House debates
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Bills
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012; Second Reading
6:44 pm
Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source
I rise to speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012. However, I do not support the amendment moved by the member for Goldstein, who seeks to delay these measures for the best part of two years and maybe even longer. The total additional appropriation being sought through these bills is just under $3.2 billion. The vast majority of that is to provide for the implementation of the clean energy future package passed by parliament in 2011, despite the Liberal and National parties' opposition.
There are several recently announced programs from the clean energy future package which I would like to highlight as they have great benefit to community organisations, local government and low-income residents not only in the electorate of Deakin but right across Australia. The Community Energy Efficiency Program will invest $200 million in partnership with local councils and community organisations to improve energy efficiency in council and community buildings and facilities. With dollar-for-dollar matched funding, this program is a great opportunity to save energy, particularly electricity, and the cost of energy. In my home state of Victoria the price of electricity has been rising at close to 10 per cent per annum and for a domestic customer the current retail tariff in my area is now around 22c per kilowatt hour. This is not just a recent phenomenon and I will admit it has happened under state governments of both flavours. From everything we read about the need for new infrastructure in the industry, it is going to keep going that way.
There are gains to be made from energy efficiency, in particular savings from converting standard lighting—incandescent, fluorescent or discharge lighting like the very lights in this chamber—to LED lighting. The money saved by making the conversion can be very substantial. Energy savings can be 60 per cent, 70 per cent or even 80 per cent compared to existing lighting. This result is in a lower electricity bill and a win-win situation as it reduces demand on generation. In Victoria and in large parts of Australia generation of baseload power is almost at a critical point, particularly on very hot or very cold days when there is simply not enough power in the grid for everyone.
Mr Chester interjecting—
The member for Gippsland would be well versed in power generation issues, as am I, having had a background in the electrical industry for well over 20 years. The member for Gippsland is probably of a slightly lesser age than me but I can remember when light globes were advertised quite proudly as being 1,000-hour globes. I thought that was pretty amazing, that 1,000 hours was a long time. If you do the maths, it is about three hours a day every day for a year—that is pretty good—but the big advantage of the new LED lighting technology is its product life. If you think 1,000 hours is not bad, reset your sites to 50,000 hours. Imagine having to change a globe after 50,000 hours.
No comments