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

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Let me begin by placing the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2] in context. There was the Home Insulation Program with $2 billion expended, with over 70,000 defects found from the 200,000-odd homes inspected, at a failure rate therefore of close to 35 per cent, with 200 house fires and with four lives tragically lost associated with the program. There was the Green Loans Program, which wasted $100 million. There was the Green Start program, which we said from the outset was doomed to failure, and which was terminated by the government before it ever really got underway. There was the solar panel shock, which stopped retailers in their tracks, and caused chaos in the industry with the overnight decision. There was the cash-for-clunkers scheme, which we identified as being so bad and so irresponsible that no government could proceed; fortunately, those warnings were heeded. The announcement at the last election terminated it before the program could ever begin. There was the Citizens' Assembly, which effectively abrogated responsibility for the deep policy positions to 150 people randomly selected from the telephone book. Again, it was so bad that not even the government could proceed with it. Then, of course, there was the policy that the government denied before the election, when the Prime Minister said on the Monday before the election that, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead', which has become the carbon tax under a government she leads. All of these represent the background to this bill. All of these represent the form, the history and the record of the government's recent attempts at environment policy. Each represents a failure or a deception on a significant scale.

I want to proceed now in four steps: the breach at the heart of this bill, the essence of the bill itself in terms of its response, the damage which has been done in this sector and the deception which remains to this day. Let me take the House back to 28 February of this year. On that day, barely a minute to 5 pm, the government scrapped its $1,000 solar hot water rebate. Businesses were closing their doors for the day. Let me quote the press release from the next day from one of Australia's most significant hot water manufacturers, Dux. On 29 February 2012, the release said:

Dux General Manager, Simon Terry, said, 'We received the announcement just before 5pm, as many of our plumbers and solar dealers were closing their small businesses for the day. This was completely out of the blue …

Simon Terry went on to say:

Many of the dealers expressed pure disbelief on receipt of my call.

This is the response from a conservative firm, from a firm which does not seek publicity, which does not seek to be publicly engaged in the political process. It just wants to get on with the process of making things in Australia, in particular of making solar hot water heaters and heat pumps and of doing things to advance the cause of Australian manufacturing and to advance the cause of emissions reduction. Similarly, the Australian Solar Energy Society put out a release on the same day, under the by-line of John Grimes, the head of the Solar Energy Society, an organisation which is anything but political in nature. The release said:

The Australian Solar Energy Society (AuSES) has called on the Australian Government to reinstate the $1000 solar hot water rebate for households, which was axed suddenly yesterday via press release at 5.10pm.

They got the press release even later than others. It continues:

'The disastrous solar policy rollercoaster continues.' said Grimes. 'Another solar scheme shut down without notice, more solar jobs lost. That’s bad policy and bad process.'

It is hard to imagine more damning words from a conservative industry organisation, but the release went on:

'The axing leaves householders and solar companies in the lurch putting at risk more than 1,000 jobs at companies that had planned for ongoing demand.'

And there is more:

'The leading solar hot water company Rheem has suggested the industry could halve overnight, leaving tens of millions of dollars worth of stock stuck in warehouses and puncturing a giant hole in our clean energy present.'

And to conclude, the Australian Solar Energy Society said very simply:

'The Australian Government should be making it easier, not harder, for Australians to cut their power bills and tackle climate change. This very successful rebate program should have been extended, not axed suddenly.'

So they are the facts. That is what the industry said. That was the shock, the surprise, the response from industry itself.

The Clean Energy Council were equally brutal in their comments. They believed that the 1,200 manufacturing jobs and 6,000 installation, sales and administration jobs were at significant risk from within the sector. It is part of a pattern of closure, sudden knee-jerk decisions and an inability to understand the moral duty to businesses that are relying upon you by acting to their detriment on your promise. Governments have to be consistent and reliable, trustworthy and predictable. The reason is simple: businesses invest their money, people invest their time and the public invest their commitment on the basis of pledges and promises and allocations by government—all of which failed in this case.

The Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 seeks to ensure certainty in the industry by requiring the government to spend the entire amount budgeted for the solar hot water rebate in this calendar year, because that is what is constitutionally possible. That would ensure that businesses continued to operate as planned and that homeowners had a fair chance to access the rebate. Business owners need to be able to plan for the future with confidence, and with this bill we are trying to provide a bridge to a future which was promised but has evaporated. I note that the government stood in the way of bringing forward this bill for a vote in March, prior to the 2012 budget.

It is interesting that we have at the table the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Mr Dreyfus. In a letter to Senator Milne signed and hand dated 21 March 2012, the parliamentary secretary said to Senator Milne:

As discussed with you, the Government never intended to make any savings from the closure of this program and remains committed to support the transition to a clean energy future, which includes the solar hot water industry.

The funding allocated for this program remains in the forward estimates.

The intention of the statement—its implication—is absolutely clear: 'We're not going to reduce the amount of money allocated. The money's in the forward estimates; it's not going to be cut. It's all going to be expended on solar hot water.'

I turn now to what actually happened in the budget. Last year's budget paper was express: in the year 2011-12, $63.5 million was allocated for the solar hot water rebate; in the year 2012-13, in the May 2011 budget, $24.5 million was allocated. That is a total budgetary allocation of $88 million. If the parliamentary secretary's words are to be taken as they were intended to be taken, $88 million should have been expended over the course of this year. The actual spend, as allocated in this May's budget only two weeks ago, was: for 2011-12, $42.8 million, with a carryover to next year, 2012-13, of $0.5 million—a total spend of $43.3 million.

What is the gap between what the government pledged and committed to in last year's budget papers and what they delivered in this year's budget papers? It is $44.7 million. So what we have here is a $44.7 million deception. Again I point out that, on 21 March this year, the parliamentary secretary said to Senator Milne:

As discussed with you, the Government never intended to make any savings from the closure of this program and remains committed to support the transition to a clean energy future, which includes the solar hot water industry.

The funding allocated for this program remains in the forward estimates.

No, it does not; those estimates have been revised, and the money which it was said would be there—the $88 million—has miraculously been reduced by more than half. There was a net saving to budget against last year's May budget papers of $44.7 million. The Greens had the wool pulled over their eyes, the public had the wool pulled over their eyes and, sadly, it is the industry which has actually suffered.

I visited the Rheem plant at Rydalmere, near Parramatta, with the Leader of the Opposition in March. We met with 400 workers on the factory floor of the Rheem plant and saw the sense of disappointment. We heard their views and saw the fact that they felt betrayed. Similarly, I visited Rheem's Perth plant with the member for Swan, Steve Irons. Again, we talked with workers, we met with workers and we addressed the workers. They knew who was standing up for them and who was not. The sense was that they had no stronger advocate than Steve Irons, the member for Swan, and that they faced no greater threat than the government, which had pulled away support without warning.

All of that represents the background to this bill. This bill is all about the breach and the fact that we have a remedy which will ensure that the remaining gap of $20.7 million is expended and so provide a bridge for the solar sector; and then it is about the damage. We already know that Rheem has shed more than 50 jobs in recent weeks; they have quietly had to do that with enormous reluctance. But make no mistake and have no doubt that the government's stop-start-and-stop policies are right at the core of those job losses.

I challenge the Prime Minister, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the parliamentary secretary to go to the floor of Rheem in Rydalmere near Parramatta in Sydney and of Rheem in Welshpool in Perth and to explain their actions and why they broke their pledge to allocate $88 million over this financial year and next financial year . I challenge them also to meet with those workers who have lost their jobs—to meet with people such as Len Place from Dux, who has lost his job since the government's decision. I know him well, and his job has gone as a consequence of the cost-cutting associated with this government's decision. How do I know this? I met with him, I talked with him and we looked at options to try to take him forward. That is the damage.

Finally, I go to the future. We are trying this day to restore the damage, to keep the government's pledge, to hold it to account and to do the right thing by an industry which is in deep trouble. There should be no reason for the government to not support its own words and its own budget paper. We will also, if we are fortunate to win government, put in place a one million roofs solar policy over 10 years, with 100,000 roofs of solar panels a year, with a particular focus on solar hot water—but on a long-term, modest, sustainable basis. The key to policy which can endure is long-term, modest and sustainable measures. That is what the industry seeks. So today is a chance for the government to right that which it has done wrong and to repair that which it has broken. For those reasons, I commend the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2] to the House.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yet again we are seeing another attempt to get some relevance for the opposition on the issue of climate change. Like so much else of what the opposition have done in this policy area, it rests on deceiving industry and deceiving the Australian people about policy, manufacturing and the carbon price. It is just more empty grandstanding, more hysteria and, indeed, more of the shameful pretence from the opposition that they actually have a policy that might just possibly reduce the carbon pollution that is the problem we are intending to deal with. They say that we should engage in the reduction of carbon pollution, but, of course, they have no policy—and if I have time I will come back to that.

We have again more crocodile tears from the opposition, who pretend, and only pretend, concern for manufacturing—and this, of course, from the architects of Work Choices. I see that the opposition spokesman is now fleeing from the chamber. He is not prepared to stay here to support the bill that he has introduced, having put forward nothing more than just effectively hysteria—and I will explain why in a minute.

I have some news for the opposition: pretending to care about the renewable energy industry and then opposing a carbon price is not a credible climate change policy. Wearing fluoro vests and visiting factories all over Australia is not a manufacturing policy. Endless opposition and mindless negativity are not in Australia's best interests, but we have just heard again from the member for Flinders a bit more of that. If the Leader of the Opposition is a cheap hypnotist, then the member for Flinders is nothing but a tawdry clown. Who else but a clown would have written their university thesis on 'A tax to make the polluter pay' and then advocate for the biggest policy joke this century, the so-called direct action policy, which is what the opposition is putting forward?

The facts are that the Gillard government has provided more support to renewable energy than any other government in Australian history. I want to outline some facts on the solar hot water scheme. When the carbon price scheme starts on 1 July, the solar hot water industry will be receiving support in four ways. First, the carbon price itself will create a stable, long-term market and will provide incentive right across the economy for the shift to renewable energy. Second, the Low Carbon Communities program, part of the clean energy future plan, will provide $330 million to councils, communities and low-income families to improve energy efficiency in homes and buildings. Of course, solar hot water is very energy efficient and we expect that, as part of the grants that will be provided under the Low Carbon Communities program, there will be a very great deal of support for solar hot water. The third means of support under the carbon price scheme is the $800 million Clean Technology Investment Program, which will give the solar hot water industry an incentive to retool and modernise the manufacture of these units. Of course, it is not just the solar hot water industry that will be advantaged by that Clean Technology Investment Program; industry right across Australia will be assisted to improve efficiency and modernise. Last, but not least, is the support for the industry right through to 2020 through the renewable energy target. Essentially, consumers can be offered up to a $1,000 discount in STCs, or small technology certificates, and that will continue. That renewable energy target will continue and the small technology certificates, which are available to solar hot water, will also continue.

Our current policy settings are designed to transition to a clean energy future, and it is a future that includes solar hot water. The member for Flinders has engaged in his usual historical fictions, as he does with all aspects of our policy but particularly the solar hot water rebate. The solar hot water rebate was always going to end on 30 June this year and it is ending on 30 June this year. This was what was planned. I know this will come as a shock to some of those opposite or to any newer members of the opposition, but this was planned when this rebate was established by the last Liberal environment minister, the member for Wentworth, when he announced the solar rebate scheme on 17 July 2007. What the member for Wentworth as the then minister for the environment said was that this was going to be a transition. This was a scheme to provide support for solar hot water as Australia transitioned to an emissions trading scheme, which was, of course, by then the policy of the Howard government. That is why the Howard government established the greenhouse gas reporting arrangements, which we are still using. That is why the Howard government went to the 2007 election supporting an emissions trading scheme. This bit of policy, the solar hot water rebate, was intended to be a transitional policy—and, I might add, the hot water industry has been well aware of this fact. Indeed, websites of solar hot water companies in February this year stated, showing their awareness, that the rebate scheme was going to finish in March. All that has happened here is that the scheme was formally announced as ending on 30 June this year. As at 28 February, under the long established guidelines for this rebate scheme, customers had four months to lodge their rebate applications. Four months from 28 February, as it happens, is 30 June. This scheme is ending on time as it was always destined to. It has not been scrapped. It has not been closed early. It is not being ended. It is a scheme that was introduced by those opposite when they actually understood something about market mechanisms, when they were actually true to their principles of supporting market incentives, market mechanisms, a carbon price and an emissions trading scheme. They announced this program. They established this program as a transitional program intended and announced by them to be a five-year program. We have continued this program for five years. Indeed, we have expanded the program over the course of our government so as to put more money into it than the Liberal Party was intending to when they started this scheme. But its timeframe, its life if you like, is exactly as has always been planned since the inception of the scheme—not scrapped, not being closed early. It is simply being ended in accordance with the guidelines, in accordance with announcements that have been made by successive Australian governments since this scheme was established on 17 July 2007.

I heard the member for Flinders refer to a bridge, and that might perhaps have betrayed some limited understanding, but I do not think he was actually talking about the fact that this was always intended to be and has been a bridging program that was meant to finish upon the introduction of a carbon price. Logically, with the Clean Energy Future plan coming into operation and with the carbon price coming into operation on 1 July, we have this solar hot water service rebate scheme finishing on 30 June. Households and industry will continue to benefit from Gillard government programs in every sense. I have outlined the ways in which the Clean Energy Future plan is going to continue to benefit the solar hot water industry in particular.

What we have got here is a bill, again, true to form for those opposite with all their economic illiteracy we have seen recently, which is a fiscally irresponsible bill that is the sort of stunt one would expect to see from an opposition which has a $70 billion budget black hole that has not been explained to the Australian public. That is not my figure. That is the figure of the opposition spokesman for finance, confirmed by the opposition Treasury spokesman, the member for North Sydney. There is a $70 billion black hole that the opposition has not explained. We will not be reopening the solar hot water rebate scheme. We will not be agreeing to this bill. I need to be clear. We have made it clear at all times when we will close the program and on every day since that we will not be reopening this program.

I need to deal with something else that the member for Flinders has raised. We never intended to make savings from this program. I am very pleased that the member for Flinders has read part of the letter that was tabled in the Senate by the Leader of the Australian Greens party, Senator Milne, in which I confirmed that it was not the government's intention, when we announced that the program was closing with effect from 30 June, to make savings from the program. At the time of the announcement on 28 February, we did not know the full extent of the underspend. We thought that it was possible that there would be some underspend. What was not understood on 28 February, but is understood now, is that there had been a very direct decline—and this is something that many parts of Australian manufacturing have had to deal with—in the uptake of the solar hot water service rebate program as a result of the high dollar making other competing technologies, notably the instantaneous gas hot water technology, which is imported, cheaper. In fact I should mention that some of it is imported by Rheem, one of the manufacturers referred to here, which imports a product that directly competes with the solar hot water services it makes. As a result of quite steeply declining uptake in the program through December, January and February, it is clear that there will now be an underspend. Again, as I have indicated publicly, as Senator Milne understands and as she indicated when she spoke on the equivalent bill put forward by Senator Birmingham in the Senate, any underspend will be used to continue supporting the transition Australia is making to a low-carbon economy and that will include supporting solar hot water.

This government has provided more support for renewable energy, more support for technologies that reduce carbon pollution in the Australian economy than any other Australian government in history. All we have from the member for Flinders today is a pathetic misreading of the budget papers. I suppose that is what one would expect from an opposition that has a $70 billion hole in the savings that it will need to make to meet the kind of commitments that it has already made in its projections and promises. We have an opposition that would wish to engage in a fantasy—that is the right way to describe it—that it too has a plan that will support the transition to a cleaner economy. The so-called direct action plan of the opposition is not a plan at all. It is a plan that would see a cost of some $1,300 per household inflicted on the Australian community where households pay for money in bucketloads to be sent to the heavy polluters. It is, if you like, a weird inversion of the government's policy. Even then, so far as the direct action plan can be understood, it is not one that anybody thinks can achieve the bipartisan target—the one that the opposition says that it is supporting, which is a five per cent cut in 2000 emission levels by 2020.

We have been talking with industry. I have been talking to Rheem. I have been talking to Dux. I have been talking to the whole industry. I have been talking to installers. Of course I have been talking to crossbenchers and I have been talking to state governments about how the underspend, when it is finally determined, can in fact be used to ensure that it is there to continue to support renewable technologies and to continue to support solar hot water. That is what responsible governments do, not put forward—as this opposition has done—an entirely fiscally irresponsible bill which would seek to continue a demand-driven program. Members might like to contemplate what reopening a demand-driven program might do in a budgetary sense. What it would do, very directly, is simply create an enormous spike in demand, with a great threat to the integrity of our budget. That is not an appropriate way in which to manage the finances of the Commonwealth. Demand driven programs—all Treasury guidelines make this clear—need to be very, very carefully handled and that is what has occurred here. We have avoided the demand spike that quite a number of demand driven programs have become known for. This program has been ended in an orderly fashion. We will not be supporting the opposition's Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2], which is a stunt that would seek to reopen this program in an entirely fiscally irresponsible way. Indeed, it is a program that we can now say was already in decline. We rely on a comprehensive set of policies that is contained in the Clean Energy Future plan.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to support a bill such as this one, the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2], put forward by the member for Flinders, and also to support the workers in my electorate of Swan, where the Rheem factory is. We have just heard the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, the member for Isaacs, speaking on the bill. It is encouraging to see someone who talks about raising the standards of parliament spend the first 2½ minutes in invective, diatribe and insults directed at the member for Flinders and also at the opposition! The contradiction I see in his speech is that he says that we have no policy, and that our direct action policy is incorrect, but then goes on to quote the member for Wentworth's policies and laud them. Such a contradiction just amazes me—and I wonder why people refer to him as Rumpole! Now I know why.

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

Yes, that's all right, keep it coming. I am happy to relay everything you say back to the workers in the Rheem factories, particularly in my electorate. Then we get the member for Isaacs calling this a stunt. Again, I will relay that back to the workers in the factory: that you think this is a stunt and that their jobs are a stunt—that their jobs are worth nothing. He talks about deceiving and manufacturing crocodile tears; he talks about tawdry clowns. As a parliamentary secretary, how can he bring the level of this place down so low with these insults?

I thank the member for Flinders for his contribution. I know that he understands how important this bill is to my electorate. He joined me on a factory floor visit to the Rheem factory in Welshpool in my electorate of Swan on 7 March to meet some of the hundreds of employees whose jobs have been threatened by this government's actions. It was at this visit that we announced that we would be drawing up this bill. We in the coalition had wanted to debate it before the budget, a move which was blocked by this government; however, in standing here and debating this bill today, we are keeping the promise made on 7 March to the workers on the factory floor in Welshpool to bring this bill to the parliament. This stands in contrast to the Labor government, whose broken promise on the solar hot water rebate has led us to this point today. It has led to the coalition introducing a bill that simply requires the government to stick to the promise it made in the 2010-11 budget.

The workers that the member for Flinders and I met in March on the factory floor were scared for their jobs. They were genuinely concerned for their livelihoods—all because of the Gillard government's actions the week before, with its sudden decision to scrap the hot water rebate scheme despite a commitment in the budget of $24.5 million the previous year for the funding of the scheme. Out of the blue, at one minute to five on 28 February, the notification came through that yet another commitment had been broken by this government. It gave businesses and homeowners only a few hours to submit their applications in order to remain eligible for the subsidy that the government had promised them. But there was no time for families and businesses to fulfil their orders after that guillotine came down. According to the Clean Energy Council, 1,200 manufacturing jobs and 6,000 installation, sales and administration jobs were at risk.

My visit with Greg Hunt was my third visit in recent times to the Rheem Welshpool factory. One of those visits was with the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, and I must admit that I was encouraged by the amount of cheer and the welcome he got from the workers on the factory floor. The coalition is a friend of the solar hot water industry in my electorate and across Australia. We spend time talking to the workers and understanding their industry and we will stand up for them in parliament.

I have over 25 years experience as a small businessman myself and speak to businesses all over my electorate on a regular basis. I can say that the decisions of the government and the way it handles its brief are creating almost unprecedented uncertainty in the sector. There has been uncertainty created by the mining tax, uncertainty created by the carbon tax, uncertainty created by the one per cent tax cut to business that was promised at one stage but then denied in the budget. And now there is uncertainty created by the government's scheme management—both for businesses and families in the solar hot water sector who, lest we forget, on 1 July are going to be forced to think of ways to reduce their electricity consumption as a result of the carbon tax. The Gillard government has now taken away the option of solar hot water for them to reduce their emissions and to pay for the carbon tax that they did not vote for.

Without certainty, there can be no confidence. Businesses and families cannot plan with confidence for the future. One of the points that Rheem Welshpool consistently makes to me is how difficult it is to plan effectively when solar policy and government decisions lurch from one extreme to the other. The solar industry is yet another group that has found out the hard way that you cannot take this government at its word, and that even schemes that go into the budget papers in black and white cannot be believed.

During the visit to the factory we joined with the management and the workers to discuss the issues that they faced. Most of them were concerned about their jobs and felt that they and their families had an uncertain future. They were hopeful that with us introducing this bill into parliament they would be back on track and at least know in what direction they were heading. I have been talking to businesses around the electorate and around Australia, because I have contacts in many of those businesses. They feel that currently the government is a train wreck waiting to happen. There is no driver, they do not know which stations it is going to stop at and so they are just waiting to hit that brick wall.

On the other side of the House, you will hear them talk about their closeness to business. Well, I am hearing the opposite from businesses. I am happy to take any of the government members to any of these businesses to have it explained to them—whether they have to wear a bright orange vest or a hard hat, I am happy to take them out to those places and let them hear what the workers have to say. This bill, in essence, simply requires the government to keep the commitment it made in the 2010-11 budget and spend the entire amount which it had budgeted for under the solar hot water rebate. In practical terms, this bill would ensure that businesses could continue to operate as planned and that home owners had fairer access to the rebate. Business owners need to be able to plan for the future with confidence, and the private member's bill seeks to provide them with this certainty in this respect.

The 2012-13 budget papers clearly show that the money which should have been taken from the forward estimates in the 2011 budget is missing in the 2012 budget. In 2011-12 a total of $88 million was promised, with the total spend in the 2012 budget of $43 million indicating a $44.7 million cut. The government had always claimed that their reason for terminating the solar hot water rebate early was because the program was oversubscribed and that they anticipated the funding would be fully expended before its scheduled conclusion. It was amazing to hear the parliamentary secretary saying that the take-up had actually reduced. If the take-up was reducing, their excuse of being oversubscribed just does not gel. The government then promised that the full funding originally allocated for the solar hot water rebate would be retained. However, these figures would suggest otherwise. It would seem from the figures that the government are sacrificing solar jobs for a paper surplus that most commentators doubt will ever be delivered.

As I have mentioned earlier this also meets a commitment that Greg Hunt and I made to the workers on the factory floor at Rheem Welshpool on 7 March, that we would introduce a bill in parliament to force the government to meet their commitments to the people of Welshpool and the people of Australia. We in the coalition attempted to have this bill voted on before the budget, to try to remedy this situation in the fastest possible way and to save as many jobs as possible. However, the government would not have it debated—and shame on them for that. But now, as the parliamentary secretary said he is not going to reinstate the scheme I will take that back to the people and the workers at the Rheem factory in Welshpool in my electorate.

We have, though, persevered and brought this bill to the parliament today. I thank the member for Flinders and other members of the coalition for the support of the workers in my electorate of Swan. I also acknowledge that the success of this bill would have been dependent upon the Independents. I hoped that they could have seen the damage to the industry and to the families caused by the government's decision, and the need to set this right.

More broadly speaking, this episode fits into a pattern of behaviour for the Gillard-Rudd Labor era; a pattern of complete mismanagement of simple schemes that ultimately end in wasted money or diminished confidence. In this case the outcome is at the most serious end of the scale—Australian jobs have been threatened. Again, we heard the parliamentary secretary talk about demand-driven programs. I guess that the pink batts were not demand driven.

There is a certain deja vu as we consider this today as the axing of this rebate is a repeat performance of the sudden closure of the Solar Homes and Communities Plan in 2009 by then Minister Garrett, who also presided over the pink batts debacle and who was later removed from his post. This joins a list of Labor disasters such as the Home Insulation Program, cash for clunkers and Green Loans. In Swan we also remember the Solar Flagships scheme in 2010, when none of the WA projects even made the government's short list, despite eight proposals receiving WA government backing. But the five projects that did get up were from Queensland, and have progressed. The Independents had a choice here to right a wrong and, as the minister said, he will not reinstate the scheme.

As the member for Swan I will continue to support the workers in the factory of Rheem in Welshpool. I am sure that the member for Parramatta, who is just about to speak, takes an interest in the workers in the Rheem factory in Rydalmere as well. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The previous speaker is right: there is a Rheem factory in my electorate in Rydalmere. I have been down there any number of times. I have been down there when the program was running fully—when they were expanding and retooling and employing more—and I have been down more recently, before this decision was announced, when sales were down and they were struggling with the declining demand. And I have been down a since this decision was made.

I know from talking to them over quite a number of months that the sales of solar hot water systems have been in decline for some time, and that the issues they face include issues like the changing costs of their competing products, including the gas hot water systems which, as the member for Isaacs said, they also import. They actually import their own competition at Rheem. And I know they have concern about government policy in other areas, which they believe make it more difficult for solar to compete. But the idea that extending a program for four months and then shutting it down again would solve the ongoing pattern in the solar hot water system industry is folly. To tell workers that reinstating a program in a declining sector by four months would actually save their jobs in the long term is just misleading them in the most appalling way.

The previous speaker said that we should let business get on and operate as they planned. That is true. This program was known and planned way back in 2007—in fact it was 17 July 2007—by the Howard government. It was put together as a bridging program to take the then government up to 30 June 2012, when they intended to introduce their emissions trading scheme. So for the Howard government it was a bridging program which went from July 2007 up to the start of their emissions trading scheme: a bridging program. There is actually another bridging program that comes on the end of that, which is the renewable energy target—also a bridging program, which goes up until 2020. So it is also designed to provide some incentives in renewable energy while the price on carbon is starting to work fully through the economy. It is the second part of the bridging program, and it also provides support to the solar hot water industry.

Right from the beginning this program was a bridging program designed to close on 30 June 2012. It never applied to new properties; it only applied to retrofits and so, again, there is another sector of the industry out there to which this does not apply and which benefits greatly from regulations that gradually phase out electric hot water systems—at a state level in most cases. So manufacturers and installers have known for five years that this program would finish on 30 June 2012.

I want to talk about how this program actually operates, because it explains why the 28 February date for installations is the right one if you are closing the program on 30 June. It is a demand-driven program, and we all know what happens in a demand-driven program when the end becomes near: people come out of the woodwork and you get quite a spike in demand at the end. So it is actually quite a normal practice for a department, when they have these kinds of demand-driven programs, to stop them without warning. When they do not do that, you get an interesting result. For instance, when the solar photovoltaic rebate was closed and one day's notice was given, around $384 million in applications were received on or immediately after the closing date. So that announcement with a day's notice led to a spike of $384 million.

This solar hot water rebate scheme works in this way: you install it and then you have four months to apply for a rebate. So, if you installed before 28 February, you have until 30 June to apply for a rebate. One of the reasons the government did not know at the time that it announced the closure of the program what the overspend or underspend would be—it suspected it would be an underspend because sales had been in decline—is that you actually do not know at that point, because you have not received the applications for the rebate, how many of them there are out there. So it is normal practice to do exactly what the department did: to stop the program and allow that four months for the applications to flow through, closing on 30 June. That was always the intention, that is what was announced in July 2007 and that is exactly what happened.

It would be fiscally irresponsible to reopen the program. Can you imagine what would happen if tomorrow the government announced that the program was reopening and it was closing on 30 June? The government would not know, right up until 30 June, what its liability was going to be. It just would now know. It would not have any idea. You can bet it would be well and truly over the budget, by a large factor. It would be fiscally irresponsible to open the program, and the government has made it really clear that we will not. It would confuse households, it would increase uncertainty for business and it would expose the department to extraordinary budget risk.

Again, departments manage these demand-driven programs by slightly overestimating the demand so that shortfall can be met within the department's budget, but they also do exactly what they have done in this case, which is close the program on a day and announce it that day. To do otherwise—to give a day's notice—can result, as the photovoltaic rebate showed, in an overrun by $384 million in one day. That is a lot of dollars in one day. For an opposition that has a $70 billion black hole, I suspect it would be $71 billion very quickly if you gave people four weeks.

If you think about the ramifications of actually doing this, you would not suggest it, ever. This is a very silly thing to do. If the opposition have a real concern about the solar hot water industry—I am sceptical that they do given that this kind of motion comes forward and this is the best they can do—I do think there are a number of other areas that they could be discussing. I think that, if they go back to some of the manufacturers, they will find that they have things that they want to discuss. It is a real shame that in this parliament we do not get the real discussion; we do not get any really thought-through, constructive debate about what are incredibly complex issues for an Australian manufacturer. It is just a shame. I am going to call this a stunt as well, I am afraid, and I am sure someone will go back and tell the workers at Rheem. You simply cannot do this if you are fiscally responsible in any way.

We are also not leaving the solar industry out in the cold. There is a significant amount of support still available for people seeking to install solar hot water systems in their homes and their businesses. This government has provided more support to renewables than any government in Australian history, and we continue to do that. When the carbon price scheme starts on 1 July, the solar hot water industry will be receiving support in four ways. For a start, the carbon price itself will create a stable, long-term market. The Low Carbon Communities program will provide $330 million to councils, communities and low-income families to improve energy efficiency in homes and buildings. Solar hot water is very energy efficient, and I have spoken to Rheem about whether or not they could work with local organisations to be part of that program. The $800 million Clean Technology Investment Program will give the solar hot water industry an incentive to retool and modernise the manufacture of these units. Last but not least is the support for the industry to 2020 through the renewable energy target, which offers a $1,000 discount in small-scale technology certificates to consumers installing solar hot water systems in their homes. That is a $1,000 discount which will still be there for people seeking to put a solar hot water system on their home. We will not be supporting this bill. (Time expired)

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2]. The government's decision to rip the funding out of the hot water rebate scheme is appalling, dishonest and hypocritical. No credibility for this government when they keep changing their minds and decisions equates to no confidence for small business. Businesses do not do their planning on a day-to-day basis. They plan six months, 12 months or five years ahead—sometimes 10 years. In the case of big industry it is 20 years planning. You cannot change stream from doing a backstroke to a breaststroke halfway down the pool, but this is what this government expects industry to do. If you want some more examples, the superannuation fund is being tinkered with again, eroding people's confidence in the superannuation fund. The pink batts scheme was another example. The government brought that situation on overnight. All hardware stores in Australia did not have the number of pink batts they required to do the jobs, so it was all put on hold until the pink batts were imported from China into Australia. No locally made batts went into that program.

With respect to Building the Education Revolution, Reed Constructions, a big company in New South Wales, was given a lot of these projects. The projects were way overpriced—$4,300 per square metre, when the job could have been done for $1,500 per square metre. These are the sorts of things that happen with these rush decisions and stop-go policies of the government. Sadly, Reed Constructions is now in administration and $100 million is owed to contractors and subcontractors.

That is what happens when you do not have continuing and reliable policies and when you have changes to the system all the time. The people in my electorate of Flynn are fed up with seeing promise after promise being broken by Labor. This is why there is no confidence out there. I do not care what electorate you come from: there is no confidence in small business or in the mums and dads of this world, because they do not know what move the government will make next. The solar hot water industry is a vital part of our economy and it could be a positive contributor to real efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions. I believe this bill must be supported to ensure the security of jobs in the industry and to allow people the opportunity to access solar hot water systems that are affordable and that are good for the environment.

There is no mention in this budget of the underspend of $44.7 million from the program, which was left over in surplus. So the solar hot water system policy has just died on the vine. If the government were fair dinkum they would have put $44.7 million into the budget to be spent on future solar programs. Families are being starved of opportunities for real moves towards reducing their greenhouse emissions. This was a way out for them. They felt happy about it. They thought: 'We're not going to have solar energy run our power stations, run our electricity business or run the aluminium industry or the cement industry in Gladstone, but it would help run our homes.' It would be a part they could play in conserving energy and reducing emissions. But now that opportunity has been chopped off. Not only does it remove practical means for families to become greener but it also costs jobs.

The member for Swan said that it will affect jobs in his electorate. No wonder he is very concerned. The Clean Energy Council claims that 1,200 manufacturing jobs are at risk and 6,000 installations, sales and administration jobs are also under threat. That is why he is concerned and he has good reasons to be concerned as he cannot justify giving people who lose their jobs some sort of credit or some sort of job on windmills or in other energy programs.

The government promised $63.5 million for the program in 2011 and $24.5 million in 2012. The government actually spent $42.8 million in 2011 and just half a million dollars in 2012. (Time expired)

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a privilege to speak in this place on matters of significance, especially when those matters relate to legislation because of course the laws we make here form part of the great black-and-white matrix that constitutes the formal operating code of how Australia works.

Unfortunately, there are times when the occasion to speak arises not through some matter of any real significance but rather as part of some kind of political game—and that is the case tonight.

Any argument that the member for Flinders purports to make for the importance of supporting renewable energy is a ringing endorsement of this government's reform program and puts a question mark over his own conduct and the conduct of the coalition on this issue.

The member for Flinders is of course the same person who formerly believed in and argued strongly for the importance of addressing climate change through an emissions trading scheme. This is the same person, who, along with his coalition colleagues, negotiated and agreed to the government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, before they broke their word and pursued a path of negativity, pseudoscience and scaremongering ever since.

As the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has rightly pointed out, the closing of the solar hot water scheme, by 30 June this year, has been contemplated and forecast for a number of years and it makes perfect sense for this to occur at the point at which the Labor government's Renewable Energy Target and Clean Energy Future reforms step in to continue to support the solar hot water industry and the households, community organisations and businesses which seek to pursue energy efficiency in that way.

Anyone who ordered, purchased or installed a solar hot water system on or before 28 February remains able to apply for the rebate until 30 June, in keeping with the four-month claim window that has applied throughout this program. It is a program that has underwritten the installation of 250,000 solar hot water systems.

In the same period, about 4½ years, this government has supported the installation of more than 150,000 household solar PV systems. The Howard government, in 11½ years, supported 12,000. In the same period, this Labor government has created the structures and the funding to stimulate unprecedented investment in large-scale renewable energy projects that will be the basis of Australian economic growth, jobs and emission-free electricity in the decades to come.

This includes the recent announcement that the government will provide $10 million to support the commercial scale implementation of Carnegie Wave Energy's promising wave power technology in the ocean adjacent to my electorate.

The fact is that this government has taken a well-founded approach to providing support for renewable energy and energy efficiency. We have acted to support burgeoning industries, to back innovative technology and to create a level playing field for low-carbon or no-carbon energy and manufacturing processes. We have acted to support households in their clear and strong desire to reduce their carbon emissions and to recalibrate the sources on which they rely for their energy.

In the case of household solar panels, we provided rebates that kick-started a home solar PV revolution, literally transforming our suburbs. But naturally and sensibly those rebates were designed to taper off and they have tapered off as private side demand has grown. The Solar Home and Communities rebate was replaced by the Solar Credits scheme and the credit multiplier within the Solar Credits scheme has, in turn, been eased.

When the industry grew and stabilised and the scale of production and the size and consistency of demand, coupled with lower input costs, meant that per unit costs decreased, the government support was sensibly and gradually wound back. Perhaps the best indication of the equilibrium that the government has managed in this case is the fact that the price point at which a standard 1.5 kilowatt system is available to the consumer has changed very little.

In the case of the solar hot water rebate and other energy-efficiency and renewable-energy programs, this government has designed and delivered policy that sparks innovation to the point where it will be increasingly sustained by private-demand market conditions. This is precisely the approach that has delivered the twin hallmarks of this government—namely, world-leading economic management and, at the same time, forward-looking policy reform.

The proposal from the member for Flinders that the government renege on its planned transition from the solar hot water rebate to the various forms of support within the clean energy future package advocates a dangerous move that would open up a substantial and unquantifiable further liability. I would therefore strongly encourage the member for Flinders to cast his eye across the Nullarbor and see how his Liberal colleagues in WA have presided over a $450 million blow-out in their wildly mismanaged solar tariff scheme. Is that what the member for Flinders is seeking to achieve with this private member's bill, the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2]? The purpose of this private member's bill is wholly and solely to make an issue where no issue exists and it fails to do even that. It cannot be supported.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the south-western corner of my electorate of Bennelong is the suburb of Ermington, a busy neighbourhood of battlers and real families working hard to make ends meet. Many work in industrial companies on the other side of Silverwater Road in the electorate of Parramatta, such as the manufacturing headquarters of Rheem Australia in Rydalmere. Rheem's history of manufacturing electric hot water heaters in Australia dates back to the Second World War. Rheem employs 350 of these battlers in their manufacturing arm alone, producing household brands like Solahart, Vulcan and Aquamax. This is a great Australian company that supports local workers and relies on a stable operating environment. The government's decision to suddenly scrap the $1,000 solar hot water rebate at one minute to five on 28 February was a sly and deceptive measure that has directly hurt many of these hard-working families.

As a result of this decision, Rheem has witnessed a 30 to 40 per cent reduction in sales and has been forced to sack 60 employees. They are fighting to hold on to their team of manufacturing staff. So far, discussions with this government have not given Rheem any security or assurance that the future for these workers and their families will be any better than for the 60 workers already retrenched. This government's decision has put workers out of jobs and businesses at risk of financial ruin. The Clean Energy Council estimates that 1,200 manufacturing jobs and 6,000 installation, sales and administration jobs are at risk as a result of the government's axing of this program—which bears a great resemblance to the sudden closure of the Solar Homes and Communities Plan in 2009 and the bungled Home Insulation Program, the Green Loans Program and cash-for-clunkers failures. This government has consistently and repeatedly disregarded the needs of businesses and families in Bennelong, Parramatta and across the nation.

This private member's bill, the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2], moved by my colleague the member for Flinders, will ensure that businesses like Rheem can continue to operate as they had planned and that homeowners in Ermington and around the nation are given a fair chance to access the rebate. It is very disappointing that the government voted against this bill being debated prior to the budget so as not to cause any political friction with their alliance colleagues the Greens.

The government knows that their decision is anti-environment and based on a lie. First they claimed the solar hot water rebate was shut down because it was oversubscribed and that all allocated funds would be spent. Yet the recent budget papers tell another story—one that shows more than 50 per cent of the $88 million promised by the government to support this environmental initiative had vanished. In one breath this government claims that the Australian people deserve some financial punishment through the carbon tax because the environment is worth it, and with the next breath they axe their own solar hot water program because they cannot afford it. The key question which remains for this government is whether this farcical situation is a result of incompetence in the management of the program or is just another broken promise. The use of solar hot water is a genuine way for households to reduce their greenhouse emissions and cut their power bills ahead of the carbon tax on 1 July. Perhaps this government does not actually want people to reduce their coal-powered electricity consumption. After all, this would mean less carbon emissions and therefore less money collected in taxes to pay for the cash handouts.

The coalition is committed to the solar industry. The direct action plan has a one million solar roofs policy, which includes rebates for the installation of solar hot water systems. The coalition is committed to a stable and secure future for companies like Rheem Australia that need a certain operating environment so that they can invest in their local communities and create jobs for manufacturing workers. Just like the medicines manufacturers hurt by the deferral of PBS listings in contravention of the memorandum of understanding and the cattle exporters punished by the suspension of trade after a Four Corners episode, the solar hot water industry has learnt the hard way that this government cannot be trusted and only the coalition can provide the hope, reward and opportunity for successful business and job creation. I commend this bill to the House.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was no surprise to me, when I had a look at the speaking list for this private member's bill, the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2], that there was only one speaker from the opposition side on the list from the great state of New South Wales. That is because all of the MPs from the great state of New South Wales are, rightfully, too ashamed to stick their heads up on this matter, in view of what their coalition partners, the O'Farrell government, did with the Solar Bonus Scheme when it closed the scheme on 13 May last year. They know that if they stick their heads up on this matter they leave themselves open to the charge of hypocrisy in championing and advocating in favour of the private member's bill brought to us by the opposition spokesperson today. Clearly, the member for Bennelong is more impervious to those claims than the rest of his parliamentary colleagues. We on this side of the House are committed to increasing the take-up of solar hot water systems and other mechanisms which will enable households to reduce the amount of money they are spending and the amount of energy they are expending on hot water heating and consumption. The reason we are committed to that is that 25 per cent of total household energy consumption goes to making the water hot and keeping it hot. Solar hot water and other similar mechanisms can lead to energy savings to those households of somewhere between 50 and 90 per cent. It is for these reasons that, between 2007 and 2012, through the scheme that the members opposite are trying to reopen, around a quarter of a million households installed solar hot water systems and the like at a cost of around $320 million.

We do have options available to us. One of those is the option that is proposed by the opposition spokesperson. On my rough figures, their one million homes policy, at a cost of around $1,000 per unit, is a billion-dollar program. That adds to the $70 billion in unfunded promises they have already made over the course of the last 18 months, so I guess we are up to $71 billion.

There are two reasons why we should reject this policy proposal. The first is this: it is indiscriminate—it is not means tested. What that means, in effect, is that taxpayers, particularly poor taxpayers, are being asked to subsidise the energy savings and solar hot water systems of more wealthy people. If you want visual proof of this, Mr Deputy Speaker Thomson, I ask you to get in your car and go for a drive around your electorate or the neighbouring electorates, and just count the number of solar hot water systems that you will find in the housing commission suburbs or the low SES suburbs within your electorate and then see the number of solar hot water systems in the more wealthy parts of your electorate. I know that, in my electorate, there is no comparison. There is a lot of shining glass on the roofs of the wealthier parts of my electorate. Many of those newly installed units were paid for as a result of the subsidised system. That is one reason why you might question the proposition put up by the shadow spokesperson.

The second reason is that it is not necessary. There is a very good reason why it is not necessary. If you wanted to replace electric hot water systems with more efficient energy usage options, there are a number of propositions that you could put into place. The first is: you put in place regulations which phased out the use of electric hot water systems. And, indeed, that is exactly what is happening, because in December 2010 all states and territories, with the exception of the Tasmanian government, signed up to a pact to phase out the use of electric hot water systems over the next 10 years, and that means that what we are effectively doing here is creating a market for alternative products. So, if you are really concerned about replacing electric hot water systems with more energy-favourable options, you would phase them out—and that is exactly what is being done.

The second thing you might do is to keep in place the renewable energy targets, which provide around $1,000 for Small-scale Technology Certificates per unit. That is being continued as well. The third thing you might do is to put in place a clear price signal about the need to shift to a low carbon future, and we are doing that. So this proposition is a one-billion-dollar boondoggle—it is unnecessary. (Time expired)

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to support the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2], introduced into this House by the honourable member for Flinders. The bill has as its premise the following. On 28 February, as trade was shutting down for the day, the government suddenly scrapped the $1,000 solar hot water rebate. Businesses and homeowners were given no prior notice of the closure of the program and homeowners only had a few short hours to submit their application in order to remain eligible. The result of this rash behaviour was to inject uncertainty into the lives of many workers, contractors and businesses. As my colleagues have mentioned throughout this debate, the Clean Energy Council predicted 1,200 manufacturing jobs and 6,000 installation, sales and administration jobs would be at risk because of the Gillard government's incompetence.

These types of actions by the government, however, seem very familiar, as the axing of this rebate is a repeat of the damaging sudden closure of the Solar Homes and Communities Plan in 2009 by the then minister, Peter Garrett. And we all remember the bungled Home Insulation Program which, unfortunately, led to the compromising of workers' safety, houses being burnt down and the wasting of many, many millions of taxpayers' money to fix the mess. And in my electorate of Brisbane we are still fixing the mess.

This private member's bill by the shadow minister seeks to ensure certainty in the industry by requiring that the government spend the entire amount originally budgeted for the solar hot water rebate. This proactive action seeks to ensure that businesses could continue to operate as they had originally planned and that homeowners have a fairer chance to access the rebate.

This demonstrates a marked contrast between an opposition concerned about the effects of government policy on business and a government which seems to lurch from one crisis to another. True to form, they voted against bringing the private member's bill forward for a vote in March prior to the 2012 budget. The government originally claimed that it had terminated the solar hot water rebate early because the program was oversubscribed—and we have heard a number of their speakers talk about that—and they anticipated that the funding would be fully expended before its scheduled conclusion. The government and their coalition partners the Greens then promised that the full funding originally allocated for the solar hot water rebate would be retained. And, as referred to by my colleagues, the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Mark Dreyfus, gave a written assurance to the Greens, to Senator Milne, on 21 March 2012, and it states: 'As discussed with you, the government never intended to make any savings from the closure of this program and remains committed to supporting the transition to a clean energy future which includes the solar hot water industry. The funding allocated for this program remains in the forward estimates.' Well, that was a good promise! But, as this year's budget papers clearly show, this is simply untrue. It is a broken promise, and these figures directly contradict the government's supposed justification for scrapping the scheme because it had run out of money. Either there has been complete incompetence in the management of the scheme, or the government is not being honest with the Australian people and has been willing to sacrifice the solar hot water industry to prop up its own budget.

The government's own program guidelines did not mention a closure date for the rebate, contrary to the government's claim that it always intended to shut this scheme on 30 June this year. What is even more galling about this decision is that the government is introducing the world's biggest carbon tax on the Australian economy which, as we all know, is going to flow through to and hurt every single Australian. So the government cuts a worthwhile program, at five minutes to midnight, that actually had the effect of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, yet introduces an economy-wide carbon tax that will destroy jobs, will destroy growth and will drive emissions overseas. Nothing better demonstrates this government's delusion and lack of priority than these decisions. This is a very proactive, responsible and considerate bill by the member for Flinders, and it is designed to repair the damage and restore the confidence that this government has shattered. I commend the bill to the House.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the member for Flinders private member's bill, which calls on the government to reinstate the solar hot water scheme and appropriate the remaining portion of the 2011-2012 allocation—just another back-to-the-future proposal from a rather sad opposition. It is just a little pathetic to see the member for Flinders put this private member's bill forward, given that we have seen no policies to explain how the opposition intends to reduce emissions or meet the agreed renewable energy target. We have no details, costings or specific policies from the opposition, but apparently the $63.5 million in this bill is going to do a lot of heavy lifting. I do not think so.

I think this is yet another attempt by the opposition to just harp and carp and oppose whatever the government does, without having a framework of policies for members like the member for Flinders to champion or advocate. It is pathetic, and he must find that quite difficult. This bill is put forward by the same person who in 1990 co-authored that award-winning thesis entitled A Tax to Make the Polluter Pay, which stated:

… we have argued that the current regulatory regime for controlling industrial pollution is grievously flawed and should be replaced by a market based waste management system. The key component of this new regime should be the introduction of a pollution tax.

He did say that and, of course, we did do that, because that is exactly what works best. And we agree that we should have a market based scheme that makes the big polluters pay. It is called the clean energy future package, and it is legislated now.

If this bill before the House is some feeble attempt to make the federal Labor government look like it does not support the renewable energy industry then it will not work. We are the party that legislated a price on carbon, delivering a wide range of incentives to renewable industries and households to move towards a cleaner and less emissions-intensive economy. Our package provides the certainty that the renewable energy sector needs to plan their future products, marketing, research and development, and other successful business tools to allow them to get on with building a dynamic and relevant renewable energy industry. The industry knew this scheme was winding up and the opposition knew that this scheme was winding up, but typically they choose to mislead the public rather than tell the truth.

Yes, the program was begun by John Howard in 2007, to be funded until 30 June 2012. On 28 February this year we announced that the solar hot water rebate scheme would end on 30 June 2012. People of course were still eligible to claim that rebate up to the end of that financial year, but you do try to confine expenditure to the budget year, and that is exactly what we did.

The closure of the scheme in any other way would have been irresponsible. It would have encouraged that haste and that last-minute rush that would have certainly put a lot of pressure on that industry as well, and we do not do things that way. Certainly the scheme was successful. It offered rebates of $1,000 for solar hot-water systems and rebates of $600 on heat-pump systems. We did stick to that scheme and we never scrapped any of that policy. It assisted over 250,000 installations, 25,000 more than the coalition government had promised, at a cost of over $320 million. This scheme gave the industry clear support for a designated period—and that is exactly what it was, a designated period—to build the business model and the approach that matched the current technology and demand. But technologies move on, and so this government has moved toward a clean energy future—one that will reduce emissions and will meet our renewable energy targets.

By putting a price on carbon pollution we have created an incentive for households to install more energy-efficient systems and purchase more energy-efficient appliances. We have provided the market mechanisms to make the big polluters make different investment and energy choices—ones that will lead to more efficient use of energy—so they can continue to competitively provide products and services to both the domestic and international markets.

The federal Labor government has provided more support to renewables than any government in Australian history, and we will continue to do so. From July 1, the solar hot-water industry will receive support in four ways: pricing carbon will create a stable, long-term market; the Low Carbon Communities program will provide $330 million to local councils, communities and disadvantaged low-income families to improve their energy efficiency; the $800 million Clean Technology Investment Program will give the solar hot-water industry an incentive to retool and modernise the manufacture of solar units; and towards 2020, through the renewable energy target, consumers can be offered up to $1,000 discount in small technology packages.

At my local level, I am pleased to say that the Hunter Business Chamber was awarded $1.2 million to help small and medium business implement the Energy Hunter—Our Clean Energy Future program. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.