Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Today is World Environment Day. It is an important time for us all to recognise that our future economic prosperity is intimately linked with the ongoing health of our environment. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the challenge of climate change because the impacts of climate change will have serious and irreversible economic consequences for the entire planet, apart from environmental consequences. In Australia, the effects of climate change are already a reality: we have been experiencing the worst drought in living memory and our inland rivers are running dry. CSIRO predicts that the situation will get worse, with lower rainfall and higher temperatures.

Climate change is the challenge of our generation. But it is also an opportunity to build a modern Australia, so we can meet the challenges of the future. The costs of action are far less than the costs of inaction and economic modelling confirms that we can achieve significant emission reductions while maintaining strong economic growth.

This year the theme of World Environment Day is ‘Kick the habit: towards a low carbon economy’. The challenge for us is an economic challenge: to ensure a smooth transition to a low-carbon economy, to reduce emissions at least cost to the economy and to help develop the technologies and the industries of the future. The costs to the economy and the community will be less if we act responsibly now. The government has a comprehensive strategy for tackling climate change built on three pillars of action:

• reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions at least cost;
• adapting to the impacts of climate change we cannot avoid; and
• helping shape a global solution—which is why my first official act as Prime Minister was to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

We are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent on 2000 levels by 2050. We will implement emissions trading as the primary mechanism for achieving this target. And the government will develop additional complementary measures that help reduce overall costs. We recognise that the adjustment will not be easy. Rising energy and petrol prices are already hurting Australian families and Australian businesses. That is why we are:

• helping Australians take practical action to improve energy efficiency and save money in their homes with rebates, low-interest loans, energy-saving standards and better information; and
• supporting investment in developing and commercialising new low-emission technology like carbon capture and storage, solar thermal and geothermal energy technologies.

And we will be developing additional measures to help as emissions trading comes in.

The government is committed to helping Australian families and businesses make the transition to a low-carbon economy and to helping all Australians do the same. One part of our response to climate change involves the development of more fuel-efficient transport. Australia needs a car industry. Australia needs a car industry that uses frontier technologies to increase fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse emissions. Australia needs a car industry clever enough and far-sighted enough to make motoring more affordable to working families and less costly to the planet.

Petrol is expensive. It takes a big chunk out of household budgets. It adds to the pressure on working families. And it is not a new problem. There have been plenty of ups and downs, but the trend is clear. Unleaded has not been less than 80c a litre since 2000. It has not been less than $1 since 2004. Over the last twelve months, it has averaged $1.34.

Huge countries like China and India are industrialising fast. Living standards are rising around the world. More and more people are chasing less and less oil. There is no denying that demand is on the rise. According to the International Energy Agency, the transport sector’s share of oil consumption has been increasing steadily at around 0.5 per cent a year, mainly due to the growing number of road vehicles. The global car fleet increased tenfold from 53 million in 1950 to 532 million in 2000. The best guess is that there are 622 million passenger vehicles on the world’s roads today, and a few years ago the OECD predicted we would have a billion cars by 2030.

Increasing demand is not just pushing up petrol prices. It is also threatening the environment. Worldwide transport sector CO2 emissions grew by 1.4 billion tonnes—or 31 per cent—between 1990 and 2003 (ITF-OECD). If we are serious about tackling climate change, we have to start driving cleaner and greener. That means increasing the fuel efficiency of cars. It means developing new vehicle technologies and using alternative fuels. This is not about demonising cars and motorists. It is about ensuring that the car remains a viable, affordable, environmentally sustainable transport option.

Let us not forget why cars became so central to our lives in the first place. The humble family sedan has helped us conquer the tyranny of distance. It has given us a degree of freedom unimaginable to our ancestors. It has increased prosperity and equity by giving all Australians access to a wider range of goods and services. It has made it easier to stay in touch with family and friends. It has been an important social dividend. But if we want to go on reaping these benefits—if we want our children to enjoy the same kind of personal mobility that we have—we have to get smarter about how we build cars and how we use them. And that is where the Australian automotive industry comes in.

Ford Australia boss Bill Osborne has suggested we are one of only 14 countries world wide with the know-how to design, engineer and manufacture a car from scratch. We should be using that know-how to develop new car solutions not just for Australia but for the world. There is no denying the industry’s capabilities. It employs 66,000 skilled workers and accounts for 17 per cent of R&D investment in the manufacturing sector. Its demand for sophisticated services, materials and intermediate inputs drives innovation across the economy.

Yet it is also an industry at the crossroads. Since 1996, the industry has lost over 11,000 jobs. Earlier this year, we lost Mitsubishi in Adelaide. And it is likely that there will be further rationalisation in the sector in the future. But the sector is also looking for new opportunities and a new growth path in a changing global environment. Creating a new generation of fuel-efficient cars may not only make motoring more affordable and reduce our carbon footprint. It may also revitalise the Australian automotive industry. These are all things worth fighting for. These are things which the Australian government stands ready to fight for in partnership with the automotive industry.

Rising petrol prices and environmental concerns are not unique to Australia. They are driving what KPMG calls a tectonic shift in consumer demand towards greater fuel efficiency right around the world. Fuel efficient does not necessarily mean small. People are demanding lower fuel consumption in every vehicle class. The two fastest-growing segments in most markets are small cars and SUVs. Australia is no exception to this bipolar trend. It is unclear how long our love affair with the SUV will last. Only this week, GM in the US announced a dramatic readjustment to its product mix in response to higher fuel prices and changing consumer preferences. It will close four North American truck and SUV plants and focus on fuel-efficient vehicles—including a new petrol-powered four-cylinder compact, an expanded range of hybrids and the electric Chevy Volt.

These changing preferences—or at least the trend towards smaller cars and smaller engines—are reflected in the emission figures. In the decade from 1995 and 2004, average emissions from new cars sold in the EU-15 fell from 186 grams of CO2 per kilometre to 163 grams. In Australia, CO2 emissions have fallen 10 per cent, from 252 grams per kilometre in 2002 to 226 grams last year. These are encouraging trends, but we need to do much better.

Much of the focus around the world is on alternative fuels. Ethanol and other biofuels have several advantages. They are renewable, they can be blended with traditional fuels for use in existing vehicles and they can be distributed through existing channels. On the downside, conflicts can occur when agricultural land or wilderness is turned over to growing biofuel feedstocks. Clean diesel is hardly an alternative fuel in Europe, where half of all new cars are diesel powered, but it is still a novelty in light vehicles elsewhere. Diesel produces 25 per cent less CO2 than petrol but more nitrogen oxides and particulates.

The modification of existing vehicles or vehicle designs for LPG is straightforward. Gas is a less efficient fuel than petrol, but, because it is significantly cheaper, using gas can still result in lower running costs. LPG is a good short-term alternative to petrol, which is why we have retained the LPG vehicle scheme. Hybrid cars have been capturing the headlines since Toyota released the Prius in 1997. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that 541,000 full hybrids were produced in 2007, and that this should quadruple to 2.2 million by 2015. Further down the track there is hydrogen. There is a general expectation in the industry that hydrogen fuel cells are the technology of the future.

There are plenty of other fuel-efficient ideas we can exploit right now. We can make vehicles lighter and more aerodynamic. We can downsize engines. We can supercharge and we can turbo-charge. These are all important measures.

Is the Australian automotive industry equal to the affordability challenge? Is it equal to the challenge of climate change? We on this side of the House believe that it is. The transformation of this industry over the past 25 years has been astonishing. Today the industry is export focused and innovation driven. It is increasingly integrated into global supply chains. It has earned a place at the international table on the strength of its engineering and its design. This is due in no small part to the visionary industry policy of the Hawke government—known, in honour of its chief architect, as the Button car plan. Tough decisions had to be taken and big investments had to be made to improve efficiency and productivity. The challenges facing the industry 20 years ago have in large part been addressed. Now there are new challenges.

Can the industry reinvent itself once more? We believe it can. The process has already begun. Holden offers a dual-fuel petrol-LPG variant of its Alloytec V6, while Ford produces vehicles with a dedicated LPG E-Gas engine. Ford has also announced that it will be assembling the four-cylinder Focus in Australia from 2011 and renewing its commitment to exports. Toyota already produces a four-cylinder Camry here. Globally, the company has stolen a march on its rivals in hybrid technology, and it is doing exceptionally well in the domestic market. All three domestic manufacturers recognise that their survival as niche players in a cutthroat global market depends on their capacity to innovate.

The government’s view is that we need an Australian automotive sector that is sustainable in all senses—economic, social and environmental. It is to boost productivity, innovation, exports and skills by harnessing the creativity of every player in the industry.

Two decades ago the industry needed a plan to consolidate, increase its efficiency and lift its international competitiveness. Today it needs a new plan to drive the development of next-generation, fuel-efficient vehicles—to help motorists’ budgets and to help the environment. That is why, in planning for the future, fuel efficiency, including hybrid technology, will lie at the heart of a new car plan for Australia to help motorists and to help the environment.

The Australian government has commissioned a review of the Australian automotive industry to help inform policy settings. Like any new area of government policy, there will be a range of views on industry and climate change policy settings. There always will be, there always have been and there are today as well. Departments, agencies, industry, academics, and non-government agencies often have different views on policy and all have something to contribute to the debate. Some argue for an activist industry policy. Others will argue against such a policy. Governments of all persuasions have recognised the need for balanced policy when it comes to the car industry—for regular review and for assessing the situation each time in light of the prevailing economic conditions.

For example, in 1997 the Howard government decided not to proceed with planned tariff reductions because it thought industry needed more time to adjust. In 2002, the Howard government decided on an industry support program—the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme—that it described as going ‘far beyond what was recommended by the Productivity Commission review’. Now there are new considerations for industry and climate change policies:

• the global challenge of climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions; and
• the challenge of rising fuel costs and the need to reduce fuel consumption.

The government’s view is that we cannot stand to one side as these challenges emerge. The government has a responsibility to act, in partnership with industry—working with industry to address the environmental challenge and the fuel challenge faced by motorists.

The government has already demonstrated its intention to act in this area, establishing the $500 million—the half a billion dollar—Green Car Innovation Fund. The fund will operate for five years from 2011 to accelerate the development and manufacture of low-emission and fuel-efficient vehicles in Australia. The government will contribute $1 from the fund for every $3 put up by industry. The government will not be committing the entire fund to one vehicle, company or technology. Any idea with a serious chance of reducing the carbon and other environmental impacts of Australia’s vehicle fleet will get a hearing.

When all is said and done, we do not just want a green car; we want a green car industry—an industry that can provide secure, high-skill, high-wage jobs by meeting the global demand for a wide range of greenhouse-friendly technologies, and an industry that is itself a model of clean and green production. As an added incentive, the government has issued a green car challenge to the local industry, pledging to purchase value-for-money, environmentally sensitive vehicles for the Commonwealth fleet if they are produced in Australia. We could see 4,000 green cars in the Commonwealth fleet by 2020. Going green will mean lower operating costs for the government, just as it will for motorists struggling under the pressure of high petrol prices.

At today’s fuel prices, a family currently driving 20,000 kilometres a year in a conventional six-cylinder petrol car that achieved 11 litres per 100 kilometres could expect to save somewhere between $300 and $1,100 per annum on fuel costs by switching to green car technologies. For a high-tech, green, petrol-powered car of the same size with cylinder deactivation, turbo-charging or direct injection, the saving could be $330 a year. For a diesel car it could be $374 a year. For an LPG powered car it could be $1,092 a year. As for petrol-electric hybrids, the saving could be $990 a year. Multiply these savings over the life of the vehicle, and you begin to make a real difference to the family budget.

What about above the bonnet as well? Advances in vehicle technology will be critical to increasing fuel efficiency and reducing greenhouse emissions, but they can never be the whole story. Producing green cars must be part of a larger effort to reduce greenhouse emissions across the board. That is what our emissions-trading system will do. Emissions trading will be the biggest economic and structural reform in Australia since the 1980s. It will take some adjusting to. There can be no doubt, however, that the cost to business and Australian families, and Australian workers more generally, will be far greater if we fail to act than if we take responsible action now.

One way to minimise greenhouse gas emissions is to keep the traffic moving. To do that, we need well-planned cities and good transport infrastructure. That is why the government is committed to a more integrated and coordinated approach to city management and development.

We have also established Infrastructure Australia to audit our infrastructure needs and prioritise infrastructure investments around the country. We have announced the establishment of the $20 billion Building Australia Fund, which will invest in nation-building, productivity-boosting, congestion-clearing infrastructure from 2009-10. Infrastructure Australia’s investigations will guide how money from the fund is spent. Finally, we can green Australian motoring by giving motorists better information that will help them buy and drive with fuel efficiency in mind.

Greening Australian motoring will require continuous innovation. A steady supply of fresh ideas will be required to create and sustain a fuel-efficient and environmentally-friendly car industry here in Australia. Participants in the sustainability stream at the 2020 Summit stressed the need for rapid development of low-emission technologies. They argued for a significant increase in R&D to drive innovation.

Innovation is often about radical, long-term change. It can also be about incremental change with short-term pay-offs. The King review commissioned by the UK government concluded that fuel consumption for new vehicles could be cut by 30 per cent within the next five to 10 years using existing technologies. Such innovations here would mean real benefits for Australian motorists, for Australian industry, for Australian jobs and for the planet. It is a transformation that can begin right now in 2008 as we forge a new plan for the Australian car industry based on the findings of the review which is currently underway.

This is an important policy direction for the future, as is a policy direction to enhance our investment in urban infrastructure. As I have said in this place before, how is it that we reached the 21st century with our major cities in this country still unable to boast one significant metro system among them? This is a priority which must be addressed for the future—helping motorists with more fuel-efficient cars but also helping reduce the commuting time for those cars on the road.

Innovation will be central to a new car plan for Australia, so will the needs of working families, working Australians and those doing it tough. We will boost our manufacturing capacity. We will be protecting our environment. It will be a plan for the future. It will be a plan for the long-term future and a plan for a new generation of greener, more fuel-efficient cars.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Dr Nelson speaking for a period not exceeding 20 minutes.

Question agreed to.

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This World Environment Day is an important day—as should be every day—for us to pause and reflect on the impact that human activity is having on our environment. It is time for our generation as Australians and as global citizens to begin to adjust to living on environmental interest instead of capital. It is about us beginning to adjust to the environmental deadlines that are bearing down on us. But it is not only about those who profess to lead and govern countries, states or local governments; it is about every one of us as Australians appreciating that the way in which we live affects our community and so too we can choose to live in a way which changes our world.

Symbolism is important, but it is substance that counts. Further, it is of little meaning to everyday Australians, whether they are working families, pensioners, carers, owners of small family businesses or men and women on the land, if we preoccupy ourselves only with the future and are indifferent to, if not aloof from, the day-to-day struggles of everyday life—none more so at the moment than getting petrol into the car, diesel into agricultural machinery and groceries into a shopping trolley.

I would also point out that over the last 11½ years an enormous amount of effort by the Liberal and National parties, the then coalition government, was put into securing Australia’s environmental future. There was, amongst many things, more than $5 billion invested in the Natural Heritage Trust, with more than 800,000 Australian volunteers, reflecting the goodwill in this community and the deep concern for environmental preservation, who worked the length and breadth of Australia from our cities and suburbs to regional and rural Australia to do everything they possibly could to support our local communities and local environment, knowing that in the end that would make a better Australia and a better world.

We also contributed significantly to and invested in the preservation of species and habitat protection. None of us should ever forget that we human beings are but one species on this planet which we share with others. We also invested heavily in pest and weed control on over 50 million hectares of land—a size twice that of the state of Tasmania. We also invested in protecting eight million hectares of wetlands and many other areas of this nation’s continent that are so important to preserve for our country’s future and that of the next generation.

We established the Australian Greenhouse Office and, through a variety of initiatives, the Howard government took out 87 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions that would otherwise have been emitted by 2010. All of that has saved what is equivalent to 14 million cars, trucks, buses and other vehicles on Australian roads contributing to, as the Prime Minister referred to, carbon dioxide and carbon emissions.

We developed and invested in the National Water Initiative, the Australian Government Water Fund and a variety of national and local projects to preserve and protect Australia’s water security. We developed water efficiency and labelling standards, which had been unknown to everyday Australians, to give each of us in our day-to-day lives an opportunity to actually understand the water efficiency or otherwise of what we do and that which we buy.

Ten billion dollars was announced and invested in the Murray-Darling Basin Initiative by the then Prime Minister, John Howard, in January 2007. Half a billion dollars was invested in the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund. Then, the former foreign minister, the member for Mayo, developed and announced the reafforestation initiative, particularly for South-East Asia, appreciating that trees that we can keep on the ground and that we can get into the ground, not just in our own country but also in areas of the world that have been stripped of their forests, are a significant way of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

In relation to climate change, the world has warmed before and it is warming again. There are those who question that science. Our party perhaps takes the view that we will give the planet the benefit of the doubt. We recognise, however, that Australia, which produces in the order of only 1.4 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, cannot in itself solve the problem of climate change and the extent to which human activity is contributing to it. However, if we do get this wrong, we can do enormous damage to this nation’s environmental and economic future. All of us need to appreciate that, particularly through the leadership of the previous Prime Minister, John Howard, steadfastly standing by the view that we must have a genuinely global solution to address climate change played a significant role in bringing the then opposition, now government, also to that view on the eve of the last election in November last year. We believe that what happens in Copenhagen in 2009 and then what is finally agreed by 2012 must include the major emitters of the world. To not do so will abrogate our responsibilities to the future that we will leave the next generation of Australians.

We believe that it is absolutely essential that we go into this with our economic eyes wide open. When we on this side of politics have carefully scrutinised the report that will be delivered finally by Professor Garnaut to the government, we will do what we believe and know to be right and in Australia’s environmental and long-term economic interests. If we continue the way we currently are, by 2050 India and China alone will be producing about one-third of the world’s global greenhouse gas emissions, more than the United States, the European Union, Brazil, Japan and Australia combined. Everything that we did in government, everything that we must see our new government do, must be to ensure that we have a genuinely global response, because if we do not we will simply transfer industries and jobs from Australia to countries that are far less environmentally focused on the global response to climate change.

It is also important, in terms of leadership, that the Prime Minister appreciate that it is one thing to capitalise upon the understandable and widespread community support in this country, supported by our side of politics, to genuinely face the challenge of climate change. But it is not leadership to equally capitalise upon the widespread level of ignorance in our community about what that is actually going to cost. Australians need to understand that, in an emissions trading scheme, if we have carbon priced at $25 to $40 a tonne, that will mean somewhere in the order of 5c to 10c a litre more to the cost of petrol. We equally need to appreciate that, if we have a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, then it is possible that in the absence of other policy initiatives we will see domestic electricity charges rise over a two-year period by as much as 30 to 50 per cent. This is a cost that is coming down the line. It is quite possibly, when we have examined all of the evidence, a cost that our country will have to pay. Our side of politics will stand steadfastly to protect pensioners, carers, low-income Australians and everyday Australians struggling to feed, clothe and house their families. We will also ensure that we stand up for what is right in the sense of Australia’s long-term future, and we will ensure that we have viable industries in this country to provide that which we need as a nation, to export to the rest of the world and to provide jobs for Australian families and their children.

This side of politics believes, and the member for Flinders has argued for some time very effectively, that we need a domestic car industry. Of course we do. But we also need clean fuels, biofuels which are predominantly produced from waste. We need to put further technology into cleaning up diesel and to ensure that the LPG subsidies and financial assistance continue. It should not be forgotten by anybody who just listened to the Prime Minister that the LPG subsidy—Australians getting $2,000 to convert to LPG—almost went under the bus in the government’s recent budget. We will be vigilant to see that that is continued. We also need to develop a hydrogen fuel source and fuel industry here for Australia. We must also focus on clean engines, hybrids and plug-in electric vehicles for our country. Governments using hard earned taxpayers’ dollars need to show leadership by choosing to purchase and equip their fleets with environmentally friendly vehicles. It is not just the Australian government; it is also state governments and local governments, and there should be a coordinated strategy in that regard.

Whilst I agree with most of what was said by the Prime Minister in his statement on the environment for this World Environment Day, there are enormous inconsistencies in this government’s approach. We had in the budget an increase in the luxury car tax. Hybrid cars get slugged with tax just as much as Hummers. We also heard the Prime Minister refer to, and indeed applaud, the investment by BMW in microhybrid technologies—BMWs of course have just been taxed further by the same government. One of the early decisions of this same government was to break the commitment by the previous government to sell Australian uranium to India for peaceful domestic power energy generation, when India has a voracious appetite for energy and a growing carbon footprint. It is one of a number of inconsistencies. The greatest inconsistency is on something that affects every one of us and is hopefully something which we will increasingly be turning our attention to as everyday Australians—that is, solar power and solar power in our homes. Every one of us asks ourselves, ‘What can I do individually to make my contribution to live on environmental interest instead of capital?’ One of the key things Australians do is buy solar power and put solar panels on their homes.

The government in its budget announced a $100,000 means test of family income for the solar panel rebate. In other words, if you are a teacher and your wife is a nurse, or, if you are a policeman and your husband is a truck driver, you will no longer get an $8,000 rebate to put solar panels on your roof. I have just returned from Queanbeyan, where I met a man and a woman called Phil and Sophia May, and their daughter, Abi. They have been met by another one of Australia’s leaders. In fact, just over a year ago, our now Prime Minister went to see Phil and Sophia May. They run a very small company called Solartec. They are a husband and wife with a young child—Abi. I was told by Phil and Sophia May that Abi was held by the Prime Minister. In March last year, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said:

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

In case the Prime Minister has forgotten, this photo shows us Phil and Sophie May and their daughter, Abi. Prime Minister, remember them. This is the family running a small business, employing a mature-age apprentice, trying to help Australian families contribute to a better climate, to a better world, by putting solar panels on their roofs. This Prime Minister’s government has decided that, if you are a policeman married to a teacher, you will have to pay full-tote odds of $15,000 to $20,000 to go green friendly in terms of your energy generation at home. I also point out to the Prime Minister that this is a small business. This is an industry which we are trying to encourage in its development. We have speeches from the Prime Minister—all kinds of stardust and waffly sorts of speeches—about what might happen in 2020. I point out to the Prime Minister on this World Environment Day that there are real people with real families to feed, house and clothe, and real cars to drive, which need petrol put in them, who are concerned about the environment, and the Prime Minister of this country is saying that, once you earn $100,000 a year, you will get no encouragement whatsoever to go green.

But it becomes more shameful. On this World Environment Day, what would you expect the environment minister of Australia to say about solar power—called ‘the most greenhouse-friendly energy source in the world’ by our Prime Minister? This morning our environment minister, explaining why the means test was put on the solar rebate, said:

It was a program that was overheating and we want to bring some sustainability into this program.

I do not know what planet our environment minister is on, but it is not planet Earth. On World Environment Day, our environment minister is so concerned about the rapid rate of uptake of solar power in Australian households that he wants to put a brake on it. If he was Scaifey out the front at Sandown, he would slow down. What is important here is that we have a government that professes to have a commitment to Australia’s environmental future but, at the same time, by its actions—as distinct from its rhetoric—is actually undermining Australia’s best long-term environmental interests. There are Australians today who are making decisions about whether they can afford another 10 litres of petrol in their car today.

We have heard from the Prime Minister about the clean car and the investment fund which will start in 2011 and hopefully lead to an outstanding green car in Australia—all of which is supported by this side of politics. What is important is that we also focus on and never neglect the day-to-day concerns and struggles of everyday Australians. So at the same time we invest in renewable energy, at the same time we invest in hybrid cars, at the same time we invest in electric cars and at the same time we support our car industry in developing a clean car future for this country. I say to the Prime Minister of this country: give them a break now. Cut the excise on petrol. Stop just watching fuel. Give this country an environment minister who can at least decide he thinks it is better if people get more affordable petrol. Give this country leadership, not only for 2020 but for 2008. Prime Minister, make decisions and give this country an environment minister who actually thinks it is a good idea to have solar power and, most importantly, be man enough to go back to Phil May and his family and explain to them what you have done and drop the means test.