P, insert:
3Q Paragraph 20(2)(b)
Omit “eligible renewable energy sources”, substitute “eligible energy sources”.
(10) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 14), after item 7, insert:
7A Paragraph 25(2)(ca)
Omit “eligible renewable energy source”, substitute “eligible energy source”.
(11) Schedule 1, page 5, after proposed item 7A, insert:
7B Paragraph 25A(2)(f)
Omit “eligible renewable energy source”, substitute “eligible energy source”.
(12) Schedule 1, page 5, after proposed item 7B, insert:
7C Paragraph 30D(3)(a)
Omit “eligible renewable energy source”, substitute “eligible energy source”.
(13) Schedule 1, page 5, after proposed item 7C, insert:
7D Division 12 of Part 2 (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
Division 12
—
Varying 1997 eligible renewable power baselines and 2008 WCMG limits
(14) Schedule 1, page 5, after proposed item 7D, insert:
7E At the end of Division 12 of Part 2
Add:
30G
Varying 2008 WCMG limits
(1) The Regulator may, by written determination, vary the 2008 WCMG limit for an accredited power station.
(2) The Regulator must make a determination in accordance with guidelines prescribed in the regulations.
Increase in limit
(3) If a determination increases the 2008 WCMG limit for an accredited power station, the determination has effect for the year or years specified in the determination.
Decrease in limit
(4) If a determination decreases the 2008 WCMG limit for an accredited power station, the determination has effect only for the years following the year in which the determination is made.
(15) Schedule 1, item 8, pages 5 to 6 (table), omit the table, substitute:
2010
12500
2011
14825
2012
17150
2013
19050
2014
20950
2015
22850
2016
27450
2017
32050
2018
36650
2019
41250
2020
45850
2021
45000
2022
45000
2023
45000
2024
45000
2025
45000
2026
45000
2027
45000
2028
45000
2029
45000
2030
45000
(16) Schedule 1, page 6 (before line 1), before item 9, insert:
8A Subsection 66(1) (after table item 5D)
Insert:
5DA
to vary the 2008 WCMG limit for an accredited power station
section 30G
the nominated person for the power station
(17) Schedule 1, page 6, after proposed item 8A, insert:
8B After paragraph 138(ca)
Insert:
(cb) for each power station for which there is a 2008 WCMG limit—the limit (including any variation of that limit under section 30G); and
(18) Schedule 1, page 6, after proposed item 8B, insert:
8C Paragraph 140(da)
Omit “eligible renewable energy source”, substitute “eligible energy source”.
(19) Schedule 1, page 6, after proposed item 8C, insert:
8D Paragraph 141A(c)
Omit “eligible renewable energy source”, substitute “eligible energy source”.
(20) Schedule 1, page 6, after proposed item 8D, insert:
8E Paragraph 160(2)(b)
Omit “eligible renewable energy sources”, substitute “eligible energy sources”.
The additional supplementary memorandum concerns an amendment that will enable existing power stations using waste coalmine gas as a fuel source to participate in the renewable energy target scheme for a specified period. As I indicated in the second reading summing up, the cessation of the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme, known as GGAS, may impose a significant cost on existing electricity generators using waste coalmine gas. Affected entities have indicated that currently profitable projects could be forced to close under these changes. Inclusion of these existing generators under the Renewable Energy Target scheme is intended as a transitional measure to underpin the continued viability of projects that have already been committed.
Over time the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the CPRS, will provide an increasing incentive in favour of low-emissions generation such as waste coalmine gas. To provide this transitional support the amendment restricts eligibility to existing waste coalmine gas fuelled power stations and limits the period over which generation from these power stations will be eligible to create tradeable renewable energy certificates, or RECs. This period is to begin on 1 July 2011 and to end on 31 December 2020. The case for extending eligibility beyond 2020, and thereby allowing new projects, is not, in the government’s view, strong; and the measure is not appropriate.
A carbon price under the CPRS will provide an increasing incentive in favour of low-emissions generation, including waste coalmine gas. The CPRS will also provide a strong incentive to reduce fugitive emissions to reduce the CPRS liability. The amendments also impose annual caps on the amount of generation for which each eligible waste coalmine gas fuelled power station can claim RECs. Each power station’s cap, called the 2008 waste coalmine gas limit, will be set by the RET scheme regulator. The annual eligibility cap is to be based on the power station’s generation from waste coalmine gas in 2008, with adjustment for unusual factors such as plant outages and taking into account 1997 generation baselines set under the RET scheme for power stations which commenced operation prior to 1 January 1997. Waste coalmine gas is not a renewable energy source and is not intended to contribute to the 20 per cent target for renewables in 2020.
To clearly differentiate waste coalmine gas from renewable energy sources, the amendments create a new concept of an eligible energy source that comprises the current list of eligible renewable energy sources and separately eligible waste coalmine gas. To ensure the inclusion of waste coalmine gas under the renewable energy target does not crowd out renewable energy generation, these amendments increases annual targets under the expanded RET scheme for the years 2011 to 2020 to account for the amount of eligible waste coalmine gas fuel generation in these years. Specifically, the target for 2011 has been increased by 425 gigawatt hours to account for the half year of eligible generation and the annual targets for 2012 to 2020 have each been increased by 850 gigwatt hours.
To ensure that no renewable energy is displaced, total eligible waste coalmine gas generation will not exceed 425 gigawatt hours in 2011 or 850 gigawatt hours for the years 2012 to 2020. That is equal to the amount by which the annual targets are increased under the RET. Increasing the targets will ensure the government is able to deliver on its commitment to achieve 20 per cent of renewable energy in Australia’s electricity mix by 2020 while meeting the need for transitional assistance for the waste coalmine gas generation sector.
These provisions are to commence, subject of course to passage through parliament, on the day on which the act receives royal assent. I commend these particular amendments concerning this issue to the House. This is a matter in which I have had extensive personal experience in my capacity in the portfolio. These are important amendments to be made and I commend them to the House.
8066
21:28:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
0
Mr HUNT
—The opposition will be accepting these amendments. We appreciate the fact that the government has listened to the quite extensive representations which we have made over the previous months. We have in fact asked questions about this issue. Australian companies Envirogen and Energy Developments did have their future at risk. Today’s decision is not perfect, but what it does is this: it includes waste coalmine gas under the renewable energy legislation, it guarantees that existing operations and existing jobs in the hundreds will be saved and it makes a significant step towards achieving the 90 million tonnes of savings which can be made from waste coalmine gas if it is captured, flared and used to generate electricity, so as to offset the need for the fossil fuel production of energy.
Therefore, I make these comments in relation to these amendments. First, we believe that the principle of including waste coalmine gas under the renewable energy legislation is sound. Second, we accept the decision of the government to increase the total target so as to accommodate the waste coalmine gas sector. We think that that was a sensible and prudent action. I understand it may have been necessary to meet some of their political requirements, but we have no opposition to it.
Third, we will not oppose this, but we do have some concerns and we implore the government to have these discussions with the companies involved. We think that the year 2030 would be a better year than 2020. Some of the renewables investment made by the relevant waste coalmine gas companies, Envirogen and Energy Developments, is predicated on a 2030 date. It will cost the government no more. It will make no difference in terms of dollars and it will make no difference to the cap. I would simply extend those figures until 2030 and I would ask that the government enter into negotiation with the companies. Our job was to secure the future for those companies to make sure that existing renewable energy jobs were not lost, and we have done that. It has been a difficult fight. We are happy. We have more to do on other issues but we are happy that waste coalmine gas is in the system in the way it is in New South Wales, as it is in Germany, as it is in the United States. So the principle has been established.
In government, we would move to make sure that additional space was made and that the period for these investments was extended until 2030. However, the government of this day have not done that. We urge them therefore to, firstly, consider extending the period in which existing waste coalmine gas projects are eligible from 2020 until 2030. Secondly, we urge them to enter into discussions with the waste coalmine gas energy providers about extending the range of activities beyond those which are currently in existence to those which may be in existence. There may need to be a separate mechanism. There may need to be an additional component, but we believe that that should happen. On this day, however, there has been a significant victory for the waste coalmine gas sector.
I acknowledge the work of the two companies involved. They were concerned about rural jobs; they were concerned about 90 million tonnes of emissions. Now we need to broaden what they want on two fronts, but that is a debate for another day and for the government to deal with the companies directly. But, as I say, we would urge the government, firstly, to extend the date for inclusion from 2020 to 2030 and, secondly, to seek a mechanism which would allow for new developments and new investment. Nevertheless, we regard this as a victory for common sense. I thank the minister for his work and I thank Senator Wong for her work. We will be supporting these amendments.
8067
21:33:00
Oakeshott, Rob, MP
IYS
Lyne
IND
0
0
Mr OAKESHOTT
—I will be brief. I only want to raise concerns that I do not think this is common sense. Probably the one thing about common sense is that it is not very common, because this is the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and what I have just heard from the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change is that waste coalmine gas, WCMG, which is being introduced as part of this amendment, is not a renewable energy source. So here we have the title of a bill—the renewable energy amendment bill—and we have an admission that an amendment is introducing an energy source that is not renewable, yet it is going to form part of renewable energy certificates and the renewable energy target.
I ask for some confirmation. How are people such as me and members of the community, who have not been party to negotiations, not to see this as once again a browning down of legislation from the government and once again an example of the exact point I made five minutes ago as to the very need for some arms-length independence in this process? This has got to be a science based process, not a political process, and what I see here in this amendment is some sort of agreement done between both sides of this chamber with some sort of individual company or industry sector that I have certainly never heard of before. I just asked my colleague next to me and he had never heard of it before. This WCMG is a new concept that has been introduced into this chamber. Here we have a government amendment on the back end of a renewable energy amendment bill and, at the same time, we also have confirmation in the introduction of this amendment that this is not a renewable energy source. I ask the minister: what on earth is going on?
8068
21:35:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—I understand the issues that have been raised by the member for Lyne and respect his contribution. I did make the comments in introducing the proposed amendment that coalmine waste gas is not a renewable energy source and it has been defined in accordance with these amendments as an eligible energy source. There are very important public policy reasons for dealing with this issue in this particular way. The New South Wales GGAS scheme—introduced, I think, the better part of a decade ago by Premier Carr—is what could be described as a baseline and credit scheme. It has operated to encourage investment in some greenhouse gas abatement activities, and one of the activities that attracted such investment, consistent with the opportunities generated by the GGAS scheme, has been in the area of coalmine waste gas power generation.
There are a number of companies involved in this activity. Of the two principal ones, both of them developed a business plan and made their investments on the basis of GGAS being in operation. They account for some energy generation, following the capture of coalmine methane gas, which has contributed to the grid. However, their business plan is in significant part contingent upon the value of the certificates which are generated under GGAS for the abatement of greenhouse gas that they are engaged in. With the implementation of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the renewable energy legislation, it is clear that there is a positive public policy purpose for making an amendment that the government is moving on this occasion in order to ensure that on a transitional basis those operations are able to continue. We have confined the eligibility for this transitional treatment under this proposed amendment to the year 2020 and we have specified that it is on the basis of 2008 levels of energy production by the existing coalmine waste gas generators. We have quantified the amount of power generation that would qualify for renewable energy certificates so that it operates up to the year 2020 in a defined production sense. In addition to that, in order to preserve and respect the renewable energy target that is contained in the bill—that is, 20 per cent of the electricity supplied by the year 2020 coming from renewable sources, or 45,000 gigawatt hours—the coalmine waste gas generation production which qualifies for renewable energy certificates under this amendment will operate in addition to the established target.
The government understands the issues that have been raised by the member for Lyne. We carefully considered all of these matters and adopted this as the most efficient public policy response. It is a transitional arrangement for the New South Wales GGAS, in effect, and we think it is the most efficient manner for dealing with it. In the overall scheme of things the expanded renewable energy target, with the support of the state and territory governments, is consolidating into a single national renewable energy arrangement. That is, I think, a particularly important thing. To reduce it to a pretty basic level, at stake here are 300 jobs—those of the people involved in this power generation. In my portfolio capacity, in my capacity as a local member and in my capacity as a minister in this government, I can assure you that we are going to support those jobs. We think we are doing it in an appropriate way. I move:
That the question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
8069
21:40:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments (1) to (3):
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit the table item, substitute:
3. Schedule 2
At the same time as the provision(s) covered by table item 2.
(2) Schedule 2, item 2, page 7 (lines 14 to 16), omit the definition of emissions‑intensive trade‑exposed activity in subsection 5(1), substitute:
emissions‑intensive trade‑exposed activity means:
(a) if regulations are made for the purposes of subsection 167(1) of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Act 2009—an activity that is taken to be an emissions‑intensive trade‑exposed activity under the emissions‑intensive trade‑exposed assistance program; or
(b) otherwise—an activity prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph.
(3) Schedule 2, page 13 (after line 5), at the end of the Schedule, add:
22 Transitional regulations
The Governor‑General may make regulations of a transitional nature relating to the transition from the application of paragraph (b) of the definition of emissions‑intensive trade‑exposed activity in subsection 5(1) of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 (as inserted by item 2 of this Schedule) to the application of paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression.
The government is committed to passing legislation to implement both the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the renewable energy target scheme as both are needed, as I have said in this place on a number of occasions, to tackle climate change effectively. However, in order to provide greater certainty, the government has decided to amend the renewable energy target legislation currently before the parliament to include interim assistance until the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation is in place. The legislation currently aims to provide assistance under the renewable energy target to activities defined under the emissions-intensive trade-exposed assistance program in the CPRS legislation. This was in recognition of the cumulative cost impact of the renewable energy target scheme and the CPRS. However, in the absence of legislation implementing the CPRS, the scope and the basis for assistance under the RET has had to be reconsidered by the government. The cost impact of the renewable energy target alone, as I have said in my previous submissions in relation to this issue, is related to electricity intensity and is small for most industries. However, the renewable energy target will affect firms using a significant amount of electricity as part of their production processes and where international competition limits their ability to pass electricity cost increases on to their customers. Aluminium smelting, the subject of some discussion in the second reading debate in relation to the bills, is one such obvious activity.
This amendment therefore allows for interim renewable energy target assistance to be provided to those emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities that will be most significantly affected by electricity price increases from the RET, namely those which exceed an electricity threshold of 3,000 megawatt hours per $1 million of revenue or alternatively 9,000 megawatt hours per $1 million of value added. Eligible activities are likely to include aluminium smelting, silicon production and newsprint manufacturing. In the case of interim assistance, an exemption would apply for 90 per cent of the liability that relates to the expanded portion of the new annual targets—that is, the amount of the target that is above the 9,500 gigawatt hours which exists under the existing MRET.
Once the CPRS legislation and its enabling regulations do come into force, the partial legislated exemptions from the renewable energy target liability would be provided for all emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities as defined under the emissions-intensive trade-exposed assistance program in the CPRS legislation. An exemption would apply for either 90 per cent or 60 per cent of the expanded liability above the existing 9,500 gigawatt hour target, corresponding to whether an activity is determined to be highly emissions intensive or moderately emissions intensive under the CPRS. If the CPRS passes before 1 January 2010, these interim assistance arrangements will never come into force. The government remains committed to assisting all emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities to help manage the cumulative impact of the CPRS and the RET once both pieces of legislation are passed. The amendment appropriately targets assistance under the RET and will provide greater certainty to support investment in renewable energy generation. These provisions are to commence on the day, subject to passage through the parliament, on which the act receives royal assent, and I commend the amendments to the House.
8070
21:44:00
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
0
Mr HUNT
—The opposition will not be opposing these amendments. We welcome the fact that there has been a backdown by the government and that they are indicating a willingness to decouple. We will accept them as I note they offer an imperfect safety net for emissions-intensive trade-exposed businesses, but they nevertheless offer a safety net.
We will seek in the Senate to ensure that there is a full decoupling. Those amendments were moved in the House this evening and we will move them again in the Senate unless the government takes steps to negotiate, which it is, and then to present amendments of its own. We believe those negotiations are proceeding in good faith, and I underline that fact, and I thank the government for that, but let it be absolutely clear that these amendments need to go further. Instead of having the existing test which is in place for trade exposed businesses, we have an intensity in terms of electricity use of 3,000 megawatt hours per $1 million of revenue or 9,000 megawatt hours per $1 million of value-add. That will cover a much smaller range of businesses than was contemplated previously by the government. We have offered in good faith to the minister this evening a revised proposal which would go further than the amendment contained here. This provides a beginning. It provides a safety net at the very least for the ceramics and newsprint industries, for the aluminium industry and for others that are still yet to be defined.
But we can make this very clear and very easy by replicating the trade exposed provisions, which are already being developed by the government, but by separating them so as the commencement of those trade exposed provisions is not dependent upon passage of the CPRS legislation. There is a very simple solution here which would be acceptable and sensible, and that is to simply ensure that the commencement of the full trade exposed provisions for the 90 per cent qualifying firms and the 60 per cent qualifying firms is untied from the emissions trading scheme, will begin on 1 January 2010 and will not be dependent upon any other legislation. That is simple, it is elegant, it ensures that we have a clear way forward and that we will not face any blockage in this bill this week.
Having said all of that, we appreciate the fact that the government has made a significant concession. It has moved away from its view—expressed by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation as late as Friday night—that there would be no decoupling. This is a decoupling. It is not the full decoupling which we would ideally want, but it is a decoupling. Our view in the Senate will, to a significant extent, depend upon the additional work, but we accept that there is negotiation in good faith. I thank the government for that and we will accept these amendments.
8071
21:47:00
Combet, Greg, MP
YW6
Charlton
ALP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change
1
0
Mr COMBET
—In light of a couple of the observations made by the shadow minister, I think it is appropriate to put on the record a couple of things. The original construction of these arrangements—that is, the so-called coupling of the CPRS and the RET—was a consequence of what I think is an efficient public policy approach by the government; that is, it was out of respect for submissions made to the government by representatives from industries within the emissions-intensive trade-exposed sector that they believed that consistent treatment for the assistance that applies under the CPRS and the RET for those industries would be a desirable end. The matter was discussed at meeting of the Council of Australian Governments in, I think, late May this year, and it was agreed that, in the process of establishing the national renewable energy target scheme, that was an appropriate mechanism for dealing with the issue. That has been the context for the so-called coupling—against which the opposition has raised a number of objections on a number of occasions. It was suggested that that would be one of the reasons contemplated by the opposition for potentially voting against the renewable energy legislation.
In light of the decision by the opposition—a decision we believe to be irresponsible—to vote against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in the Senate, the government reconsidered this issue and, far from it being a backdown, it is demonstration of our firm intent to address climate change by, in part, ensuring the passage of the renewable energy target legislation. That is the appropriate construction for the amendment that has been put. I have explained it in some detail and I reinforce what I said earlier, and that is that I think it is an appropriate response in the current circumstances. With those remarks, I move:
That the question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
8071
Mr COMBET
(Charlton
—Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change)
21:50:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
RENEWABLE ENERGY (ELECTRICITY) (CHARGE) AMENDMENT BILL 2009
8071
Bills
R4143
Second Reading
8071
Debate resumed from 17 June, on motion by Mr Combet:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
8072
Mr COMBET
(Charlton
—Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change)
21:51:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
8072
21:52:00
House adjourned at 9.53 pm
2009-08-17
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 6.40 pm.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
8073
Statements by Members
Fadden Electorate: St Francis Xavier School
8073
8073
18:40:00
Robert, Stuart, MP
HWT
Fadden
LP
0
0
Mr ROBERT
—I rise tonight to acknowledge the student leaders in a school very dear to my heart, St Francis Xavier School in Runaway Bay. Australia’s young leaders play an important role in setting a good example by acting responsibly and making positive choices. What is encouraging is that these leaders have been selected by their school and, in many instances, by their peers for their potential to make a positive and lasting contribution to their school communities. We all know that Australia needs great leaders and that much more will be demanded of these leaders in their schools today and in their communities tomorrow.
The following students are the term 3 student leaders and committee members at St Francis Xavier School. Student Leader School Promotion and Events is Rachael Sexton and the committee members are Riley Eathorne, Jesse Coleman, Carrington Fisher, Parise Shanahan and Kelseigh Bryant. Student Leader Environment is Karolina Grabowski and the committee members are Bon Carrall, Alisha Kelly, Chantelle Berlonis, Taylah Leite and Rhiannon Sines. Student Leader Community Spirit is Alley Coyle and the committee members are Amelia Napier, Holly Rushton, Jake Simmonds and Maryann Fairley. Student Leader Fete and Festival is Milly Martino and the committee members are Tayla Alleyn, Marina Robinson, Joshua Andres, Caleb Maniapoto and Celina Lim. Student Leader Social Justice is Sam Duncan and the committee members are Sabrina Alaimo, Jessica Laidler, Savannah Miners, Liam Hamilton and Serena De Cello. Student Leader Year 7 Liturgy is Jane Lynch and the committee members are Billy Roberts, Wade Barkley, Jushon Setschnjak and Mathilda Smethurst.
Mr Arnold Cielens
8073
8073
18:41:00
Zappia, Tony, MP
HWB
Makin
ALP
1
0
Mr ZAPPIA
—On 7 August, I attended a service celebrating the life of Mr Arnold Cielens, who passed away on 7 July, 2009. Arnold was a man who devoted his life to improving the lives of people with disabilities. He suffered from deaf-blindness from an early age—the same disability that Helen Keller suffered from.
Born in Latvia in 1921, Arnold’s disability impacted on his schooling, resulting in a limited formal education. Arnold came to Australia as a refugee in 1951. Until the end, he lobbied on many specific issues regarding the rights of people with disabilities, including mobility and support to reduce social isolation and to improve quality of life, a greater recognition of deaf-blindness as a unique disability, and specialist education for children with disabilities so that they could receive the support and opportunities that he never had.
At the 6th National Deaf-Blind Conference in Sydney in 2002, Arnold said in his speech:
The potential for learning resides within all of us. Even those of us who are severely challenged can and do learn.
Arnold was a tireless fundraiser for disability charities and personally raised an estimated $500,000. Over the years, he received many community awards, including Tea Tree Gully City Council’s Citizen of the Year award and a nomination for an Australian of the Year award.
He was a keen follower of parliament and political debate, and I am pleased that I was able to assist him in his research and correspondence as well as having him as a guest at a disabilities forum with Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services, Bill Shorten. Arnold is survived by his partner, Val, his sons Martin, Viesturs and Andy, as well as eight grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. My deepest condolences to Val and all the family. (Time expired)
Broadband
8074
8074
18:43:00
Markus, Louise, MP
E07
Greenway
LP
0
0
Mrs MARKUS
—I rise today to voice my concern at the failure of the Rudd Labor government to assure people living in broadband and mobile black spots about the quality of services they will receive under the government’s $43 billion national broadband plan. Under this plan, some areas will apparently get 100 megabits per second fibre to their premises, while those living in regional and rural areas will receive services delivered by wireless and satellite that will be almost 10 times slower. I am concerned that over 5,000 people are in broadband black spot areas in my electorate. Areas such as Agnes Banks, Freemans Reach, Kurmond, Kurrajong Heights, Londonderry, Marsden Park, Pitt Town, Vineyard, Yarramundi and Colo Heights will either miss out or have to take an inferior service.
The Rudd Labor government refuses to release coverage maps to show which parts of Australia will get what service or where the funding will come from. Despite grand promises and announcements by the Rudd Labor government that it would commence rolling out new broadband services across Australia as recently as 1 July 2009, nothing has happened. This is typical Labor: a lot of announcements but not much action. The $43 billion broadband proposal will take at least eight years to implement and will be funded predominantly from government debt. Adding to the problem is a massive $35 billion gross debt created by Labor’s economic mismanagement—the equivalent of $9,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia.
Australia’s broadband future is paying the price for Labor’s reckless spending. I will continue to hold the Rudd Labor government to account over its broadband promises and raise the issues of coverage and broadband black spot areas until something is done. When in government, the coalition had a broadband guarantee program—a program that provided subsidised support—(Time expired)
Lindsay Electorate: Encore Historical Sewing Group
8074
8074
18:44:00
Bradbury, David, MP
HVW
Lindsay
ALP
1
0
Mr BRADBURY
—I congratulate the dedicated members of the Encore Historical Sewing Group for completing a replica of the famous gown worn in 1822 by Anne Marsden, the daughter of colonial settler the Reverend Samuel Marsden. The group came together in 2005, under the auspices of the St Marys Area Community Development Project, from an idea by local resident Marion McLeod to recreate and display the clothes worn by historically significant individuals responsible for shaping our community. The group’s members are: Barbara Porter, Jane Holmes, Lyn Forde, Mary Gruevski, Joan O’Brien, Caroline Volkiene, Gaye Nyhuis and Marion McLeod, with Colleen Kilgour, Jacqueline Dollack, Jackie White and Jackie Hurlstone joining the group for parts of the project.
The group was supported by the SMACD manager Lisa Foster, who also doubled as the group’s model. With an enormous amount of skill, dedication and more than 100 years of combined sewing and embroidery experience, the group spent more than 3½ years working to produce a gown of the highest quality that remained faithful to the original. Years were spent researching the fabric and the patterns of the lace and reproducing it by hand, piece by piece, and dressing a mannequin—fondly dubbed ‘Our Anne’—with the final product.
The replica gown is a masterpiece, as much for the bonds of friendship that it represents as for the enormous skill that went into its creation. It is permanently on display at Mamre Homestead in a glass cabinet kindly donated by the Penrith City Council.
Swan Electorate: Arbour Day
8075
8075
18:46:00
Irons, Steve, MP
HYM
Swan
LP
0
0
Mr IRONS
—There are few better ways of spending a Sunday morning in my electorate of Swan than by taking a stroll on the foreshore through the lush Canning wetlands to admire the magnificent natural beauty of the Swan-Canning estuarine environment. In June, I was given the chance to help a local effort to improve this special environment. I was invited to help with some tree planting for Arbour Day, 7 June, which marked the final stage of a five-year revegetation project to revegetate Garvey Park floodplain in Belmont.
The land revegetated is former Department of Planning and Infrastructure land that was returned to the City of Belmont after the expiry of the lease. The City of Belmont has made good use of the land by restoring native vegetation. A joint project between the City of Belmont and the Assist Two Rivers Catchment Group, the project was funded by the Swan Alcoa Landcare Program. Nearly 15,000 tube stock were planted on the land this year. Each year for the past five years has seen between 10,000 and 15,000 trees planted.
I am pleased to report to members that native tree planting is leading to all the flow-on benefits that one would expect from natural vegetation. Congratulations to the City of Belmont, the Assist Two Rivers Catchment Group and, of course, the local community for their excellent work. I encourage all members to come and see the work they have done—I would be happy to give you a guided tour.
In closing I would like to say that, as a member of the Men of the Trees carbon-neutral program, it was a pleasure to assist with this planting day and to see the young people and families in my electorate, and in particular two local councillors Robert Rossi and Steve Wolff, supporting this program on this day.
Baha'i Faith in Iran
8075
8075
18:47:00
Parke, Melissa, MP
HWR
Fremantle
ALP
1
0
Ms PARKE
—Tomorrow, 18 August, is reportedly set as the trial date for seven people of the Baha’i faith who are currently imprisoned in Iran. They have been imprisoned for more than a year with no access to lawyers and very limited contact with their families. The writ indicating the date for this trial was sent to one of the Baha’is’s lawyers Abdolfattah Soltani from the Centre for Human Rights Defenders in Tehran, who is himself currently unjustly detained in Evin prison. The other lawyer for the Baha’is, Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, is currently out of the country and has been subject to numerous threats as a result of her human rights activities.
These seven Baha’is have been accused of the capital offences of spying for Israel, insulting religious sanctities and propaganda against the Islamic Republic of Iran. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence to suggest that the allegations are true, and there has been no due process. As it stands, these gentle people may be facing the death penalty for nothing more than being leaders of a minority religion. The Australian government has repeatedly expressed its deep concern to the Iranian authorities about the seven Baha’i detainees.
The Baha’i faith was founded more than 150 years ago in Iran. Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, the Baha’i community has been systematically harassed and persecuted. Many Baha’is are now living in other parts of the world, including Australia, and I have been fortunate to know some of them. The strong Baha’i community in my electorate of Fremantle has kept me informed of events. I join them in calling for the immediate release of their fellow Baha’is in Iran and in hoping for a more peaceful coexistence for the estimated 300,000 people of the Baha’i faith currently living in Iran. (Time expired)
Maranoa Electorate: Royal Flying Doctor Service
8076
8076
18:49:00
Scott, Bruce, MP
YT4
Maranoa
NATS
0
0
Mr BRUCE SCOTT
—I rise today to express my very deep concern about the Queensland, New South Wales and Victorian Labor governments and their recently exposed plans to give aeromedical contracts to private operators instead of the iconic Royal Flying Doctor Service. Already the RFDS has lost contracts to provide aeromedical evacuation services in Victoria and out of Rockhampton in central Queensland. This economic rationalism has gone much too far. The loss of patient retrieval contracts will have a significant impact on the Royal Flying Doctor Service’s ability to fund its other vital and invaluable services.
Just 11 months ago, I stood in this same place to congratulate the RFDS on its 80th birthday. I talked of the vital services it provides to the people of Maranoa and to many parts of rural and remote Australia—towns in my electorate such as Birdsville, Bedourie, Windorah and Jundah. I talked about how the people of the outback rely on the RFDS and how much they truly appreciate the care the RFDS provides them through many and varied services such as the remote clinics, child health programs and mental health support services. So for the state Labor governments to threaten the viability of these important services provided to the outback of my electorate greatly disappoints me.
The Royal Flying Doctor Service, founded by Reverend John Flynn 81 years ago, is iconic in rural, remote and many parts of outback Australia. It provides a great mantle of safety for the people wherever they live across the outback and they deserve all the support they can get from all levels of government across Australia. (Time expired)
Mr Harry Moore OAM
Mr Desmond Hughes
8076
8076
18:50:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—On Friday, I received two phone calls, one notifying me of the death of Harry Moore OAM, former state member for Wyong and former Wyong shire councillor. Harry was a legend on the Central Coast, a rough diamond brought up in the school of hard knocks—that is how he described himself. He worked hard and achieved greatness. Harry never forgot what it is like to struggle and never forgot the importance of family and community. He was dedicated to the Central Coast. He was involved in every possible community organisation and was a patron of practically every organisation. He was particularly committed to Legacy, was very instrumental in the development of Wyong Hospital and he was very active in supporting veterans.
The other person I received a phone call about was Desmond Hughes, a Labor Party stalwart, somebody who had worked hard for me over the years. Like Harry, Des came from a humble background. He constantly worked. When he passed away, he was a self-educated man, he was computer literate and active in the community. He spent all his time fighting to support people less privileged than himself. I feel very privileged to have known both these men. They were outstanding examples of what people can do to contribute to their community. (Time expired)
Cowan Electorate: West Australian Assistance Dogs Inc.
8077
8077
18:50:00
Simpkins, Luke, MP
HWE
Cowan
LP
0
0
Mr SIMPKINS
—Recently at Kingsway shopping centre, not far from my office, I attended a demonstration by the West Australian Assistance Dogs, an incorporated body. In that demonstration they showed us how they are recruiting and training dogs to help people with disabilities—basic functions which nevertheless improve the quality of life for people with disabilities such as retrieving keys, answering phones and even taking washing out of washing machines. It was a very impressive demonstration. I would like to say what an excellent organisation they are. I thank the leadership of WA Assistance Dogs for what they do. Gwen Dasborough is the president, Mike Burridge is the treasurer, Lesley Burridge is the mobility services trainer, Maja Pitts is the vice-president, Kendall Pickering is on the committee, Dot Blee is the secretary, Carolyn Read is the trainer and Dave Curr is on puppy roster. The dogs who were there that day and did an excellent job were Flossy, Toby, Leroy, Savannah and Kaelen.
Franklin Electorate: Community Infrastructure
8077
8077
18:53:00
Collins, Julie, MP
HWM
Franklin
ALP
1
0
Ms COLLINS
—I want to talk about two significant sporting infrastructure projects which have been funded through the Rudd government’s community infrastructure program in my electorate. There is a $6 million investment for southern Tasmania that includes $4 million to build the Kingborough sports complex twin ovals development, as well as $2 million to help fund the Bellerive Oval lights project. These projects will be a welcome boost for the local economy. They will afford short-term economic benefits for the local economy with jobs and they are also long-term projects that will deliver health and social benefits for kids and Tasmanian families in the years to come. Without the federal government funding, these projects may never have got off the ground.
The $4 million investment for the twin ovals development in the municipality of Kingborough will include an oval that will be built to AFL standards. The other oval will have a turf wicket and eight practice wickets. The twin ovals will become the new home bases for the Kingborough Tigers Football Club and the Kingborough District Cricket Club. Both these clubs have outgrown their current home ground at Kingston Beach Oval and have eagerly been participating in the planning of these new developments.
The other project is the Bellerive lights project, which will mean Tasmania will continue to receive its fair share of the international cricket market. There has already been the announcement of a three-day test match to be played against Pakistan in Hobart, at Bellerive Oval, and a Twenty20 game against the West Indies in February. This is great news for Tasmanians who enjoy their local sport and even better news to ensure that the local economy continues to be boosted by the construction of these projects. I saw firsthand the progress of the construction at Bellerive Oval only a week ago. (Time expired)
83S
Burke, Anna, MP
Ms Burke
—Order! It being 6.55 pm, in accordance with standing order 192A the time for members’ statements has concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
8078
Private Members' Business
Franchising
8078
8078
18:55:00
Randall, Don, MP
PK6
Canning
LP
0
0
Mr RANDALL
—I move:
That the House:
-
notes that in December 2008 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services tabled its report entitled Opportunity not opportunism: improving conduct in Australian franchising;
-
condemns the Minister for Small Business for ignoring the calls of current and former franchisees, the Opposition and his own colleagues to urgently implement the recommendations of the Opportunity not opportunism: improving conduct in Australian franchising report;
-
acknowledges that adoption of Recommendation 8 to insert a new clause into the Franchising Code of Conduct imposing a good faith requirement on franchisors, franchisees and prospective franchisees to act in good faith in relation to all aspects of a franchise agreement, would impose a standard of behaviour that would discourage opportunistic and unethical conduct in the franchising sector; and
-
notes that:
-
amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974, imposing pecuniary penalties for breaches of the Franchising Code of Conduct, would further act as a deterrent and ensure full compliance with the Code and also discourage opportunistic and unethical conduct in the franchising sector; and
-
while the Minister fails to implement all 11 recommendations, aggrieved franchisees will continue to lose their livelihoods and homes and many will continue to have no means for redress without recourse to expensive and often unaffordable litigation.
I have spoken on several occasions about the plight of hundreds of thousands of franchisees in Australia who have been burned financially and emotionally by rogue and opportunistic franchisors. At the core of fixing the epidemic problem is the need for the government to strengthen the existing laws relating to franchisors. How many times does Minister Emerson need to be told? I raise this business today to call on the minister to fast-track the adoption of the recommendations contained in the report of the inquiry of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services called Opportunity not opportunism: improving conduct in Australian franchising. The title says it all. The chair of that inquiry, Bernie Ripoll, was eager to put bullies on notice when the report was handed down last December. But lacklustre efforts and a lack of government attention have it gathering dust. It is just another example of the government’s preference for spin over substance.
In October 2007, Labor’s policy was to amend the Franchising Code of Conduct to include a well-defined requirement for, and a definition of, good faith. The government must adopt the recommendations contained in the report and the submissions, rather than simply holding more inquiries, meetings and consultations. The minister received the report in December. It is now August and we are still without any indication of what recommendations, if any, he plans to adopt. While I understand meetings have been conducted with the ACCC and the Franchise Council of Australia, FCA, on the options paper released in June, these processes continue to be of little comfort to franchisees.
The options paper seeks public input on the implementation of the report recommendations. Submissions were called for, but this would appear to be just another in a long line of delaying tactics by the minister. South Australian Labor MP Mr Piccolo has been highly critical of the minister’s impotence, and I can only agree. In fact, I suspect that the options paper was put out in sharp response to public criticism. Even so, Mr Piccolo maintains:
There is no comfort in this document—
in other words, the options paper—
to the hundreds of mum and dad franchisees who have or are being screwed over by franchisors …
… it is very misleading to call the document an options paper. There are no options discussed in the paper.
He says the minister’s handling of the matter would be a great story-line for the Hollowmen.
The opportunism and unscrupulous conduct of a number of franchisors has been widely reported. However, there has been little practical redress for franchisees. While statistics are sketchy, figures show that 35 per cent of franchisees report some type of dispute with their franchisor, although I am sure the FCA would disagree with this number. Time is not on the side of the many that have already experienced the torment of losing their livelihoods and starting their lives over again.
We need to implement a system to improve the regulatory framework that protects future franchisees against intimidatory and financially crippling behaviour. We need to have a system that discourages such behaviour. We must raise the bar in this $128 billion industry. We know that these rogue franchisors exist. The minister does too. No less than three parliamentary inquiries conducted in 2008—in Western Australia, in South Australia and by the federal parliament—heard the sad stories of these franchisees. It does say something when the minister’s own colleagues are fed up with the inaction and the lack of an approach to tackling these problems that are ruining the situation for Australian mums and dads who are trying to make a go of it in business.
This is not a partisan issue; this is about making sure people get a fair deal. Mr Piccolo has called for his own minister to give the issue urgent action and has raised concerns about the minister’s indication that nothing would eventuate. The member has even gone so far as to suggest implementing state laws in South Australia to ensure greater protections are in place.
I will not delve into the specifics of the many sad cases that have come to me, as I have already done so in this parliament on several occasions. Needless to say, most ex-franchisees remain in exactly the same position they were in when I last spoke about this. They simply cannot afford the legal fees, and for a multitude of reasons the ACCC has not pursued those cases. The inquiry heard that there was resentment and frustration in the industry about the inaction of the ACCC in several cases. While I appreciate that the ACCC needs to be able to substantiate allegations against franchisors, there appears to be a lack of will and a way to vigorously pursue the many cases.
I recently had the opportunity to meet with Professor Frank Zumbo from the University of New South Wales, an eminent authority on the topic of franchising and who I know has been quite outspoken about the adoption of the report’s recommendations. Professor Zumbo’s comments have gone unheeded by the committees. The Senate Standing Committee on Economics agreed with his definition of ‘unconscionable conduct’, which is recommended for inclusion in the Trade Practices Act for the purposes of section 51. Senators Xenophon and Joyce also noted in their additional comments:
… the TPA should specifically prohibit bullying, intimidation, physical force … in … business relationships …
This is exactly the type of behaviour my constituents experienced. Furthermore, hefty pecuniary penalties for breaches of the Franchising Code of Conduct must be adopted to act as a deterrent against unethical, unscrupulous and opportunistic conduct.
The insertion of a good faith requirement in the Franchising Code of Conduct is a fundamental recommendation of these reports and one that has attracted fierce debate. Interestingly, New Zealand has been considering the introduction of a good faith requirement. The committee found:
… the optimal way to provide a deterrent against opportunistic conduct in the franchising sector is to explicitly incorporate, in its simplest form, the existing and widely accepted implied duty of parties to a franchise agreement to act in good faith.
We cannot ignore the fact that generally in these situations there is one weaker party. The franchisor is often a powerful national company and the franchisee is typically someone trying to make a change in their lives, admittedly sometimes with a minimum of business experience. The Franchise Council of Australia would have us believe that franchisees that have lost their businesses are ‘disgruntled’ and too emotional to understand that their business acumen was the reason their franchise did not succeed. This is a slap in the face to hundreds of franchisees. There are more than enough complaints to see that something is not right here. There must be something going on. Where there is smoke, there is obviously fire. As Mr Piccolo said:
The reforms proposed by the parliamentary committees are not about compensating or protecting people who make poor business decisions. They are about ensuring that when franchisors break the law there are effective (rather than theoretical) remedies for franchisees.
Business Review Weekly commentator Jane Lindhe last month wrote that the recent Jack Cowin case brought to the forefront the lack of a good faith requirement. That was the case where KFC franchisees were not renewed because of the decision of the franchisor. The current code does not allow franchisees the same rights to terminate the franchise agreement as franchisors. There is a lack of equality, and, without an explicit duty of good faith, parties are getting away with more. Ms Lindhe reported:
Recent cases such as the collapse of Midas and Kleenmaid have shown that the failure of large franchise groups can have a devastating impact on their franchisees.
A requirement of good faith would act as a deterrent against improper and unethical behaviour. It would explicitly provide an obligation to negotiate in good faith, to make agreements in good faith and to act in good faith at the end of agreements—which was a serious concern brought to the committee’s attention. Disclosure at the commencement of franchising agreements about what should happen at the end of the agreement is crucial, as was noted in recommendation 5 of the financial services committee inquiry. Currently, end-of-franchise agreements often seem to be the downfall; however, the problems start well before then, often brewing over a number of months and years, as was the case with the Lenard’s franchisees.
Frustration in the industry is rife. Major nationals including Kleenmaid, Kleins and Midas have all bitten the dust. WA Today notes:
Franchisees are among those left out-of-pocket by the collapse of their parent companies, and many are irate the Federal Government has yet to move on a joint parliamentary committee’s recommendations for reform of the franchising code of conduct.
If the minister continues to sit on his hands he is sending the message, that despite the findings of several inquiries and his own election promise, the government is ignorant or simply does not care about protecting Australia’s franchisees and stamping out these industry bullies.
8081
19:05:00
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
HWG
Isaacs
ALP
1
0
Mr DREYFUS
—Franchising is a very popular form of doing business in Australia. I am indebted to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, for some statistics from their report of December 2008, entitled Opportunity not opportunism: improving conduct in Australian franchising, that give us a bit of the context in which this question should be considered. What they say in the report is that in 2008 there were approximately 1,100 business-format franchisors in Australia, compared with 960 in 2006 and 850 in 2004. They go on to say that there are an estimated 71,400 franchised units in 2008, turning over $61 billion in 2007 and employing over 400,000 people. We can see from those statistics just what a large contribution the franchising industry and businesses that are conducted in the form of franchising make to the Australian economy.
Indeed, it is a much more common form of business than it is in the United States. We read elsewhere in the report that it has been estimated that there is one franchise for every 20,000 citizens in Australia, which is around five times the density of franchise systems in the United States. So we should be in no doubt as to the importance of this sector and we should also be in no doubt that this sector is growing.
It is also important when considering the form of regulation that is appropriate for this industry to consider the fact that the mandatory franchising code was only introduced in 1998 and followed the introduction of a voluntary code in 1993. What we have seen in the years since the first introduction of the voluntary code, and then the introduction of a mandatory code, is increasing popularity of this form of business and a continued expansion of the sector. What also needs to be steadily borne in mind in considering regulation is that most of the franchising businesses in Australia, from the point of view of both franchisors and franchisees, are successful businesses which are conducted in an amicable way.
That said, we all know—every member of this parliament knows—that there are problems in the franchising sector. Every member of this parliament would have received, I would be certain, complaints from people involved in franchising in their electorate offices and those complaints would possibly have been in respect of some very large franchise systems and possibly in respect of some quite small franchise systems. What is also clear is that the problems that members of this parliament have heard from people in the franchising sector are not new. They did not suddenly come into being in November 2007 on the change of government. Rather, they are problems which have been identified, have been experienced and have been known of for very many years. There is more than a little disingenuousness in the speech that we have just heard from the member for Canning in this area. I would need to put into the history of this matter the Matthews Review, commissioned by the former government, commissioned by the Minister for Small Business in June 2006. I am just going to say a little bit about the history of this matter. In the last full year of the former government—
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr Randall interjecting—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! The honourable member for Canning will refrain.
There is a lot of sensitivity from the other side of the chamber because the member for Canning knows very well, Deputy Speaker, that the former government simply failed to act on most of the major problems that arose in this sector, and I would point to what the former Minister for Small Business did, which was to wait until the last full year of the former government, 2006, before she commissioned what was to be called the Matthews review. She commissioned that in June 2006. It was quite a prompt piece of work by Graeme Matthews, because he reported to the government in October 2006. We had to wait a few months before the Minister for Small Business got around to responding. She responded in February 2007 because she wanted to be seen to be taking action, it would seem, in the election year. But even that response was not acted on in the form of amendments to the franchising code until August 2007 and, demonstrating the speed with which the former government thought it appropriate to act in this area, were not to come into effect until 1 March 2008.
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr Randall interjecting—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! I ask the honourable member for Canning to refrain.
HWG
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
Mr DREYFUS
—It all reflects the intense sensitivity on the other side of the House, and I am setting some context here.
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr Randall interjecting—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I would ask the honourable member to treat the House the way it should be treated and I ask him to stop interjecting.
HWG
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
Mr DREYFUS
—Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The small number of amendments to the franchising code which were accepted by the former government did not of course come into effect until 1 March 2008, almost two years after Graeme Matthews was commissioned by the former government. So one would not look to the former government, that is the government of which those opposite were members, to see any real track record in undertaking effective reform in this area. It was left to this government to pick up the pieces and embark on some serious reforms and try to legislate in an appropriate manner, which is what is now being engaged in.
The joint standing committee started its inquiry in June last year and it has conducted a number of hearings in Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra and Melbourne—and I see that we have the member for Oxley, the chair of the committee, here with us in the chamber. It conducted these hearings across Australia. It received 159 submissions and, if one looks at the list of submissions, they were from individuals, from academics, from franchisees, from franchisors, trade associations, lawyers and, indeed, from a member of this parliament. You, the member for Lyons, also made a submission to this report.
In June 2009 the government published an options paper and we can expect to see a government response soon. What is important to note about this, Deputy Speaker, is that this is an industry which is not one—and I have noted the thousands upon thousands of franchised businesses in this country—where one should jump straightaway to instant action, and I repeat, it is more than a little disingenuous for any of those opposite to be suggesting now that there should be instant change.
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr Randall interjecting—
HWG
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
Mr DREYFUS
—What is really striking is to note that the voice expressed opposite, that of the member for Canning, was not heard in 2006 or 2007 crying for change.
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr Randall
—Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is that the member needs to be accurate and tell the truth. I have been involved in this issue—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! There is no point of order.
HWG
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
Mr DREYFUS
—If this franchising question and the questions raised by this motion are so crucial, why is it that franchising does not get even one mention in the opposition’s small business package announced with great fanfare by the Leader of the Opposition on 6 April 2009? I happen to have that here with me, Deputy Speaker, and one can look at this so-called small business package and see that there is a heading about ‘Tax loss carryback’, a heading about ‘Superannuation Guarantee relief’, a heading about ‘OECD best practice regulatory burden’, a heading about ‘One-stop-shop regulatory portal’, a heading about ‘Support for family businesses’ and a heading about ‘Cabinet-level representation’. This package makes not one single mention of franchising as an area in which reform is needed, notwithstanding that this much-announced and heralded small business package of the opposition came some four months after the report of the joint standing committee.
And when one does go to look at the points in the so-called Small Business Action Plan of the opposition, they too—as does the motion here today—ignore the steps that have been taken to support small business by the Rudd government. So in calling, as the opposition does, for a program to be developed to provide support and advice for family business succession planning and business professionalism, the opposition would ignore the fact that the government has already introduced $46 million to fund 90 small business advisory services and business enterprise centres, $10 million in funding for a Small Business Support Line and $10 million in funding for the Small Business Online program.
The same could be said for each of the other supposed initiatives being announced here in April by the opposition, again not mentioning franchise at all, with the possible exception of the strange suggestion that the opposition is putting forward for superannuation guarantee relief, which would cost some $5 million over the forward estimates and do nothing for the 1.1 million non-employing small businesses in Australia. As for the suggestion that there should be cabinet level representation, why was that not implemented by the former government? The Minister for Small Business in the former government was never, of course, in cabinet. The motion and the speech we have heard from the member for Canning ignore the need for care in legislating in this area. (Time expired)
8083
19:15:00
Gash, Joanna, MP
AK6
Gilmore
LP
0
0
Mrs GASH
—To my colleague the member for Isaacs opposite: I do not care who was in government. It is now the Labor government, so let us get on with fixing the problem. I second the motion of my colleague the member for Canning and thank him once again for continuing to keep this important matter before the parliament and the government. I just hope that the government is listening. It has been over three years since I first brought it to the attention of the House, and when we were in government three years ago I did bring to the House as well the matter of Baker’s Delight, which adversely affected a constituent franchisee in my electorate of Gilmore. Since then there have been a flood of cases, suggesting that all is not well within the Australian franchising sector. Franchisees continue to suffer at the hands of rogue franchisors. Members from both sides of parliament have heard the horror stories about unscrupulous franchisors. We continue to hear stories about the ACCC’s inaction. Sadly, some franchisors still engage in questionable and unethical practices. The ACCC continues to be ineffectual in stamping out the rogue franchisors. Little wonder that franchisees have little faith in the ACCC’s ability to protect them from those rogue franchisors. Through the bipartisan approach of members of this House, the government established an inquiry whose report was handed to the minister in December of 2008. There it sits silent while franchisees suffer. Despite the wealth of evidence before the inquiry in support of the hundreds of complaints from franchisees, nothing has emerged since the Ripoll franchising report.
We are looking for leadership on this issue but all we are finding is silence from Minister Emerson. It is not only the opposition calling for urgent action; members on the government side are also calling for action. Franchising transcends political boundaries. It involves real people with real problems, even tragedies, as a result of their dealings with rogue franchisors. We are all waiting for a sign from the minister. We urge the minister to act swiftly on behalf of franchisees. The ACCC must also act. The concerns I raised with the ACCC at the time were never satisfactorily addressed, and this remains the case. For the life of me I cannot see how, despite the many hundreds of complaints lodged, the ACCC can continue to watch. There is something patently lacking when it comes to the ACCC, and I urge the ACCC to act rather than watch.
A key element flowing from the recommendations of the committee was to insert a good faith requirement in the Franchising Code of Conduct. That alone will not be enough. We also need a statutory definition for what constitutes unconscionable conduct under the Trade Practices Act. The good faith provision in the code of conduct can and should include a definition of what is meant by good faith. Such definitions can draw on court decisions and can be easily included. I can only reiterate my earlier call for a dedicated franchise tribunal or ombudsman that has the power to finally settle disputes. To me that is a realistic and practical option and I would encourage the government to pursue that option. I welcome provisions in the Trade Practices Act imposing pecuniary penalties for breaches of the franchising code. They would act as a deterrent, and of course penalties must be meaningful. When I think of the millions of dollars involved in churning, the sanctions need to be significant. Of course access to justice is essential. That is why a tribunal or ombudsman has been an attraction for me. The longer this minister procrastinates, the more people will get harmed through churning and other unethical practices by rogue franchisors. The longer this minister procrastinates, the more we will be encouraging the very type of behaviour this House is trying to stop. Australian franchisees deserve decisive action from this government. The minister’s immediate interest is needed. The minister must act, and if after eight months he still has no plan in place, let him to step aside for someone else who will act decisively. People’s lives have been ruined and it is still happening. Again I call on the minister to act now and once again investigate the reasons for the nonaction by the ACCC.
8084
19:20:00
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
83E
Oxley
ALP
1
0
Mr RIPOLL
—Firstly, I would like to say it is great to see people in this House actually taking an interest in franchising and I congratulate all those involved. I think it is a bipartisan issue and a matter which is serious and important. It is one about which all members of parliament, in one form or another, have genuine concerns and views and they are all heading in the same direction. We all want to improve franchising and we all believe it is a good, strong, business model. It involves a whole heap of ordinary mums and dads, mostly, but generally people who are involved in small business and have taken that very big risk not just to employ themselves but to start a small business in a unique partnership with someone else. It can be a very difficult partnership and it has often been referred to in the franchising world as almost like a marriage—a partnership that can be very good and fulfilling but also one that can be very complex, especially when the marriage may get into strife and there needs to be some sort of a separation.
Franchising in this country is about 30 years old. It started in America, came to Australia and went through an evolutionary period in this country, where there were no rules. There was just common law, the law of contract and so forth. It was almost a laissez-faire type environment. It was not big; it was only just beginning. That progressed through a regulatory regime where successive governments saw the need to regulate, to provide a better environment—some consumer protection and so forth—to people in franchising, including franchisors, as well as to consumers. That has evolved from voluntary codes of conduct to mandatory codes of conduct, to what we saw in the Matthews review and in franchising reviews in Western Australian and South Australia—a whole range of jurisdictions were taking an interest. All of that culminated in what we ended up seeing in the Commonwealth parliament since the election of the Rudd government; that is, a full review. I have to say it was well supported by the opposition as well. It was a review of the overall franchising environment and it has led to the system that we find ourselves with today. It is a good system and I think we all agree with that, and that is what the reviews have found. But it does have some problems. It is not a perfect system.
I and the rest of my committee were very conscious that, in developing our eleven recommendations and in looking at what could be done, we needed to employ a carefully thought out, properly structured, strong process. It would need to hear the views of everyone involved in franchising, from the representative peak bodies—who may have a particular view—to people who have had good experiences and those who have had shocking experiences, as we have heard many times in this place. We all have those constituents and we all want to do something for them. I congratulate the minister, which is very much different to some members. The minister, the department and the committee have been working through a distinctive process to try and come to a workable, feasible outcome that is acceptable to the sector, acceptable to the people who have put their money on the table and risked their own capital—the franchisees—to provide something that in the end will benefit all.
Some may say that this has all gone a bit slow. I disagree. I think we will soon see the fruits of that process and the benefits from giving proper consideration to the situation we are dealing with. The committee was very conscious of the need to make good, sound, solid recommendations, because we all understood the need to get the right balance between regulation—and the cost of regulation—and allowing franchisees and franchisors to go about their own business, to follow the terms and agreements within their own contracts. We all support that but there is abuse in the sector by some and that needs to be dealt with. We need to find proper mechanisms. There has been good development over the years; we just need to take the next progressive logical step. We identified a number of key points in the report. I will not go through all of them but I think it is important to acknowledge the pre-contractual agreements about disclosure and the proper giving of information, particularly regarding end-of-franchise agreements.
A big issue for the committee was the good faith provisions. I will not get political in the short time that I have but I do have to say that the previous government actually rejected this particular view when it came before them only recently. We should all give some consideration to where we need to go to provide the right regulatory environment. We need to find a solution for end-of-contract agreements. I agree with the member for Gilmore in terms of harsher penalties for those that do the wrong thing—and in the end that is what we are striving to implement. I am very supportive of the report my committee presented and I am very supportive of what the minister and the department are doing in cooperation and partnership with the industry.
10000
Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Polio Survivors
8086
Debate resumed, on motion by Ms King:
That the House recognises that:
-
polio survivors continue to be the single largest disability group in Australia today, numbering in the tens of thousands;
-
this number not only includes those who contracted polio in Australia during the epidemics last century, but also young polio survivors who have migrated from countries where polio is still prevalent or only recently eradicated;
-
the needs of polio survivors have been largely neglected since vaccination against the disease became a reality, and as they age with chronic disabilities this neglect must be addressed as a matter of urgency;
-
over the last 20 years much attention has been drawn to the development of new, previously unrecognised, symptoms which occur in people who were thought to have reached a stable level of recovery after the acute disease;
-
symptoms of the late effects of polio include unaccustomed fatigue unrelated to activity, decreased strength and endurance, pain in muscles and/or joints, an inability to stay alert, weakness and muscle atrophy, muscle and joint pain, muscle spasms and twitching, respiratory and sleep problems, swallowing and speaking difficulties, depression and anxiety.
-
over the last 20 years polio survivors have established state based post polio organisations to provide information and support for fellow survivors, and that these networks are run by polio volunteers who themselves are experiencing increased disability and decreased mobility; and
-
in the coming years it is increasingly inevitable that many state networks will cease to function as volunteers find themselves unable to continue the service, thereby creating the necessity for a central body, Polio Australia, to take over responsibility for state functions.
8086
19:25:00
King, Catherine, MP
00AMR
Ballarat
ALP
1
0
Ms KING
—I move this motion on polio survivors to bring to the attention of the House the continuing impact that polio has on our community. Many would believe that we have managed to consign polio to the annals of medical history. Through mass immunisation we have managed to almost eradicate polio throughout the world, although there are still cases diagnosed in developing countries as immunisation coverage has been somewhat slower there. Most of us will have seen some of the awful images of children and young teenagers struck down by this disease—again, seeing these as images that are part of our historical past.
During the early to middle 20th century poliomyelitis impacted the lives of thousands of Australians. It is a very old disease where, conversely, as our hygiene standards improved, the immunisation protection passed on by mothers to their infants lessened. It is difficult to put an exact figure on the number affected as many cases did not require hospitalisation and were therefore never recorded, but many resources put the number at over 70,000.
This disease crippled not only individuals but communities in which they lived. This horrific disease terrified Australian communities as it was not known how it was transmitted, with the disease not being brought under control until the late 1950s. It struck down children—over 50 per cent of cases were children under three—and teenagers across the country and, if you look at the Polio Victoria website, there is a roll of Victorian polio survivors. It is heartbreaking to see the ages of those, from six months old to one-year-olds, to seven-year-olds, to those in their teenage years and their early 20s.
For those children and young people who survived, they recovered from polio without any, or only mild, disabilities. They thought they had left polio behind them when they exited from the hospital and treatment facilities. They were all keen to get on with their interrupted lives. They finished school, they worked. Many married and had children and grandchildren. They participated in sport, helped out at school fetes, were active in public life, and contributed alongside other members from their generations to Australia’s growth.
But, as this generation has aged, for some of them the effects of that dreadful childhood illness have come back, and I refer to post-polio syndrome, a not widely known syndrome but one that, nevertheless, has come to have a significant impact on the lives of those thousands of polio survivors. We now see new symptoms striking them, with effects such as fatigue, increased pain in muscles and joints, declining strength and endurance, an inability to stay alert, weakness and muscle atrophy, muscle spasms and twitching, respiratory and sleep problems, swallowing and speaking difficulties, and depression and anxiety. It is critical that those suffering from post-polio syndrome receive early assessment and intervention.
Unfortunately, not only do many members of the community lack a sound understanding of post-polio syndrome, but many health professionals are also unaware of the condition. Survivors of post-polio syndrome report that many of them have had difficulty in getting a diagnosis, often having been subjected to many years of testing and at times wrong diagnosis, let alone then trying to get access to support services.
The advent of state based and local polio support groups is assisting, but there is clearly a need for a greater role for national bodies such as Polio Australia to provide advice to the federal government and health professionals for the development of policy and education programs to improve the lives of those impacted by the late effects of polio. Polio survivors continue to be the single largest disability group in Australia today, numbering in the tens of thousands. This disease still haunts those sufferers decades later. Many of us in parliament are aware that former member and former Labor leader Kim Beazley was a polio survivor.
On a personal note, my mum, whose 80th birthday we celebrated on the weekend, contracted polio in 1946 and spent her 17th birthday in Fairfield hospital. She emerged after a year fully recovered, but on developing muscle weakness and a limp in her 50s was diagnosed with post-polio syndrome. I know that it has affected her significantly as she has aged—not something that we as a family have always understood. I think that particularly those like my mum, who experienced such a debilitating illness in their early lives, have been determined to stay well and they certainly have a lot of pride about their being physically strong and capable. Acknowledging and coming to terms with having post-polio syndrome has been really hard for many of them. I encourage those who have members of their families who have had polio to inform themselves about the syndrome and, whilst not all survivors will be affected, I cannot stress enough the importance of an early assessment and access to appropriate services.
I thank those members who are supporting this motion this evening. I know that it does mean a lot to polio survivors to have what is happening to them recognised by this House. I certainly commend Polio Australia and the state based organisations and the local support groups such as the Ballarat Polio Support Group in my own electorates for the work that they are doing to support post-polio syndrome survivors.
8088
19:30:00
Chester, Darren, MP
IPZ
Gippsland
NATS
0
0
Mr CHESTER
—In rising to speak on this important motion before the House, I congratulate the member for Ballarat for raising the issue and her personal insights particularly in the context that polio survivors continue to be the largest single disability group in Australia today. Like the previous speaker, I have met with the representatives from Polio Australia and sufferers from within my own electorate and it has given me a better insight into the challenges that many Australians face.
The epidemic of this terrible disease during the last century is certainly well known, but the continuation of suffering by those affected has largely gone unnoticed in our modern society. Indeed, it is fair to say that polio is largely seen as a disease of a previous generation. There is a lack of understanding about the late effects of polio or post-polio syndrome and the impact that the disease is having on all of our communities today.
Within our local communities the effects of the disease continue to haunt many polio survivors and immigrants who contracted the disease before they actually arrived on Australian shores. I do not suggest for a second that our medical professionals have been complacent about their recognition of the disease. I think that we would all agree that there have been several other medical issues that have perhaps attracted more attention in recent years and post-polio syndrome has not been recognised to the extent that it probably needs to be in the future. I believe that perhaps this lack of recognition has taken away the emphasis that the medical system previously had on eradicating polio but also in providing adequate care for people going forward.
It is a case that Polio Australia have made throughout their campaign and their slogan is: ‘Polio forgotten but not gone’. As I said, polio is seen as a disease of a previous generation and there is a concern that many people are actually reluctant to talk about their experience and the effects that the disease has had on them throughout their lives. Unfortunately there remains a certain stigma that surrounds this terrible disease, which we as a society, I believe, have to try to overcome and remove if we are going to provide the assistance required in the future.
I believe that the lack of communication and financial support between the polio support groups and the community has probably contributed to a lack of funding across all levels of government to investigate and resolve many of the effects and the problems associated with post-polio syndrome. Indeed, I am advised by the Parliamentary Secretary for Health that the Department of Health and Ageing does not currently provide any specific funding to support post-polio syndrome. The department’s role under the current health funding arrangements is limited to providing grants to the state and territory governments and they decide their own priorities.
The effects and the problems of post-polio syndrome are continuing to grow as the majority of the polio survivors become older and more reliant on assistance from support groups and carers. Naturally, as our polio sufferers age, their health needs will become more complex. Having met recently with Polio Australia, I understand the need for funding to assist the support groups that work with the sufferers of this disease. I was advised by the group that there are approximately 40,000 people suffering from a paralytic form of the disease and the number of people suffering from the non-paralytic form could be as high as half a million. Importantly, there are forms of the disease that show symptoms similar to other medical ailments, making it even more difficult for the medical profession. This can lead to people with the disease being misdiagnosed or undiagnosed completely and such a failure to diagnose the late effects of polio, or post-polio syndrome, can lead to an inappropriate treatment which, as Polio Australia volunteers informed me, can actually lead to a further exacerbation of the condition and an escalation of the symptoms for those sufferers.
There lies one of the most significant problems for Polio Australia. On a database at the moment they have about 1,500 people, I understand, who are regarded as being affected by the disease and are registered on their database. They need to expand that and get a better handle on the actual numbers of people involved in that, and that is going to require funding. A significant amount of work is being done on the ground by the support groups to meet the growing demand throughout regional communities, but a concern is that throughout all these support groups there is actually only one paid role in Victoria at the moment. This lack of paid support is an issue for us for a range of medical conditions, but certainly in polio it is emerging as a major concern for Polio Australia.
Polio Australia have argued—and I believe quite rightly so—that without the government’s future support they will have a further impact on the volunteers who are required. The burden that is falling upon these volunteers is probably too extreme for them, particularly as many of them are directly affected by the disease themselves. They are right in saying that help is urgently required to help them support sufferers of post-polio syndrome in the future. Too much of the burden is falling on the kind-hearted volunteers in our community.
I believe it is essential that the federal government works with the polio support groups, encourages more volunteers and further assists organisations like Polio Australia in its endeavours. It is important that any services that are provided in the future are made available to people in rural and regional areas, and that we take steps to overcome that tyranny of distance which prevents people from accessing services. I commend the member for Ballarat again for bringing the matter to the House’s attention.
8089
19:35:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—I second the motion moved by the member for Ballarat and, in doing so, I would like to stamp my contribution on this debate by thanking Peg Hatherley from Buff Point who I met with on 8 May this year. It was Peg that brought to my attention the plight of people suffering from post-polio syndrome, or late effects of polio as she likes to refer to it. Present with Peg were Neil Von Schill and a local GP, all people that had suffered from polio earlier in their lives and now were experiencing symptoms associated with the late effects of polio.
It was from this meeting that I arranged for them to come and talk to the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. On that day they were here, they met and spoke with a number of members. It was interesting to learn just how many people had relatives and friends who had actually been affected by polio. My own grandfather suffered from polio and my memories of him are of a little man that always wore callipers.
The issues associated with post-polio syndrome are quite enormous. Peg is a person who has been quite debilitated through her life because of suffering from polio at a younger age. As she has aged, the effects have become much worse and she has become much more debilitated. It took a long time for people to actually recognise what the problem was. By using Peg as an example, it emphasises the problem that sufferers of late effects of polio have.
Whilst polio is now a disease that has been virtually forgotten by our community and health professionals, it is still present but in a very different form. It was in the late 1950s that the immunisation program became widespread throughout Australia, but very few health professionals and even doctors have experience in dealing with people who have suffered from polio at that acute stage. Just recently, as has already been stated in the House, many people that have had polio have developed symptoms later in their lives.
Whilst previously polio it was considered that once you recover from the acute stage of polio, whatever your residual disability was, that was deemed to be the level of your recovery. What has subsequently happened is that there has been a slow degenerative process associated with it.
In a previous life, I worked as a rehabilitation counsellor for people with disabilities and that was the first time I had contact with a person who was actually suffering from post-polio syndrome as it was called at that time. The one aspect that was most debilitating for him was the fact that he suffered from really acute depression. That is one of the many symptoms that are associated with post-polio or late effect polio syndrome, along with fatigue, muscle weakness, pain and a general and rapid decline in physical ability.
I think it is time that parliaments and governments of all persuasions acknowledged the fact that more people suffer a disability from polio than from any other disease. We need to assess its impact and ensure that the right education is provided so that people can not only recognise it but also put in place the right sort of support for those suffering from the late effects of polio. Education is a key factor but we should also do everything in our power to look at supporting Polio Australia so that one body has overall responsibility. Once again I commend the member for Ballarat for bringing this important motion to the attention of the House.
8090
19:40:00
Coulton, Mark, MP
HWN
Parkes
NATS
0
0
Mr COULTON
—I would also like to commend the member for Ballarat for bringing this motion on polio survivors before the House and also for relating the experience of her mother. Often the best way of getting a message across in this place is through personal experience, and I thank the member for that.
I am honoured to be here tonight. Recently, I was asked to be a patron of Polio Australia—and I suspect that others in this room have been as well—and so it is a great honour for me to speak on polio tonight. The three previous speakers have probably covered this issue pretty well. However, I think the real issue is that, since the threat of another polio epidemic was put away in the late fifties and early sixties, polio as a disease has been largely neglected. I probably did not realise the significance of lining up with other kids in my class in primary school and being administered the very sweet tasting pink liquid that was presented on a tiny plastic spoon. At the time, it was not significant but I was probably one of the first generations to be largely polio free in Australia.
Polio survivors are one of the largest disability groups in Australia. There are tens of thousands of polio sufferers living in Australia today. This group includes not only Australians but also immigrants from countries where there were no mass immunisation programs for polio. Over the last 20 years, there has been increasing concern about the victims of polio succumbing to unexpected new symptoms 40 or more years after their initial infection. People in their 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s are experiencing what is called ‘post-polio syndrome’. The sinister nature of this syndrome is that it is often misdiagnosed and, hence, mistaken for other illnesses. The symptoms include fatigue, decreased strength and endurance, pain and weakness in muscles and joints, respiratory and sleep problems, swallowing and speaking difficulties, depression and anxiety. A whole raft of other illnesses would fit that description.
If post-polio syndrome is not detected early, it can lead to further complications. It is now generally agreed that, in order to minimise the severity of any new symptoms, early assessment and intervention is essential. After a full assessment, post-polio sufferers may be referred to one or all of the following: respiratory specialists, speech therapists, orthotists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, psychologists or a pain clinic.
One thing that I do not think has been discussed tonight and that is quite dangerous is that a person suffering from post-polio syndrome must avoid using many of the common drugs. These include muscle relaxants, cholesterol reducing medicines, local anaesthetics, general anaesthetics and painkillers such as aspirin for dysphagia. Polio Australia told us that, if someone is not properly diagnosed and they are being confronted with another illness, their life can be put at risk if these drugs are administered to them.
During the past 20 years numerous state based groups have been formed by polio sufferers. These groups are run by volunteers who suffer from post-polio syndrome themselves and who aim to provide information and support to their fellow sufferers. In the minute I have left I would like to pay tribute to that brave band of Polio Warriors. They march around this place and they knock on doors. They are underresourced and they are doing it for no other reason than to try and help their fellow man. Quite frankly, they are putting themselves through a great amount of discomfort in doing what they do.
I would also like to pay tribute to the people from Polio Australia. One of the things that I think I can do as a local member—and I have to admit to having trouble with how to word it—I hope without creating mass panic is to highlight in the newspaper that it is an issue that people need to be aware of. I am just struggling with how to do that without having all the doctors’ surgeries overrun with everyone believing they have got post-polio syndrome. With the help of Polio Australia I hope to do that.
10000
Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Vietnam: Human Rights
8092
Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Simpkins:
That the House:
-
notes that the Venerable Thich Quang Do, leader of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam has been noted as one of the 15 Great Champions of World Democracy, for his advocacy for religious freedom and democracy in Vietnam; and
-
encourages
-
the Minister for Foreign Affairs to seek from the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam the release from house arrest of the Venerable Thich Quang Do; and
-
encourages the Minister for Foreign Affairs to seek from the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam the restoration of complete freedom of religion within Vietnam.
8092
19:46:00
Simpkins, Luke, MP
HWE
Cowan
LP
0
0
Mr SIMPKINS
—This is not the first time I have spoken on matters of human rights in Vietnam and it will not be the last. I put forward this motion to again highlight the lack of freedoms in Vietnam. I have spoken before in the parliament about the repression of democracy, free speech, the internet and freedom of religion. In this motion I will speak of the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, Patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, and his sacrifices and struggles for freedom of religion, for freedom of speech and for the sort of liberty that one day will allow Vietnam and the Vietnamese people to reach a great potential.
In January 2008 a European magazine chose the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do as one of the 15 champions of world democracy. This courageous and resilient man was born as Dang Phuc Tue on 27 November 1928 in Thai Binh province. He is the head of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam. He is also one of the best known and consequently most prominent dissidents in Vietnam. That prominence has not come cheaply, as freedom does not come cheaply when one opposes authoritarian regimes. Now 81, the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do has been a monk since the age of 14. Originally from the north, at the age of 17 he saw his master summarily executed by a revolutionary people’s tribunal. He was therefore able to see the standards of justice and control that the future Communist government of Vietnam would one day offer the whole of the country.
It should be remembered that Thich Quang Do’s master was not a combatant but a holy man. It has been widely said that by witnessing and being disturbed by that experience, Thich Quang Do’s resolve was strengthened and he was determined to pursue Buddhist teachings of nonviolence, tolerance and compassion. It is important to realise that before 1975 and the fall of the Republic of Vietnam the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam was the largest Buddhist organisation in South Vietnam. It had brought together Buddhists of the two major traditions, Theravada and Mahayana, and it was very active in peace and human rights, with links to international peace organisations. It was because of his profile in those cases that the Communist government of Vietnam saw the Unified Buddhist Church and its leadership as a threat to their absolute control. From 1975 the government planned and implemented persecution of the church and its members, including the seizure of property. This culminated in a forced unification into the government’s Vietnam Buddhist Church.
The Patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church at the time, the Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang, and his deputy, Thich Quang Do, spoke out against the government and its sponsored church. This resulted in their being arrested, internally exiled and even tortured. In 1977 Thich Quang Do was detained for 20 months, all in solitary confinement, for raising the issue of human rights. It was in 1982 that Thich Quang Do was sent to internal exile for 10 years. This punishment was imposed in reality because of the protests about the Communist government’s ban on the independent Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam. It was in 1992 that he returned to Saigon, and in 1994 he wrote a confronting 44-page document that detailed the persecution and excesses by the Communist Party of Vietnam against the Unified Buddhist Church. He was arrested in 1994 for writing that document and then jailed for three years for his involvement in organising food relief for flood victims and distributing letters by the then Patriarch, Thich Huyen Quang. He was again released in 1998, whereupon he repeatedly raised human rights abuses in Vietnam. This resulted in him being regularly arrested and interrogated.
He was strongly nominated for the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize. Since June 2001, he has been under house arrest. In July 2008, on the death of the previous patriarch, the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do assumed leadership of the free church. Much of his life has been spent in detention. Twenty-seven years of his life have involved jail or house arrest, all in the course of peaceful advocacy of human rights, democracy and of course religious freedom. Beyond his importance to the Buddhists inside and outside Vietnam, the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do is an inspiration of courage, integrity and honour. He should be released immediately. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech and democracy should not be dreams but realities. We honour and applaud Thich Quang Do as a great human rights leader of our time.
To conclude, this evening I wear the lapel badges of the republic of Vietnam and of Viet Tan, the Vietnam Reform Party. It is a great honour to speak on behalf of Vietnamese Buddhists in my electorate.
8093
19:51:00
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
83E
Oxley
ALP
1
0
Mr RIPOLL
—It is a pleasure to speak on the motion moved by the member for Cowan. I have many Vietnamese people in my electorate. I have always taken a particular interest in looking after their domestic interests, looking at issues here and in Vietnam which affect them. It is good to see other people in this place taking up some of these issues, talking about human rights and looking at the circumstances and situations which arise in Vietnam, and at the conditions of Vietnamese people in Australia.
The Venerable Thich Quang Do is no stranger to me. On a number of occasions, I have not only spoken about him but also written to the ambassador and taken it upon myself to talk to my local community about his circumstances in Vietnam. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam has progressed over many years. I believe it has moved forward. The evolutionary process which is taking place in Vietnam is a great one and a good one. It is something that all the people of Vietnam should be congratulated on. They are certainly working hard to gain further freedom of speech, religion, media and a range of other matters.
While congratulating all the members who are speaking on this motion tonight, I also take the opportunity to say that the circumstances of the Venerable Thich Quang Do are not unique. There are many other such people in Vietnam and in other parts of the world—these are not isolated circumstances. In fact, all countries, I believe, should take a much closer look at their own human rights right across the board. It is important to acknowledge these things and to continue a particular dialogue.
Tonight I want to make note of the fact that countries such as Australia, through diplomatic channels, through people-to-people channels and through government-to-government channels, continue to have a dialogue, a working conversation, about human rights, about individuals and about progressive involvement. That happens on a number of levels. I am quite proud of the work Australia has done over many years. I congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, for his continuing work with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. That work has been done over a period of years, by consecutive governments. Through foreign aid, grants and exchanges we have contributed to continuing development, particularly in human rights. I also note that today we had in the Senate a delegation from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. We have many delegations from Vietnam. There seems to be a very healthy exchange and the more the better. The more we can expose officials from Vietnam the more they will gain an appreciation for the benefits of opening up their own economy, their own systems and their people to freedoms of religion, speech and media, all the things we take for granted in this country which are not so easily attained in other places.
I also want to mention the great work of the Vietnamese people here in Australia. I know firsthand, through the Vietnamese community in my electorate, that they are a hardworking, highly spirited, adventurous community who are prepared to take risks. They are prepared to open up small businesses. They are prepared to work hard. They are very much committed to their children and to education. They are very much committed to their church and their faith. And it is a broad faith, whether it is Buddhism, as was mentioned by the member for Cowan, or Cao Dai, Taoism or Catholicism. Whatever faith they have, I think that is one of the strengths of the Vietnamese people. While the majority may be Buddhist, there are many other religions in Vietnam. From time to time, there are issues, particularly for people from the north of Vietnam. So I take note of the motion and continue to speak on behalf of Vietnamese Australians and also those in Vietnam, particularly people like Thich Quang Do, who I think is a great representative of his people and his faith. I commend the motion to the House.
8094
19:56:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
0
0
Mr KEENAN
—I also rise to support the motion that has been brought to this House by my good friend the member for Cowan. I congratulate him for doing so. The member for Cowan and I would share probably the vast majority of the Vietnamese community in Perth—perhaps along with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who also has a large number of Vietnamese in his electorate. The member for Cowan and I have large Catholic and Buddhist communities in our electorates. Both of those communities take a very keen interest in what is happening in their homeland, particularly with regard to freedom of religion and the persecution that happens in Vietnam against people who just want to practise their religion in peace. The Venerable Thich Quang Do is a great example of that as head of the United Buddhist Church of Vietnam.
I often reflect on Vietnamese migration to Australia. When I was growing up, in the late seventies and early eighties, there were large waves of Vietnamese migrants settling in Perth and there was some community resistance to and trepidation about those new arrivals. They were different from arrivals we had had in the past. I reflect on just how incredibly successful the Vietnamese people have been as Australian migrants. They are incredibly entrepreneurial people. A lot of them started small businesses when they arrived in Perth. Subsequently, the second generation have gone on to become professionals. They are really incredibly successful migrants who have contributed a lot to Australia. It is always worth reflecting on that, I think, when we reflect on new waves of migrants coming to Australia who might be struggling at times and who might meet some community resistance. We can look at the plight of the Vietnamese and think about how successful their migration has been for them and for Australia.
To return to the motion, Thich Quang Do has seen a lot of repression in his life, firstly under the French occupation and subsequently under the current communist regime. The motion moved by the member for Cowan highlights the work of a man who is determined to see an open and more transparent world for the people of Vietnam—a world where people have the right to choose how they worship and the right to choose many of the freedoms that we here in Australia take for granted. Thich Quang Do is the head of the United Buddhist Church of Vietnam. He has dedicated his whole life to the plight of his people and the search for religious freedom and democracy in Vietnam. This cause has rendered him very well known throughout the world. He has been celebrated in many instances internationally for his very brave work on human rights in Vietnam. Under the communist regime, Thich Quang Do has been a fierce critic and has subsequently been persecuted for his stance on religious freedom. He was arrested for the first time in 1977, along with other members of his church, because they were deemed to be an obstruction to the work of the government in religious matters. He was tortured and imprisoned and was later charged with disturbing the peace and spreading misinformation.
The communist government, in order to control its people, created their own version of the Buddhist church, something we have seen in other communist regimes, and declared the United Buddhist Church of Vietnam illegal. The state tried to assume control over the church, but they were unable to do so, as Thich Quang Do and other Buddhist leaders stood up for their rights to freedom of worship. Thich Quang Do was subsequently exiled to the place of his birth for 10 years, whilst other members of the church were sent to other parts of the country. This did not deter this very brave man, who continues to take the opportunity to show the rest of the world what is happening in Vietnam and to highlight what happens to people when their basic human rights are taken away.
In 1992, he returned to Saigon to continue his fight for religious freedom. He was again arrested, for the crime of preparing a 44-page document promoting freedom in Vietnam. He was accused of sabotaging government policies and damaging the interests of the state. He was tried in court although the evidence provided by the prosecution was very feeble. He was given a five-year sentence which has rightly been condemned by human rights agencies and by other governments worldwide. In the few seconds I have left, I would like to say that Thich Quang Do has been recognised by world leaders and nominated for the Nobel peace prize—(Time expired)
8095
20:01:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
1
0
Mr DANBY
—Recently we were all saddened by the actions of the Burmese regime in sentencing the democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi to a further 18 months in detention—and I am very pleased that the member for Wills has a motion on that important issue immediately after this one has finished. Aung San Suu Kyi is a great and admirable leader, but tonight I want to talk about another great leader in Asia, one who is far less known in this country, although I hope that is about to change. I refer to the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, Patriarch and Secretary-General of the United Buddhist Church of Vietnam.
Thich Quang Do is an 80-year-old Buddhist monk. He has been one of the senior leaders of the Vietnamese Buddhist church since the 1960s and, last year, he succeeded the Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang as the church’s patriarch. He has been either in prison or under house arrest almost continuously since 1982. He is an outstanding advocate of religious freedom, democracy, nonviolence and peace who is often mentioned in the same category as Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Corazon Aquino and Megawati Sukarnoputri—all great champions of freedom and democracy for their countries.
Thich Quang Do has been nominated for the 2009 Nobel peace prize. It is the second time he has been nominated. The winner will be announced in October. I would like to quote the comments of Scott A Hunt, the author of The Future of Peace, in 2007, when Thich Quang Do was nominated the first time. He said:
If I had to pick who will win this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, I’d go with Vietnamese monk Thich Quang Do … He’s the real deal—a courageous, steadfast, peacemaker who, against seemingly insurmountable odds, has spent decades advocating for peace, justice, and religious freedom. He’s been imprisoned, interrogated, threatened, denounced, banished, and placed under house arrest, and still he has continued his struggle.
I will also quote a recent letter to the Nobel committee from four members of the US congress—Ed Royce, Loretta Sanchez, Anh Joseph Cao and Zoe Lofgren:
Thich Quang Do’s selfless actions in pursuit of human rights in Vietnam have brought him great personal hardship. His advocacy for liberty is of historic proportions and deserves to be recognized by members of your Committee—
That is, the Nobel committee. Finally, I quote Thich Quang Do himself, to give you some idea of why the Vietnamese communist regime fear this man so much and why they want him silenced. Thich Quang Do says:
As long as the Communists remain in power, the UBCV has no hope of enjoying religious freedom … Never, it’s impossible. The only way we can regain our right to existence is by accepting to become the Communist Party’s stooges. If we grovel on our knees, bow our heads, do whatever they tell us, that’s fine. The authorities would be delighted to recognize the UBCV under these conditions.
But we will never do this. And for this reason, we must be prepared for continuing repression.
Thich Quang Do is of course not the only religious leader to suffer persecution in Vietnam. I would also like to mention the courageous Catholic priest Father Thadeus Nguyen Van Ly, who has been in prison on and off for almost 15 years; he has been an Amnesty International ‘prisoner of conscience’ since 1983. In March 2007 he was sentenced to a further eight years in prison, which gives you are some indication of the nature of the Vietnamese regime. I am sure that honourable members will join me in calling on the Vietnamese government to release both of these admirable religious leaders and to stop persecuting both Vietnamese Buddhists and Catholics who speak up for religious freedom and democracy.
I do not speak on this resolution because I have a very large Vietnamese community in my electorate. I commend the member for Cowan for raising this resolution. I speak on it because, coming from a minority myself, I think it is important to defend the religious rights of all minorities around the world, particularly people who are non-violent, whether they are Tibetan Buddhists, Vietnamese Catholics or Buddhists or the Baha’i in Iran, and I think we need to be very consistent about this.
One of the ways that I think we could have a bigger influence on these kinds of issues around the world is with our human rights dialogues. The one with Iran has nearly passed into history, but we still have them with Vietnam and China. Rather than letting them be run by officials, I think if the human rights dialogues were placed under the powers of the foreign affairs committee, which has the ability to investigate and to speak to foreign affairs officials from both countries, there would be a much more powerful drilling down by members of this House of Representatives and the Senate into human rights in these countries. Thich Quang Do should be freed unconditionally. It is a shame that he is a prisoner of conscience.
10000
Schultz, Alby (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr AJ Schultz)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
8097
Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson:
That the House:
-
deplores the Myanmar military regime for pressing new and spurious charges against Dr Aung San Suu Kyi and for her ongoing detention and persecution;
-
condemns the Myanmar regime for continuing to deny the fundamental human rights of Dr Suu Kyi, notably those rights enshrined in Articles 9, 10 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention, guarantee the right to fair trial, and guarantee the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
-
demands that the Myanmar regime drop the current set of charges against Dr Suu Kyi, and immediately and unconditionally release her from detention;
-
applauds Dr Suu Kyi for her courage in peacefully protesting for the democratic rights of the people of Myanmar over many years and with great dignity and civility; and
-
calls on the Myanmar regime to ensure that the elections it proposes to conduct in 2010 are truly free and fair.
8097
20:06:00
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
1
0
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—In June I spoke in favour of a motion which included support for the Australian government’s condemnation of Aung San Suu Kyi’s detention, calling for her immediate release and supporting continued financial sanctions targeting senior members of the Burma regime, their immediate families and their associates. Since that time and since I lodged this motion, there have been significant but not positive developments.
As members will be aware, the Burmese democracy leader was convicted on 10 August under the so-called ‘law protecting the state against the dangers of subversive elements’. This Orwellian sounding act is used to silence any political dissent in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi was sentenced to three years detention with labour, later reduced to 1½ years home detention. This removes any prospect of her taking part in the proposed Burmese 2010 elections and will further detract from the credibility of those elections.
Aung San Suu Kyi now faces a further period in detention, having spent almost 14 of the last 20 years in detention. I condemn this verdict and this sentence. I deplore the Myanmar military regime for pressing these spurious charges against Aung San Suu Kyi and I deplore her ongoing detention and persecution. Like many of my fellow Australians, and in common with many parliamentary colleagues, I demand that the Myanmar regime quash the conviction recorded against Aung San Suu Kyi and immediately and unconditionally release her from detention.
There has been a strong and immediate international reaction to the sentencing. The United Nations Secretary-General issued a statement saying he was deeply disappointed and deplored the verdict. The European Union was strongly critical of Aung San Suu Kyi’s continued detention. In a statement issued by Sweden, the current EU chair, the European Union stated it was ready to impose targeted sanctions against those involved. The EU Council have added members of Burma’s judiciary responsible for the verdict to a list of some 500 government officials whose assets in the EU are frozen and who are banned from travel to the EU’s 27-member bloc. The European Union has indicated that its existing assets freeze would now also cover businesses owned and controlled by members of the military regime and their associates.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called on the United Nations Security Council to impose a global prohibition on arms sales to Myanmar, action which Australia is actively working with other countries to support. Many members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations, the regional grouping to which Burma belongs, have indicated that the verdict is unacceptable. The Australian government has called upon the Burmese regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi as well as the other 2,000 political prisoners from detention. This should be done unconditionally and immediately.
In addition to supporting international measures, Australia has for some time taken autonomous measures. We have autonomous financial sanctions, introduced in 2007 and updated in 2008, that target senior members of the regime, their associates and their families’ members. As a result of Aung San Suu Kyi’s trial, conviction and sentencing, when these sanctions are updated the government will give consideration to including senior members of the judiciary as being subject to these sanctions. The Prime Minister has announced that, in solidarity with Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese people, the government and Radio Australia have agreed to establish a Burmese language service to open up a new channel of international contact for the people of Burma. And Australia will consult further with the international community, including the United Nations and Australia’s ASEAN partners, on the need to put even more pressure on the Burmese regime to move down the path of democracy.
Australia has a longstanding arms embargo against Burma and I urge other countries to do the same. The arms embargo and other sanctions applied by the United States, the European Union and other countries have been undermined by a failure of a number of countries—China, Russia and India—to support collective international action. I was disappointed to read last week that China had called on the international community to ‘respect Burma’s judicial sovereignty’. If China wants to be respected internationally it needs to respect international standards, and Burma’s judicial system does not meet—I repeat, does not meet—international standards. I was also disappointed that India had had nothing to say about Aung San Suu Kyi’s conviction and sentence. China and India should not compete for influence in Burma at the expense of the human rights of Burmese people. Burma is a country of some 56 million people, 90 per cent of whom live on less than a dollar a day. It deserves better. It deserves support from the whole of the international community.
8098
20:11:00
Forrest, John, MP
NV5
Mallee
NATS
0
0
Mr FORREST
—I commence my remarks by commending the member for Wills for bringing this motion to the attention of the House. Dr Aung San Suu Kyi has become quite symbolic in our modern era, representing the struggle for freedom and democracy. In fact, in the Australian last week there was a beautiful photographic portrait of her with a headline saying ‘Defying the despots’. Her treatment by the oppressive Myanmar regime is an appalling abuse of human rights and Australians who enjoy the freedom of democracy our wonderful nation offers are appalled. So I am more than enthusiastic to support the member for Wills in his motion here on behalf of the fair-minded and decent citizens who make up the constituency of Mallee.
The motion quite rightly condemns the Myanmar military regime for its ongoing persecution of Dr Aung San Suu Kyi and calls upon it to implement the democratic election that it as a regime proposed for next year. This oppressive military regime stands condemned, not just by this parliament but by the rest of the world. There have been countless examples of its cruelty and oppression beyond the treatment of Dr Suu Kyi, but she has become symbolic of the struggle that hundreds of thousands of Burmese citizens have endured under the crushing foot of this despotic regime.
Earlier this year I was privileged to undertake a study visit to the north-west of Thailand, right next to the Burmese border, in a little village called Maei Suai. The visit was the subject of my own private member’s motion, which we debated in this chamber in May. In a report that I tabled in this parliament I was not game to repeat all of the horror stories of those people belonging to the Akha tribe who have had to escape across the border because of the oppression in Burma and of the children attending the training centre that I visited at Maei Suai. There were many horror stories, and they remain untold by me for fear of retribution within Burma against surviving members of their families. As I said in that report I tabled in the parliament, in the case of one particular family, the father of the child staying at the training centre gave a horrendous report of their escape from the Myanmar regime and of the many atrocities committed just on that one particular group of people, the Akha. There are something like a dozen of these mountain tribes scattered right through the mountains in South-East Asia, and the ones in Burma are particularly oppressed, more so than those in other countries such as China, Vietnam and Laos and in Thailand itself. I heard the story of another family who fled on foot across the mountains, chased by army regulars firing guns at them. They ran through the night with nothing but the clothes on their backs, hungry and tired.
This is a despotic regime which must be brought to account and the international community needs to keep up its efforts to succeed in this outcome. I would like to complete my remarks by commending this resolution to the member for Hinkler and the member for Canberra who, I am delighted to see, is present in the chamber. Both these members will be representing all of us in the General Assembly of the United Nations from September through to December, and I would like them to take the strength of this resolution into account, as they represent not just us as members of the parliament but Australians who are generally appalled at the treatment of Dr Suu Kyi. As bad as this is, she is just so symbolic of so many other hundreds of thousands of Burmese citizens who are being oppressed, suppressed, persecuted and even murdered. The members for Hinkler and Canberra can carry this resolution confident that it has the energetic support of this chamber on behalf of the Australian people, and whilst at the United Nations they can confidently carry the will of Australia to the debate which that assembly has been conducting over some time now to do what it can to expose this deplorable regime in what was once the proud country of Burma. I commend this resolution to the House and to those two members in particular to carry the strength of this resolution forward in the United Nations.
8100
20:16:00
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
1
0
Ms GRIERSON
—I, too, rise in support of the member for Wills’s private member’s motion deploring the Myanmar regime for pressing new and spurious charges against Dr Aung San Suu Kyi, for her ongoing detention and persecution and condemning the regime for continuing to deny her fundamental human rights, notably those which prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention, guarantee the right to a fair trial and guarantee the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Her incarceration is a gross injustice of the most serious kind, an incarceration by a regime that is afraid of Dr Suu Kyi’s ability to organise and unite the people of her country against its authoritarian rule.
Dr Suu Kyi’s credentials and her international reputation are undoubted. Winner of the Nobel Prize Peace Prize in 1991, Dr Suu Kyi has received vocal support from many countries in the world, including Australia. In 2007, in a vote of 400 to nil, she was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal by the United States congress, the US House of Representatives, receiving the medal in 2008. She was the first person in history to receive the prize while imprisoned and that is the tragedy of it all. So how is it that an individual of such prestige and such honour can continue to be imprisoned on such spurious charges? In the 1990 general elections Suu Kyi was elected to be Prime Minister as leader of the winning National League for Democracy party which won 59 per cent of the vote and 394 of the 492 seats. Her subsequent detention by the military junta prevented her from assuming office. Certainly, should she face another election, she would undoubtedly win but she has instead been under house arrest for 14 of the last 20 years. Her latest charges and detention stem from an incident in May of this year when an American citizen, John William Yettaw, swam across to her private compound. Protesting exhaustion, he stayed at her residence for two days, supposedly, before making the return swim when he was subsequently arrested. Dr Suu Kyi was arrested for violating the terms of her house arrest under Burma’s so-called Law Protecting the State Against the Dangers of Subversive Elements.
Last week Aung San Suu Kyi was sentenced to three years with labour, but the sentence was reduced to 1½ years home detention. The sentence removes any prospect of Aung San Suu Kyi participating in Burma’s elections, no doubt elections that would have seen her as the people’s choice to lead the country to freedom and democracy. The Australian government has since condemned her most recent arrest. Dr Suu Kyi’s situation is one of only thousands of similar incarcerations in Myanmar. It is estimated that in the last 18 months alone, the period leading up to the next elections, the number of political prisoners in Myanmar has doubled. Her detention is symptomatic of the ongoing internal situation in Burma. Unless significant political, economic and social reforms occur, the threat the regime poses to its people and to the region surrounding it will only continue to increase. I join my government in repeating its call for the regime to release Aung Sang Suu Kyi immediately and unconditionally and to release the more than 2,000 political prisoners in Myanmar.
Australia maintains financial sanctions against the Burmese regime. The government will now move to update these, as we have heard from the member for Wills, looking at the senior members of the judiciary, and to keep them focused for maximum impact. I strongly support these sanctions knowing full well that the majority of the Myanmar people will suffer continuously while the privileged few of the junta still live very well and that the sanctions will hurt the regime and its supporters the most. It is still not too late to set aside the conviction and the sentence, release Aung San Suu Kyi and move the regime down the path of national reconciliation. I applaud Dr Suu Kyi for her courage in peacefully protesting the democratic rights of the people of Myanmar over all these years with great dignity and civility. I finish with an excerpt from one of Dr Suu Kyi’s most famous speeches, ‘Freedom from fear’. It begins:
It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.
8101
20:20:00
Simpkins, Luke, MP
HWE
Cowan
LP
0
0
Mr SIMPKINS
—I would like to begin by congratulating the member for Wills for bringing this motion before the chamber. I have always thought that he walks in no former member’s shadow. Well done, mate. I also congratulate my colleagues on both sides who have chosen to speak on Aung San Suu Kyi tonight. She was born in 1945, the daughter of the famous revolutionary Aung San, who is credited with being one of main people in unifying Burma and taking Burma away from the colonial days into nationhood. Unfortunately, he met his death by way of assassination just six months before Burma officially became a union and a nation. That occurred when Aung San Suu Kyi was just two years old.
Given that background, given that she was the daughter of someone who was widely credited with bringing the nation away from the colonial past, it seems almost natural that she should rise to this position, a great leader, a great icon for freedom in South-East Asia. It has not come at no cost; it has been a difficult road that she has chosen to take, a road of great sacrifice. She met her husband, Michael Aris, I believe in the 1970s, and whilst married to him she was called back to Burma in 1988 when her mother became sick. From 1988 to 1990 she took up the gauntlet for the NLD, the National League for Democracy, and became their leader for the free election in 1990. Unfortunately, that was the election that the military junta overturned and imposed their will on the nation, becoming an autocratic regime rejecting democracy. Sadly, that has been the history of Burma ever since. Obviously we live for the day when democracy returns to Burma and the result of the 1990 election is honoured.
I mentioned before that Aung San Suu Kyi’s path has been a difficult one and one of sacrifice. She has chosen to remain in that country as a leader, as the symbol of democracy, at great personal cost. I believe it was in 1999 that her husband was dying of cancer and he petitioned the regime to allow him to return to Burma. Of course, they refused. Aung San Suu Kyi chose to sacrifice those last days of time with her husband by remaining in Burma because she knew that they would never let her back in. She sacrificed that time with her husband for the sake of democracy, to remain there as that symbol for people who continue to resist until this day.
With the death of her husband and almost permanent house arrest ever since, it has come to this point that the military junta has managed to create the circumstances with their autocratic laws which have ensured that she has been found guilty of pathetic charges by a pathetic corrupt government. They have created the circumstances whereby it will be impossible for her to stand in the next elections. This is a government with no legitimacy. It is corrupt. It stands against democracy in every respect. It stands only for the individuals, the powerful elites, of a country that has no commitment to the people and has no interest apart from oppression and maintenance of their power. The sooner they fall, it will be a great day and the sooner Aung San Suu Kyi is released and becomes the true leader of that country, it will be better.
8102
20:25:00
Saffin, Janelle, MP
HVY
Page
ALP
1
0
Ms SAFFIN
—I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Wills and to associate myself with all of the comments of the other members who have spoken before. I would like to share a few things that I know and some of my experience of the country we call Burma and that the generals changed the name of in 1989 to Myanmar. I know Aung San Suu Kyi; I knew Dr Michael Aris, her husband. In 1997 when he gave a speech on Suu’s behalf at the university of technology where she received an honorary doctorate in her speech—which she had prepared and he gave—she asked that Australia broadcast Radio Australia into Burma.
Even though it has been quite a few years, and I have been one of the advocates involved in that along with other people, I am pleased that the Prime Minister announced that new channel last week as a show of solidarity. I know that all members across both chambers support that action. In standing in solidarity with Aung San Suu Kyi, it is standing in solidarity with the people of Burma. It is the people of Burma that she has in her heart and in her mind and they return that. The generals are actually scared of the people and they moved holus bolus from Rangoon, the capital, up to Naypyidaw. They moved because they are actually fearful. Burma is a land of many peoples and lots of ethnic nationality peoples and the generals fear them as well as fearing those desiring democracy.
There is a whole range of things that have happened. In the 1990 election, as we heard here tonight, the National League for Democracy won 392 seats of the 485 contested. There are 492 seats but seven were deemed too unstable to run the election. Therefore the National League for Democracy won the election. Aung San Suu Kyi was barred from running by the law and she was under house arrest but her party by convention would have taken over government. Then they passed a whole series of laws starting with declaration 1/90 which changed the nature of the election. The election law at that time in order 5/89 actually stated who would be elected and what they would be elected for, which was to the parliament to draw up the constitution. Declaration 1/90 retrospectively changed that, but it still recognised that those people elected at that time had the right to draw up the constitution. They then set about changing that and those people were excluded, so that by the time the draft constitution was done, many, many years later, there was under one per cent of the people attending the national convention who had legitimacy according to the law at the time—order 5/89 and declaration 1/90.
In a show of goodwill people like the NLD and others agreed to work with even that declaration 1/90 to try to get the constitution up—they did not manage it. We then saw that the generals went to a referendum and they claimed a huge mandate for this constitution. You may not be aware that the constitution gives an amnesty to the generals and no-one else. When you have a country that has had a series of conflicts and civil wars raging for a long time against the centre and the generals, then that is just madness. The key thing that I wanted to say tonight was that the 2010 elections, based as they will be on that flawed and fraudulent constitution, will not aim at settlement.
10000
Schultz, Alby (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr AJ Schultz)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
8103
Grievance Debate
Debate resumed from 22 June.
10000
Schultz, Alby (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr AJ Schultz)—The question is:
That grievances be noted.
Herbert Electorate
8103
8103
20:30:00
Lindsay, Peter, MP
HK6
Herbert
LP
0
0
Mr LINDSAY
—I reckon I have a fair dinkum grievance, and it is on behalf of my community in Townsville that I express to the House this particular grievance. From time to time the Australian Electoral Commission is required by this parliament to redistribute electorates around the country as numbers change. We have seen in New South Wales the population reducing. They have all been moving to Queensland, and that is not surprising. We have seen the population of Queensland grow and the population in New South Wales shrink. That has caused the AEC, as required by law, to rebalance the electorates so that throughout Australia electorates have a similar number of voters, plus or minus a tolerance.
In New South Wales they have lost a seat. In Queensland we have gained a seat. But of course that has meant a redrawing of boundaries, and there has been a terrible outcome for Townsville. Townsville is Australia’s largest tropical city. It is the capital city of Northern Australia, effectively. But what we have now is one of our premier suburbs having their federal member, under the proposed redistribution, located 400 kilometres away. It is like, if you were in Kenmore or Chapel Hill in the seat of Ryan in Brisbane, your federal member being in Gladstone. That would never be allowed, but it is now proposed under what the AEC is suggesting in the draft redistribution for Queensland.
Looking at the overarching problem, in the last parliament there was a redistribution in Queensland as well, where we gained the seat of Flynn. What is happening is that seats are being pushed further north. Let me tell you how that has affected seats in Queensland. In the seat of Capricornia my colleague Kirsten Livermore now finds that, on the southern boundary of her seat in Rockhampton, her local community in fact is not in Capricornia but Flynn, because Flynn has been moved north. She has lost local Rockhampton communities like Mount Morgan and Gracemere. Flynn is 10 kilometres from the GPO of Rockhampton, so that seat has come north into Rockhampton. That is unfair for the member for Capricornia, the people of Rockhampton and their community of interest.
That has caused the flow-on whereby Capricornia has pushed into the southern areas of Mackay in the seat of Dawson. So we now find that Sarina and Mirani, for example, whose community of interest is with Mackay, are now in the seat of Capricornia, and the federal member is in Rockhampton. That has caused the flow-on whereby the seat of Dawson, based on Mackay, now comes right into Townsville, where the community of interest is with Townsville, not Mackay—but their federal member is in Mackay. That is wrong. That has to be sorted out. That is why my community is very angry. I have copies of hundreds of individual objections that have gone to the AEC. I ask the AEC and their Redistribution Committee to look at what has happened in the northern part of the state. There are many reasons why it is not appropriate to have the premier suburb of Townsville in the electorate of Dawson, with afederal member 400 kilometres away.
In the report on the draft redistribution the AEC said:
We have included Lavarack Barracks in Townsville in the seat of Herbert because there is an affinity and a community of interest between the soldiers and the garrison city of Townsville.
Dead right—there is. But there are more soldiers and their families living in the suburb of Annandale, which has been excluded from Herbert, than at Lavarack Barracks. How bizarre is that! That is just wrong. And there are other things that are wrong. For example, the people of Annandale, who are being excluded from Herbert and put into Dawson, do not receive the news from Mackay—they do not see the newspapers, they do not see the television, they cannot hear the radio—so they do not know what their proposed federal member stands for and what is being discussed. They are not interested in Mackay issues; they are interested in Townsville issues. But the AEC is suggesting that they should be in Mackay. That is wrong. There are no economic ties between Townsville and Mackay. Mackay is coal, sugar and some tourism; it is basically coal and sugar. But there is no coal and sugar in Townsville. The economic issues in Townsville, the capital city of North Queensland, are much different from the economic issues in Mackay. So on the grounds of economic issues, this does not stack up.
In terms of regional interests, Townsville is the communications centre for North Queensland. We deal with everything west of Townsville and out to the border. It is only 800 kilometres out to Mount Isa, but that is what we deal with. Mackay has no interest in that, and the federal member in Mackay has no interest in that. Moreover, there is no community of interest between Ayr and Townsville in the sense that the state member for that particular area is in Ayr, not Townsville. Recently the two councils in Townsville—Thuringowa City Council and Townsville City Council—were amalgamated by the state government. The reason they were amalgamated was to bring the community of interest together. But we now have the AEC pulling that apart, and that is wrong.
I note that, when the draft boundaries were released, the member for Dawson indicated that he would not be establishing an office in the northern part of the electorate. As members of parliament, we understand why: he is not funded for that. I certainly understand that, but how does a pensioner in Annandale or Townsville get to see their federal member with an 800 kilometre round trip? How does that happen? The answer is: it does not. The residents of Annandale have effectively been disenfranchised. That is dead wrong; it really is wrong.
I guess Annandale has no community of interest with Mackay; the community interest is with Herbert. I happen to live in Annandale. My federal member will be 400 kilometres away. Where I live, in the new seat of Dawson, is two kilometres from my electorate office. In fact, it is two minutes and 45 seconds away by car. How bizarre is that! I will not be able to represent myself because I will not be in my electorate! I am hoping that common sense will prevail. When the electorate became aware of what was proposed—and I certainly helped them to understand that—there was a lot of emotion. Often constituents do not understand the formal processes. They do not understand how to deal with something like this; they just get angry. I understand that. If I were a constituent, I would feel that way, too. With the many hundreds of objections that will come from constituents and the formal objection that will come from my office, and understanding the legislative requirements of the AEC, I am hoping that the AEC will take note of this and common sense will prevail—because it must. We cannot allow this situation, right along the Queensland coast, to go the way it has gone. I appeal to the AEC commissioners to redress this particular issue.
Global Population
8105
8105
20:40:00
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
1
0
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—We all know that the world has plenty of problems. Let me run out some that come to mind without much effort: global warming, the food crisis, water shortages, housing affordability, overcrowded cities, transport congestion, the fisheries collapse, species extinctions, increasing prices, waste and terrorism. We scratch our heads and try to come up with solutions. It staggers me that so often we ignore the elephant in the room: increasing population. Each of these problems is either caused by or exacerbated by the global population explosion. In the first two million years of human existence, the global human population was only a few million. Up to 1950, it had managed to climb to two billion. In the 50-odd years since, it has trebled to six billion people. And the population is projected to double again.
The consequences of the present population pressure are dramatic. In my belief, it is not plausible that the world’s population could double without the consequences becoming catastrophic. Yet, when it is suggested that the world’s population is a problem, there is zero interest from policy makers. In my view, it is not so much a problem as the problem. Let me return to that list of problems and describe the impact of population on them.
One: global warming. Population plays a critical role in global warming. We have one earth and one atmosphere, and every carbon dioxide molecule we release into it contributes to global warming. The more of us there are, the more carbon dioxide is released—simple and undeniable. Al Gore identifies population growth as one of the big three drivers of the rapid spurt of greenhouse gasses during the past 50 years. People who believe that we can meet serious carbon targets without curbing population growth are kidding themselves; they are delusional. There is no reasonable prospect that Australia will reduce its total level of greenhouse emissions while our population grows by one million every four years as is presently the case. Population stabilisation must be part of the plan to contain greenhouse emissions not merely for Australia but for the rest of the world as well.
Two: the food crisis. The combination of declining arable land and continued population growth has caused the world’s per capita food production to go into decline. We are now in a situation where there is a global shortage of food which is set to get worse. In future, more people will starve—not fewer. Figures released by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation show that the number of people suffering from chronic hunger is rising, not falling. In June last year, the Australian government’s Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation said that world agriculture is experiencing a growing crisis, and its first named demand-side factor was increasing global population.
Three: water shortages. As with agricultural decline, population growth is fuelling water shortages both indirectly through climate change and directly through extraction and pollution. Around the world, one in three people is suffering from water shortage. Assuming modest rates of population growth, we will use 70 per cent of the world’s accessible fresh water by 2025. Already, 400 million children worldwide are drinking dangerously unclean water, and one child dies from a waterborne disease every 15 seconds. According to Melbourne Water, water scarcity in and around Melbourne is being driven by both climate change and population growth.
Four: housing affordability. Housing affordability in Australia has undergone a period of dramatic decline. John Edwards, an economist with HSBC, has noted that Australia’s high level of migration, the highest level in our history, is going to keep upward pressure on house prices. The same goes for rent. The General Manager of Australian Property Monitors, Michael McNamara, has said the shortage of rental properties will continue to worsen because of rising migration.
Five: overcrowded cities. Our cities are too large. They dwarf people. The sheer scale of them is overwhelming for some, who lose the plot and fall victim to mental illness or drug and alcohol abuse. For the rest of us, the madding crowd swells every year, giving us that little bit less room. Every square metre of space is fought over. In Africa and Asia the accumulated urban growth during the whole span of history is in the process of being doubled between the years 2000 and 2030. A United Nations Population Fund report released in June 2007 says that, as a result, a billion people—one-sixth of the world’s population—live in slums. The overcrowding of cities is not merely a Third World phenomenon either. In my home city of Melbourne, a lot of people of goodwill have supported high rise as preferable to urban sprawl. What they do not realise is that it is not halting any urban sprawl at all. Suburbs continue to continue to march out onto the horizon. Property developers are having their cake and eating it too. We are growing upwards and outwards. Melbourne is becoming an obese hardened-artery parody of its former self. There is something intangible but important about the personal space of a backyard. I believe the children who grow up in concrete jungle suburbs are subject to more bullying and harassment and are more vulnerable to traps such as crime and drugs.
Six: traffic congestion. More people equals more cars, and the more cars there are out on the roads the longer it takes us to get anywhere. The time that motorists spend on the roads in and out of Brisbane, for example—to the Sunshine Coast, the Gold Coast or Ipswich—is truly appalling. Each suburb we build out of the city fringes means more traffic coming through the inner suburbs, more congestion, more pollution and more noise. It does nothing for our calm, our quality of life or our sanity. We think we have no choice but to grin and bear it. It is not true.
Seven: species extinctions. The USA based National Academy of Sciences has reported that human activities are leading to a wave of extinctions over 100 times greater than natural rates. Over 12,000 varieties of animal, plant and water life are critically endangered. Thirty per cent of Australia’s 760 bird species are under threat. The world has entered the 21st century with little more than 10 per cent of its original forest cover intact. According to anthropologists Richard Leakey and Roger Lewis, all the forest cover will be largely gone by 2050. Sometimes I think we have declared war on everything else. The more there are of us the less there is of everything else. I consider it a grotesque piece of arrogance on our part as a species that we think that we have a right to destroy everything else on our way to affluence.
Eight: fisheries collapse. One of our favourite old sayings was, ‘There are plenty more fish in the sea.’ Not anymore: 90 per cent of the large fish in the ocean are gone. Australia is in the same boat as everyone else. Our annual catch has steadily gone down, and a Bureau of Rural Sciences fisheries status report says that two-thirds of Australia’s fisheries are either overfished or uncertain.
Nine: increasing prices. Increasing population consumes resources and makes them scarcer, leading to price rises. The rising price of petrol is a clear function of scarcity fuelled by population growth, and the increased cost of basic resources such as water and petrol feeds into everything they contribute to—food costs, transport costs, insurance, housing et cetera. Some economists argue that increasing population will create economies of scale and put downward pressure on prices. In reality, this downward pressure on prices is sighted less frequently than Elvis Presley.
Ten: waste. A vast area of the central Pacific Ocean has become smothered in plastic. It is referred to as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. The area affected is estimated to be twice the size of Texas and to a depth of at least 30 metres. What a disgrace!
Eleven: terrorism and war. Analysts spend a great deal of time assessing the political and religious factors leading to the scourge of terrorism and war in the modern world. They spend less time noting the underlying cause: conflict over scarce resources—scarce land, scarce water and scarce oil—brought about by increasing population. A Pentagon report in 2007 detailed a range of scenarios in which population displacement caused by global warming and triggered by extreme weather events would lead to border tensions and armed conflict. An Oxford University study has estimated that 26 million Bangladeshis, 73 million Chinese and 20 million Indians are at risk of displacement from rising sea levels.
In short, it is time for governments and policy makers around the world to come to their senses and take steps to stabilise the world’s population. It needs to happen in every country, including here in Australia—especially here in dry, arid Australia. And it is time people and communities stood up and demanded better of their policy makers than the ‘she’ll be right’ growth fetish which is making an utter mockery of our obligation to give to our children a world in as good a condition as the one our parents gave to us.
Pearce Electorate: Roads
8107
8107
20:50:00
Moylan, Judi, MP
4V5
Pearce
LP
0
0
Mrs MOYLAN
—I rise tonight to contribute to the grievance debate on behalf of constituents in Pearce. As the ancient saying goes, ‘All roads lead to Rome’, but I think it is fair to say that, had Romans had to travel on some Western Australian roads, they may have taken a different route. Such a comment might seem jovial but in fact it reveals the disgraceful truth that, while ancient Rome now lies in ruins, so too do many of the arterial roads in the Pearce electorate. I specifically make reference to the Great Northern Highway and the Great Eastern Highway. The Great Northern Highway is the main arterial road that carries all of the traffic to the great and developing north-west of Western Australia where much of the mining wealth has been generated now over several decades and where a lot of the major pastoral activity takes place. That road carries all the heavy traffic to and from that region, to the ports and the airport, and is a very busy road indeed.
The Great Eastern Highway, as the name suggests, carries all of the traffic to and from Perth and the Eastern States of Australia—again, to the ports, the airport and other destinations in Western Australia. They are certainly some of the busiest roads in Western Australia. The traffic, particularly in heavy haulage trucks, is increasing at an alarming rate, as is tourist and domestic travel on those roads. The situation, I think, is becoming extremely dangerous. These roads were built in an era that never envisaged the huge haulage trucks we now have using those roads, often with double and treble loads. On parts of the Great Northern Highway it is almost impossible for drivers to keep their rigs on the road between the white lines. This places other road users in great danger.
For all of my 16 years in this place I have campaigned very strongly for safer roads in the Pearce electorate, particularly the Great Northern Highway and the Great Eastern Highway, as well as many other smaller roads within the electorate. While many improvements have been made and the community are grateful for those improvements, there remains a great deal of work to do. Unfortunately, under the current government, it looks as though that work might have to wait a lot longer.
There are a couple of particular issues arising from this lack of road funding. One is safety, and we are talking about road fatalities and accidents that cause horrendous damage to people and leave scars that they have to live with for the rest of their lives. The safety issues must be a priority. The second part of the equation is an economic one, specifically the level of infrastructure derived as a percentage of Western Australia’s contribution to GDP. Western Australia’s future economic development rests to some extent on the efficiency of its transport routes.
Let me turn to the safety issues first. Over the years, I have made many representations to government on the safety issues, particularly in relation to the Great Northern Highway and the Great Eastern Highway. I have subsequently had meetings with various bodies, such as Access Alliance and Main Roads Western Australia in recent times, just to find out what has happened to the considerable amount of funding that was allocated under the previous, Howard government. But it seems that on many occasions, rather than tackling the difficult bits of road—and I know that there are sometimes reasons why they are not immediately addressed—some of the straight sections of road have been widened and improved but we still have serious difficulties on winding parts of the road, perhaps where they are a bit more challenging to fix. I think it is disappointing that that situation continues. Meanwhile, as these dangerous parts of the road are not fixed, the safety of motorists is put in jeopardy. As I said, this can only get worse as these highways become even more congested in the coming months.
One of the issues I raised in the debate about wheat deregulation was the lack of decision making around the infrastructure issues that were required to be addressed, I felt, prior to any proposal to deregulate the market. I made representation to the current minister. I spoke in this House and in many other forums about the dangers of carrying out deregulation of the wheat market until infrastructure issues had been addressed. So what do we find now? We have an inquiry into the transport of wheat by rail. If my recollection is right, just recently I heard the government in Western Australia say that it is not viable to improve rail transport there. So what we are going to see over the coming harvest months is many, many more trucks filled with wheat plying our roads, not only the major highways but also the internal roads, with the resultant damage to the roads but also with risks to the other motorists using those roads. When you think about the thousands of tonnes of wheat that will now need to be carted by road because the rail that carted the wheat formerly is not going to be available, I think it is a very bleak situation. I know that the Western Australian Farmers Federation and many representatives from local government in the electorate of Pearce have been working very hard to try and convince both governments of the merit of improving the rail to cart wheat. I think it will be an indictment of the government if it does not take action to improve the rail transport situation for wheat growers.
In Western Australia we have also many mining projects on the drawing board, including the Oakajee port facility. This is going to mean many more of these heavy trucks carrying triple, double and overwidth loads backward and forward along the Great Northern Highway. I met recently with the state member for Swan Hills. I am very grateful for the work that he is doing to do his part to convince the state government to give some of these roadworks priority. The ultimate solution is to have the Perth to Darwin highway constructed and not just some faraway dream. A solution with the Great Eastern Highway, similarly, is to have what they call the yellow route constructed, to take the pressure off both those roads. The Great Northern Highway goes through the beautiful Swan Valley. It is a tourist precinct and it is extremely dangerous to have these trucks going up and down that road constantly. About 2,600 trucks a day are forecast to use the southern end of that road.
So I will continue to work with the state Liberal member, Frank Alban, and with the state and federal governments to try to convince them that we need to put far more investment into improving the roads in Western Australia, particularly those two major highways that run through, in part, the Pearce electorate. It is a very important and urgent priority that needs to be attended to in the interests of safe motoring for all road users.
Economy
8109
8109
21:00:00
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
HWG
Isaacs
ALP
1
0
Mr DREYFUS
—It is clear to everyone in this House, to every Australian family and to every Australian business that we face extraordinary economic circumstances. Globally, we are experiencing the worst recession since the Great Depression: the world economy is expected to contract by 1.3 per cent; other advanced economies are in deep recession. In Australia, the early and decisive action that was taken by the government has helped stave off technical recession. Fortunately, our economy has been more resilient and better equipped to withstand the global downturn. We are now the fastest growing economy in the OECD and we are the only major economy to have avoided recession.
In our local community, there are many companies who are aiming not simply to survive the global recession but to continue to grow their businesses and to keep creating local jobs. They are doing this through innovation, through increased use of technology and through their response to shifting demand and the changing imperatives of our economy and our environment. I am proud to say that, in south-east Melbourne, the Rudd government’s response has been both timely and effective. We have been working hard to support businesses and jobs through this period.
The government’s Climate Ready Program will invest $75 million to support research and development, proof of concept and early-stage commercialisation to develop solutions to climate change challenges. Local projects in our community are demonstrating that this funding does not just protect our environment; it supports local Australian jobs. Over the past few months, two local companies, Clean TeQ and Frontline Australasia, have won funding from the Climate Ready Program. I had the opportunity to visit Clean TeQ’s factory to see for myself how this funding—in the case of Clean TeQ, almost $1 million—will help not only their business but our environment and local employment as well.
Clean TeQ is a mining services and environmental solutions company that develops and commercialises sustainable technologies, and it does so with a focus on properly utilising natural resources. Greg Toll, the chief executive officer of Clean TeQ, showed me around the company’s factory and explained how government funding will assist in the development trials of a pretreatment process that will separate waste from water, with no sediment. This means they will be able to trial pretreatment technologies that will provide the desalination process of separating waste from water in a safe and environmentally friendly manner. Clean TeQ has almost doubled its staff, from 17 to 30, in the past 18 months, and this federal government funding has put the company in a position to hire more engineers to undertake this project. It is an example of a local Australian company being innovative and taking on the world.
So too is Bangholme based Frontline Australasia, who manufacture and supply precision components and assemblies to organisations such as Holden, Ford, Tenix, Boeing and the Royal Australian Navy. In a world first, Frontline Australasia is working with the CSIRO to develop a continuous cold-spray pilot plant for the production of seamless titanium alloy tubing and pipe. They are undertaking this project with support from the federal government of $1.2 million. The cold-spray process uses a high-pressure and high-velocity gas to make titanium powder into seamless titanium pipe. The process reduces the energy usage compared to conventional commercial manufacturing technology by around 30 per cent, which could save thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases each year.
Another local success story is Roshan Textiles, run by Roshan Gunawardana and his family, which received a $42,000 federal government grant under the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Small Business Program. This will allow the company to implement a new ordering system via the internet to make it easier for their customers to make and track their orders. With customers across Australia as well as in New Zealand and China, Roshan believes that this new online system will improve administrative efficiency, allowing his staff to spend more time on the shop floor. The issue with the textile industry at present is not simply price but also capacity. Roshan is planning to build a new factory building on his existing site in Dandenong South, and that is why this grant will assist to free up resources to increase production.
The Rudd government is committed to providing small and medium businesses with the support that they need to keep supporting Australian jobs. We know some businesses are doing it tough which is why the government has given small businesses access to an additional 50 per cent tax deduction for plant and equipment purchased before the end of this year which is installed before the end of next year. I know that car dealerships in my electorate were extremely pleased with the Rudd government’s decision to give a tax break to businesses to buy new cars. It saw a jump in new car sales to businesses of 12 per cent compared to June 2008, bucking the trend of declining car sales across the board.
10000
Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Ms AE Burke)—Order! A division has been called for in the House. I propose that we adjourn the debate and then adjourn the Main Committee.
Debate (on motion by Ms Annette Ellis) adjourned.
8110
21:06:00
Main Committee adjourned at 9.07 pm
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
8111
Questions in Writing
Human Services: Moncrieff Electorate
8111
8111
689
8111
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
0
Mr Ciobo
asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 12 May 2009:
In respect of the Government’s funding of organisations and projects between 3 December 2007 and 20 January 2009:
(a) which organisations and projects based in the Moncrieff electorate received funding from the Minister’s department; (b) what sum of funding did each organisation and project receive; and (c) for what purpose was each funding commitment made.
8111
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services
1
Mr Bowen
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Department of Human Services did not provide any funding in the form of donations, sponsorships or gifts to organisations and projects within the Moncrieff electorate during the period 3 December 2007 and 20 January 2009.
Federal Government Drought Bus
8111
8111
762
8111
Hawker, David, MP
8H4
Wannon
LP
0
Mr Hawker
asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 25 May 2009:
In respect of the Federal Government Drought Bus: (a) what locations has it visited in Victoria since its inception, and on what dates; and (b) what criteria determine the frequency and locations of visits.
8111
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services
1
Mr Bowen
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
What locations has the Federal Government Drought Bus visited in Victoria since its inception:
TOWNS
1ST VISIT
2ND VISIT
3RD VISIT
4TH VISIT
Alexandra
22/02/2007
19/05/2009
2
Allansford
20/02/2008
1
Ararat
15/06/2007
1
Avenel
17/01/2008
1
Avoca
22/06/2007
1
Bacchus Marsh
14/12/2007
1
Bairnsdale
27/04/2007
18/04/2008
2
Ballan
12/06/2007
1
Ballarat
13/12/2007
26/03/2008
2
Barooga
21/05/2008
1
Bealiba
12/02/2008
1
Beaufort
14/06/2007
1
Beechworth
20/02/2007
14/04/2008
2
Benalla
15/11/2006
22/05/2008
2
Bendigo
10/10/2008
1
Beulah
7/08/2007
28/10/2008
2
Birchip
8/08/2007
1
Boort
7/03/2007
15/05/2008
2
Bright
20/04/2007
23/08/2007
2
Broadford
10/2-15/2/09
1
Camperdown
30/05/2007
1
Casterton
22/05/2007
1
Castlemaine
13/03/2008
1
Charlton
25/09/2007
14/05/2008
2
Churchill
15/04/2008
1
Clunes
14/02/2008
1
Cobram
16/11/2006
13/11/2007
2
Cohuna
5/07/2007
16/05/2008
20/11/2008
3
Colac
10/12/2007
1
Coleraine
23/05/2007
1
Corryong
19/04/2007
16/08/2007
2
Creswick
13/06/2007
1
Daylesford
1/03/2007
28/02/2009
2
Dederang
17/04/2008
1
Devenish
13/08/2008
1
Dimboola
15/10/2008
1
Dingee
12/03/2008
1
Donald
13/05/2008
1
Dunolly
2/03/2007
1
Echuca
6/03/2007
4/07/2007
25/11/2008
3
Edenhope
21/05/2007
1
Elmore
2/10/2007
7/10/2008
2
Euroa
14/08/2008
1
Five Ways
3/10/2007
1
Flowerdale
19/2-27/2/09
1
Foster
1/10/2007
2/04/2008
2
Galah
3/11/2008
1
Glenburn
16/2-17/2/09
1
Glenorchy
20/06/2007
1
Goornong
1/10/2007
1
Gordon
15/02/2008
1
Gunbower
19/05/2008
1
Halls Gap
18/06/2007
1
Hamilton
25/05/2007
18/02/2008
2
Harrietville
15/04/2008
1
Heathcote
23/11/2006
1
Heyfield
24/04/2007
15/05/2009
2
Heywood
24/05/2007
1
Hopetoun
6/08/2007
8/05/2008
2
Horsham
4/03/2008
1
Inglewood
28/09/2007
1
Irymple
12/12/2007
1
Kaniva
3/12/2007
1
Katamatite
21/01/2008
1
Kerang
17/11/2006
6/07/2007
15/05/2008
21/11/2008
4
Kilmore
15/01/2008
1
Kinglake
10/2-23/2/09
1
Koo Wee Rup
3/05/2007
28/09/2007
2
Koroit
5/12/2007
1
Korumburra
1/04/2008
1
Kyabram
5/03/2007
1
Kyneton
14/03/2008
1
Lake Boga
8/03/2007
1
Lake Bolac
12/12/2007
1
Landsborough
21/06/2007
1
Leitchville
16/05/2008
1
Leongatha
1/05/2007
1/04/2008
12/05/2009
3
Lethbridge
2/04/2009
1
Lexton
13/02/2008
1
Lilydale
24/02/2009
1
Lismore
27/02/2007
30/03/2009
2
Maffra
26/04/2007
14/05/2009
2
Speed
6/08/2008
1
Manangatang
31/07/2007
29/05/2008
11/12/2008
3
Mansfield
23/04/2007
21/08/2007
18/05/2009
3
Merbein
13/12/2007
29/05/2008
2
Mildura
3/08/2007
27/05/2008
30/05/2008
3
Minyip
13/10/2008
1
Mitiamo
23/01/2008
1
Mortlake
29/05/2007
19/02/2008
2
Murrayville
6/11/2008
1
Murtoa
9/03/2007
14/10/2008
2
Myrtleford
21/02/2007
14/04/2008
2
Nagambie
18/01/2008
1
Nangiloc
10/12/2007
1
Nathalia
12/07/2007
4/09/2008
2
Newbridge
11/03/2008
1
Nhill
16/10/2008
1
Nulluware
31/05/2007
1
Numurkah
11/08/2008
1
Omeo
27/11/2006
1
Orbost
28/11/2006
1
Ouyen
18/11/2006
1/08/2007
30/05/2008
4/11/2008
4
Poowong
25/09/2007
1
Pyramid Hill
24/01/2008
1
Quambatook
8/08/2008
1
Rainbow
20/11/2006
9/05/2008
2
Red Cliffs
11/12/2007
1
Robinvale
14/05/2007
24/09/2007
7/12/2007
3
Rochester
3/07/2007
1
Rokewood
1/04/2009
1
Rosedale
26/11/2006
1
Rushworth
22/01/2008
1
Rutherglen
18/04/2007
1
Sale
17/04/2008
1
Sea Lake
10/08/2007
30/10/2008
2
Serpentine
10/03/2008
1
Seymour
27/11/2008
1
Shelford
26/02/2007
1
Simpson
31/05/2007
1
Skipton
28/02/2007
31/03/2009
2
Speed
6/08/2008
1
St Arnaud
22/11/2006
7/03/2008
2
Stanhope
2/07/2007
1
Stawell
19/06/2007
1
Strathmerton
15/11/2007
1
Strath Creek
18/02/2009
1
Swan Hill
30/07/2007
6/05/2008
12/12/2008
3
Tallangatta
19/02/2007
20/08/2007
2
Tallygaroopna
13/07/2007
1
Tatura
20/05/2008
1
Tawonga
16/04/2008
1
Terang
7/12/2007
1
Tooborac
23/02/2007
1
Tooleybuc
5/12/2007
5/08/2008
2
Trafalgar
2/05/2007
1
Tresco
3/12/2007
1
Tungamah
12/08/2008
1
Tutye
5/11/2008
1
Underbool
5/11/2008
1
Ultima
31/10/2008
1
Violet Town
26/11/2008
1
Warburton
28/03/2008
25-26/02/2009
21/05/2009
3
Warracknabeal
21/11/2006
12/05/2008
2
Warragul
3/04/2008
26/3 to 28/3/09
2
Wedderburn
27/09/2007
14/05/2008
2
Werribee
24/03/2009
1
Whittlesea
25/03/2009
1
Willaura
28/05/2007
1
Winchelsea
1/06/2007
1
Wonthaggi
2/10/2007
31/03/2008
2
Woorinen
4/12/2007
1
Wycheproof
9/08/2007
29/10/2008
2
Yackandandah
20/02/2007
1
Yanakie
30/04/2007
1
Yarra Glen
27 –28/02/2009
1
Yarra Junction
4/10/2007
1
Yarrawonga
12/11/2007
1
Yarram
16/04/2008
13/05/2009
2
Yea
16/01/2008
20/05/2009
2
Total Visits
222
***Towns with dates highlighted are the towns the buses attended due to the Victorian Bushfire Emergency Response.***
-
The following criteria determine the frequency and location of visits:
-
areas where the drought has severely affected the livelihoods of farmers and the broader community;
-
declared Exceptional Circumstances Areas and Interim Assistance Boundaries;
-
locations where existing Australian Government services are limited, but where some demand for service is expected (ie locations with a Centrelink Agent or Access Point);
-
advice and requests from external stakeholders including, farmers associations, rural industry groups, rural support groups, local councils and shires and other key rural agencies;
-
attendance at rural field days;
-
towns where approval from the local Shire or Council has been granted to allow for the parking of the mobile office in a public location;
-
we attempt to visit a mix of small, medium and larger towns and review previous visits for interest in accessing Centrelink services;
-
locations where staff handovers can occur for access to train lines and airports;
-
where the mobile servicing units can readily access scheduled maintenance; and
-
emergency situations such as the Victorian bushfires.
Age Pension
8115
8115
763
8115
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
0
Mr Abbott
asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, 25 May 2009:
Will all existing part-pensioners have their income assessed in accordance with current taper rates, rather than those announced in the 2009 Budget, for as long as they continue to be on the pension; if not, what mechanism will she put in place to ensure that existing part pensioners will not be worse off, as promised.
8115
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
1
Ms Macklin
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Under the pension reform transitional arrangements, part-rate pensioners will continue to have their pension entitlement calculated under the existing income test rules (including the 40 cent withdrawal rate) until they are better off under the new pension rules (including the new 50 cent income test withdrawal rate). In addition, they will benefit from an increase of $10.10 per week for singles and $10.15 per week for couples combined and their pension rates will be maintained in real terms.
These transitional arrangements are provided for in Schedule 10 of the Social Security and other Legislation amendment (Pension Reform and other 2007 Budget Measures) Act 2009 which received Royal Assent on 29 June 2009.
First Home Saver Account Scheme
8115
8115
786
8115
Morrison, Scott, MP
E3L
Cook
LP
0
Mr Morrison
asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 18 June 2009:
In respect of the Government’s First Home Saver Account scheme—
-
Does the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority monitor the number of accounts that have been opened and the sum of funds invested into those accounts.
-
What total number of accounts was established as at (a) 16 June 2009, (b) 31 May 2009, and (c) 30 April 2009.
-
What was the total sum of funds invested in accounts as at (a) 16 June 2009, (b) 31 May 2009, and (c) 30 April 2009.
-
What is the total sum of Government contributions paid into accounts since the scheme was launched on 1 October 2008.
-
Has any revision been made to the $130.2 million estimate of Government contributions under the scheme for the 2008-09 financial year; if so, what is the revised estimated cost.
-
Has any revision been made to the forward budget estimates for the scheme for future years as a consequence of the results of (3) and (4); if not, why not.
-
What is the monetary sum of implementation funding, including capital, provided to the Australian Taxation Office since the inception of the scheme on 1 October 2008, and has this amount varied from the amount specified in the 2008-09 Budget; if so, why.
8116
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
Treasurer
1
Mr Swan
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes, on a quarterly basis.
-
There is no data available yet for the quarter ending 30 June 2009. This data is required to be submitted to APRA by end July 2009. APRA generally requires several weeks to process the data.
-
Data for these dates are not available. The most recent data are for 31 March and these have already been provided in response to Senate Economics Committee Question AET-61.
-
Nil in cash terms.
-
Yes. An expense of $26.2m in 2008-09.
-
Yes. The 2009-10 Treasury Portfolio Budget Statement shows the revised administered expense estimates on page 226. The Departmental expense estimates are unchanged from those shown on page 159 of the Treasury Portfolio Budget Statements for 2008-09.
-
$22.6m was allocated for Departmental expenses for 2007-08 and 2008-09. There has not been a variation. The amount allocated since 1 October 2008 is not available.
Renewable Remote Power Generation Program
8116
8116
841
8116
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
Mr Hunt
asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 25 June 2009:
In respect of his decision to prematurely end the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program:
-
Why were people given zero notice to submit applications when people had been given one day to get applications in for the Solar Homes and Communities Plan.
-
How many applications were received after applications closed, and what was their monetary value.
-
What were these people advised.
8116
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
1
Mr Garrett
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
In the last six months more than 1,100 Renewable Remote Power Generation Program (RRPGP) extension pre-purchase applications have been submitted. This compares with around 6,000 applications over the previous seven years. Industry had been given notice that the program was approaching full commitment.
The RRPGP extension funding became fully committed. Giving a notice period would have resulted in a rush of applications that would have exceeded the funds available.
-
In the period between 22 June and 10 July 2009, 194 RRPGP extension pre‑purchase applications were received requesting approval for a total of $4.268 million in funding.
-
Where it was clear that the pre-purchase application had been posted before 8:30am on 22 June 2009, the pre-purchase application was assessed for eligibility under the relevant sub-program guidelines.
In other cases, a letter was sent to the applicant and copied to the supplier. This letter indicated that the pre-purchase application was not accepted for assessment and detailed the requirements for this decision to be reconsidered.
Solar Hot Water Rebate Program
8117
8117
843
8117
Hunt, Gregory, MP
00AMV
Flinders
LP
0
Mr Hunt
asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 25 June 2009:
In respect of the Solar Hot Water Rebate:
-
Is the Government committed to the Federal funding that allows the Queensland (QLD) State Government to administer the QLD Solar Hot Water rebate scheme due to commence in July 2009.
-
Have any concerns been expressed regarding the capacity to completely fulfil every single application for funding under the QLD Government program; if so, who has raised these concerns, are any from the QLD Government or Federal Treasury, and what response was given.
-
Will the Government rule-out shutting down the Solar Hot Water Rebate program early.
8117
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
1
Mr Garrett
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
The Government will provide the Solar Hot Water Rebate to all eligible households including those from Queensland.
-
While the Government received a number of representations on the Queensland initiative, it is not appropriate to canvass the content of representations made to the Government in confidence, nor of policy advice provided by Australian Government Departments.
-
The Government is committed to the Solar Hot Water Rebate program as it was announced on 3 February 2009.