Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I know that the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2010, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2010 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Small-scale Technology Shortfall Charge) Bill 2010 are going to proceed through the parliament with the support of both sides of parliament, but there are a number of issues that really do need to be considered in a clearer light, and I know that the member for Lyne will be raising some of those concerns in his speech. There is concern in the community that the small people may well be brushed over in relation to issues such as the feed-in tariff arrangements that have been put in place in some of the states.

Here again we see probably the hallmark of the last decade of this parliament—and other parliaments—in relation to renewable energy policy generally. It has sent so many mixed messages to consumers that consumers really do not know what the policy is. They get the buzzwords and hear about the percentages of renewable energy. They feel good about that. They look at the fine print of the policy and they become confused. They see changes in the policy, as we have recently seen in the insulation arrangements. They see variations between policy direction at the state level and the federal level. They see competition going on between some of the various energy providers, not necessarily on price but to make it look as though various business entities are more in line with a sustainable and renewable future. They see the changes in relation to Green Loans, for instance. They see a myriad of changes. The most recent change is that the government has removed itself from the building in terms of its emissions trading scheme. People quite understandably are confused. A lot of people are quite happy that the government has changed its policies, but a lot of other people are very confused as to what these messages are.

These bills before the House were actually designed to plug into a broader scheme, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Now that is not happening, and we still have these bills. On the surface, they are feelgood bills. The words sound appropriate. The words from John Howard a decade ago, in 2001, when he put in place renewable energy targets, were appropriate at the time. The people in voter land listened and received the message that the government was serious about renewable energy and had put in place targets. But the putting in place of a target does not necessarily deliver anything. Many, particularly those in the coalition, would or should remember that the renewable energy target for biofuels back in 2001 was 360,000 megalitres. There is less biofuel in Australia now than before the Howard government put the target in. There is nowhere near 360,000 megalitres. So we had this feelgood announcement and a number of initiatives and grants—some of which were rorted and some of which were politically motivated in terms of where they went in the various electorates—rolled out through those coalition years. Nothing happened. Absolutely nothing happened in terms of promoting renewable energy, in that case biofuels, either biofuels as a value-add to an existing process or first or second generation biofuels that could have assisted agriculture.

Then along comes climate change, a great concern. ‘What can we do to maintain sustainability at a range of levels? What about renewable energy? That might help. Let’s develop a policy that makes it look as though we’re actually doing something about renewable energy.’ The member for Braddon, a man that I have many disagreements with in this House—

See this speech in context