Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

We introduced the bill. We introduced it twice. We voted for it. The opposition voted against it. We voted for it twice. It is the greatest moral challenge of our time, and if you believe that then I am sure you would have voted for it. I can only assume that you, like so many of your colleagues, believe that it is absolute ‘nonsense’—and I use that word because I am being polite in this House—as your leader has said, and well you know.

This amendment today is an extremely important one, and it is welcomed by many of the small producers of renewable energy technology in Western Sydney. It reaffirms our target of 20 per cent of Australian power to come from renewables by 2020, but it alters slightly the mechanism to get there. It does that essentially by separating the large suppliers of technology from the small ones. It creates two systems with their own fabulous acronyms. I am getting very tired of the acronyms, I have to say. I have invented a new one: the TLA—the three-letter acronym. I see today that we have some FLAs—four-letter acronyms. Like names, I believe we can only hold about 200 of these in our heads at one time. Some of these acronyms are starting to slip out of my brain. We now have the large renewable energy target (LRET) for large providers and the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES) for small-scale systems such as solar panels and solar water heaters through the creation of a small-scale technology certificate, known as STC.

It has been separated into two because last year when the government decided to include photovoltaic solar panels in the Renewable Energy Target Scheme, the demand for solar panels grew significantly and started to impact on the price of the renewable energy certificate. This made certainty in this area, particularly for large investors, very difficult. This amendment reasserts stability essentially by separating the scheme into two parts, with the large scheme having a target of 41,000 gigawatt hours and the scheme for small-scale systems having a target of 4,000 gigawatt hours. It is a very sensible amendment that will provide certainty for a very important sector that works to move the Australian economy from a carbon based economy to a low-emissions economy. We absolutely need to do that. The science on climate change is well and truly in, and we can see action now around the world as other countries seek to set up their systems for the future.

Australia should be a leader in this field. The rejection of the CPRS by the opposition and the Greens makes it very difficult for us to move forward with the kind of speed that we should. But it is necessary for us to move from a carbon economy to a low-emissions economy. Australia is one of the great creative nations in the world. I said in the appropriations bill debate yesterday that we have come to think of ourselves as a country whose wealth is in the ground. Our minerals have, of course, served us very well, as has our farming community. But so have our imagination and our innovation. About 15 years ago, we were a world leader in solar technology. We held the largest market share. We of course do not do that now. But we are also a nation with great resources for renewable energy. We see countries like Germany and Spain moving ahead very strongly and investing in renewable technology without anywhere near the level of natural resources that we have in this country. We have the sun, we have the wind, we have the waves, we have the hot rocks technology and we have the imagination among our researchers and scientists to make this work for us. We should be well and truly a world leader. We need to actually move now. The earlier we move on this, the further ahead we will be in the future.

Solar technology is particularly interesting. I was looking at a map of Australia and at the varying levels of sun exposure around the country. Essentially, the further north you are, the higher the price for your certificate because clearly you generate more power in the sunnier parts of the country. Virtually all of Australia is closer to the equator than Europe. If you turned the world upside down and looked at the map of Australia, Tasmania would actually be in the Mediterranean. All of the rest of Europe is further away from the equator than Tasmania, yet we see European countries moving on solar technology at a rate that puts us to shame. Remember, again, at this point in Australia’s history, in spite of all of our natural resources the vast majority of our renewable electricity supply still comes from the Snowy hydro scheme—after all these decades. We have an incredibly long way to go.

I commend this bill to the House. It is an important amendment. It is an amendment that will provide certainty for both large- and small-scale providers of renewable technology and will go at least part of the way in setting us up for a low-emissions future.

See this speech in context