Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water) Share this | Hansard source

Earlier today, World Environment Day, the Leader of the Opposition and I travelled to the home of Phil and Sophia May in Queanbeyan. That is an interesting place to visit because it is the centre of Solartec, which is a home based and family run business. They moved into that home only a few days before this year’s federal budget. They moved in because their business had been successful since the implementation of the solar panel rebate and its elevation to an $8,000 level for all families in the last budget. It is an interesting house to visit for a second reason. This was the family and the business which the Prime Minister and the now Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts visited on 28 March last year. It was where they announced their solar homes policy. What we found today is the reality of this policy. We hear many things from the other side, but the solar rebate policy reduction, which was announced on budget night, can be encapsulated in what has happened to Phil and Sophia May and to their business.

There were three things that Phil and Sophia May told us. Firstly, they said that their business had lost $500,000 in orders in the three weeks since budget day. I want to repeat that—$500,000 in orders for a small family business in the three weeks since budget day. Those are real orders with a real impact on a real family. Secondly, Mr May has had to give notice to three of his five staff. Sixty per cent of the employees in this small business will lose their jobs—three out of five people—and that includes a mature age apprentice. This is not hypothetical. This is not something that may happen down the track. When I look at members on the other side of the chamber they know that this policy decision was a mistake and they are secretly ashamed of it. Mr May said to us that three out of his five employees had been given notice and would lose their jobs, and the Mays were losing their livelihoods as a result. Thirdly, Phil and Sophia May felt a palpable sense of betrayal. I can put it no better than use the words which Sophia May herself used in public, in the Australian on 16 May 2008, just after the budget when she said:

I am absolutely heartbroken that they could bite the hand that helped them promote their policies.

This is a decent, hard-working mum who happens to also take care of their beautiful little two-year-old, Abi. What we saw today was a sense of betrayal in her eyes. When we hear from the minister for the environment and the Prime Minister that this measure will help the solar industry, we know it is Orwellian doublespeak. It denies the fact that there are real families that have been hurt, real employees who are losing their jobs and real consumers who wanted to do the right thing by the environment but who will now never be able to put solar panels on their roofs and make their contribution to reducing Australia’s energy needs and greenhouse footprint.

Let us put this debate in context. Now I understand that from time to time people in this House can be too personal. I do not want to inject a personal note into this debate, so I say across the chamber to the Minister for Environment, Heritage and The Arts, who seems to be a very pleasant person: Do not take this personally, but you are not up to the job, mate!

Let us be absolutely clear: he is not up to the job. And do not take my word for it. Take the Prime Minister’s word for it, because before the election the minister for the environment was also the minister for those small matters of water and climate change but after the election he was no longer the minister for water or climate change; he was the minister for plastic bags and solar panels. And what have we seen? We have seen that he could not fight his way out of a plastic bag and now he has smashed up the solar panels. It has been an exemplary performance in ministerial incompetence.

Let me look directly at the question of what has happened to the solar industry and give some background, which is this: prior to last year and the budget decision, we saw that the $4,000 rebate was helping to install solar panels around Australia. That was lifted by the member for Wentworth in his role at the time; it came to $8,000 and as a result of that we have seen a tripling in demand for solar panels across Australia over the last year. This has led to new jobs, new orders, new development and lower prices. So real things have actually happened so that ordinary Australians can do their bit for the environment. And Australian families who have scrimped and saved for what would otherwise be a $15,000 to $20,000 set of panels can do so without having to pay all of that; they only have to pay the difference. That means they are looking at between $7,000 and $12,000 of their own money. But if you make it $15,000 to $20,000, they simply cannot do it.

Most significantly, what was it that the then Prime Minister, Mr Howard, said? On the Sunrise program on 9 May 2007, he said that it was an uncapped arrangement that would be demand driven. He said:

... it is a demand driven program. So, as many households as want it can have it. I mean, there are estimates made for Budget purposes, but if it turns out to be more popular, well, more money will be made available.

So when we hear from the other side that they have actually tried to increase funding, it is a total fabrication. What has happened, as we all know and as we can see, is that a small business sector has been decimated. Since the budget, two-thirds of their business has been lost. On the estimates of the small business sector, which is the solar panel sector, we are facing about 400 job losses and that will flow through to other consequential job losses. These are real jobs of people who are trying to create a new industry and do the right thing by the environment, as well as the short-changing of Australian families that wanted to be a part of this.

What then do we see? I want to set out a case that there is a duty not to means test this rebate, that there is a breach and that there is real damage. The duty is very simple: it is called an election promise. On his visit to Phil and Sophia May’s house on 28 March 2007, we had this statement from Mr Rudd:

Solar is the most greenhouse-friendly energy available on the planet and, therefore, we just need to take some practical steps to make it possible for as many families as possible to invest in this.

There you go. That is what Mr Rudd said. Their policy was very clear: a non-means-tested approach to the rebate. They supported the rebate after the election. They supported a non-means-tested rebate right up until budget night and then on budget night we had a breach of this duty.

In what way will the impact of this breach work? It sets a means test of $100,000 per household. That means that if you have a mum and dad on $51,000 each—a nurse and a teacher or something equivalent—they are considered rich and they are no longer able to access this rebate. If that sounds hypothetical, what we need to understand is that this is exactly what we have seen. Hamish Wall, the general manager of business development with Nicholls Solar, said on ABC Radio’s The World Today on 16 May 2008:

... we had one household which consisted of a nurse and a teacher and obviously under the Federal Government’s policy, they’re rich and therefore they are no longer eligible for the rebate.

This is a family that has cancelled their order and Nicholls Solar has lost the business. That is what has actually happened.

This is not something that was brought before the House; it was not part of the appropriations bills, so it cannot be stopped there; it was not a decision made by legislation; it was not a decision made under a disallowable instrument; it was a decision that was taken in such a way so as not to be reviewable before the parliament of Australia. It breaches an election promise, it breaks down an existing program and it damages ordinary families. As of midnight on the night of the budget, without any consultation with industry and without any warning whatsoever, the order came into force on the basis of a ‘magisterial’ signature. That is the new way of making the laws of Australia.

See this speech in context