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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given the government’s concern over achieving renewable energy targets and climate change generally, why has the government abolished the highly successful Renewable Remote Power Generation Program? Prime Minister, seeing this program has saved 31 million litres of fossil fuels and has established 170 renewable generation systems in Indigenous communities, would you reconsider this decision in light of the fact that Australians are receiving mixed and confusing messages in relation to renewable energy policy?

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

As the honourable member for New England knows, I take each of his questions in this place seriously because he seeks to represent the interests of his constituents. He asked me a question about the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program extension. Can I say to the honourable member that my advice is that the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program has fully committed its funding allocation and is now closed to new applications except in Western Australia, as he is aware.

The RRPGP was initiated by the previous government in 2000-01 as an outcome of negotiations with the Australian Democrats following the passage of the GST legislation. To date the program has invested over $215 million supporting renewable remote power generation, with a further $85 million under construction or approved. In the last six months, more than 1,100 applications have been submitted. This compares with around 6,000 applications received in the previous seven years. The available funds have become fully committed and it is therefore necessary to stop accepting applications everywhere except Western Australia. Industry has been aware for some time that this program has finite funds and that the full commitment was imminent. Along with the Solar Homes and Communities Plan, this program has helped prepare the renewable energy industry for transition from the margins to the mainstream of Australia’s energy mix.

Can I say to the honourable member, on the representations he makes about remote communities, that I would like to have a further discussion with him about what further can be done in this area. That is the specific question he has asked. I know that his questions here are well motivated and well based, and he is actually seeking to reflect the interests of his constituents.

He asked more broadly about the question of renewable energy. I say to those opposite and to the House at large, on the question of the renewable energy target, that this is a great question for all Australians out there at present. Namely, with the failure of the parliament to pass the renewable energy target legislation, we are placed in a situation where we do not have a replacement regime. The member for Flinders, who never gets permission to ask a question—

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. They have yet to bring this legislation forward for debate. It has not even been brought in for debate.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Flinders will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).

The member for Flinders then left the chamber.

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

I take it, as the member for Flinders is absenting himself, that those opposite are now committed to supporting this legislation. Do they have a position on this legislation? Is it yes or is it no? We do not have any indication whatsoever either on this matter or on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The reason I raised this in response to the honourable member for New England’s question is that it goes to the replacement regime for solar panels. It goes to the availability of renewable energy certificates. This is a matter I have raised several times in the parliament in the last week or so. Therefore, I would say to the honourable member and the House more broadly that the replacement regime which provides financial assistance to Australian families, so they can in the future access discounts on solar panels, hangs entirely on the decision by those opposite to pass this legislation through the Senate. Those opposite, in their internal division, stand between Australian households and their ability to access this replacement regime—thousands and thousands of dollars worth of discounts effectively based on the renewable energy certificate regime for those seeking to install solar panels in the future.

That is why the second part of the question raised by the honourable member, more broadly on the question of renewable energy, of which solar panels and solar power represent such a large part, is of deep concern to the Australian community as they listen to this debate this afternoon. Those who are seeking to make decisions about solar panels for the future want to know whether the renewable energy certificates regime will be introduced or not. Therefore, it goes right back to the question of the disunity on the part of those opposite and not being able to frame a position. Because of their disunity on this, because the Leader of the Opposition’s authority within his party has collapsed, they have postponed any vote on the CPRS. They have refused to indicate, I think, what their position is on the RET, although the National Party have said they are going to vote against it. Therefore, the whole question of disarray within the Liberal Party and the coalition more broadly, and the collapsing leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, is of direct consequence to Australian families seeking to access such basic programs as the future of renewable energy certificates. That is why the question raised by the member for New England is of such direct relevance. Again, I go back to what I have said earlier to members like the honourable member for Bradfield and the member for Higgins in his absence—

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why don’t you answer questions on John Grant? Why don’t you answer questions on John Grant?

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

that is, to attend to this matter, as the Leader of the Opposition fails to do, and take the right action himself.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The member for North Sydney is worried about people wandering around the chamber. That sort of behaviour is not warranted and he will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).

The member for North Sydney then left the chamber.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I appreciate this. Mr Speaker, I put this to you. Given that the member for North Sydney does have the MPI in his name, if he were prepared to apologise would you reconsider your decision?

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s in Turnbull’s name!

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The House will come to order. The member for Warringah had me going for a nanosecond. But I am glad we have sorted that out.