Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I will try not to speak too long on this. I understand some other senators may wish to speak on this matter as well. I am pleased to note the tabling of the report of the inquiry into an opposition private member’s bill entitled Save Our Solar (Solar Rebate Protection) Bill 2008 [No. 2], which was considered by the Senate Standing Committee on the Environment, Communications and the Arts. The bill requires new rebate guidelines to be determined via a legislative instrument subject to parliamentary scrutiny and potential disallowance by either house of parliament but effectively by the Senate.

The opposition hoped that the inquiry from this bill would uncover some kind of approaching Armageddon in the PV solar panel industry in Australia. However, the inquiry found that the industry, while changing, is in fact very robust because Australian consumers and domestic households in particular are taking up rebates offered under the government’s rebate program at higher rates than before the budget announcement about the means test.

The committee received 150 submissions from witnesses in this inquiry and we heard evidence in Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane and telephone evidence from other states and territories. The majority report is supportive of the government’s handling of the rebate program and it recommends that the opposition bill does not proceed.

The report’s main findings include the increased uptake of the Solar Homes and Communities Plan since the budget. A recommendation addresses the fact that households are installing systems of around one kilowatt that are largely affordable within the maximum rebate allowable of $8,000, while perhaps larger sized systems would be preferable. The committee also found that the industry itself would much prefer the introduction of a feed-in tariff scheme that offers more certainty over a longer period of time than rebate schemes which can be vulnerable to government policy or, as this bill anticipated, vulnerable to the whim of the Senate.

I note in that context that several states and territories are putting in place, have considered or are considering feed-in tariff schemes to further support the use of solar PV systems and possibly other forms of microrenewable energy. The government recognises that fact and agrees that adopting an approach that is as consistent as possible across the country can go a long way in helping reduce the regulatory burden and costs on the electricity market as well as on consumers. I am pleased to note that COAG will consider options for a harmonised approach to feed-in tariffs at its October meeting this year. The committee that inquired into this bill will also be examining such a scheme during our coming inquiry into the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Feed-in-Tariff) Bill 2008.

The opposition has put in a fairly predictable dissenting report which projects gloom and doom in the industry, an industry that is actually showing signs of moving from being a cottage industry to being a very mature industry. Yes, there are some adjustments. But we are also seeing potential investment in the industry from companies operating in the global market.

The opposition, throughout this inquiry, did nothing to address the repeated calls of the industry in Australia for certainty about what was going to happen in the future, and instead we had the opposition, throughout this inquiry, whipping up fear and uncertainty in the PV industry by alleging—like Chicken Little—that the world was going to end, the sun was going to stop shining and that everything was going to be disastrous when, in fact, there was no good evidence to support that at all.

It was intriguing that earlier on today in this chamber we heard, on a number of occasions, other senators on this side noting that the opposition could have different opinions on the same topic on different days, depending on which different members of the opposition were speaking. We heard that certainly in the context of the River Murray during question time. It is not unusual for this opposition to support something one day and then reject it the next, and perhaps that is why they were rejecting a policy that, with regard to the means test on the rebate scheme, is in fact a policy very similar to their own. I wonder whether they have forgotten about the $100,000 means test on solar hot water rebates that was implemented by the then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, when that program was introduced in July 2007. It is probably worth reiterating that on the 17 July 2007, Mr Turnbull issued a press release stating:

The rebate is available to eligible applicants who are replacing existing electric storage hot water systems with eligible solar or heat pump systems purchased and installed after today and verified by a registered agent. The home must be a principal place of residence and the applicant’s taxable family income must be less than $100,000.

That sounds very familiar. Never let the facts and history get in the way of a good story when it comes to the opposition!

Our change to the Solar Homes and Communities Plan rebate brings it into line with the Solar Hot Water Rebate Program. That program, as I said, was introduced by the previous government. So we have brought those two programs into line but, more importantly, we have greatly increased the funding available for the program per year. Whereas the previous government’s plan was to budget $150 million over five years for 15,000 rebates, I am proud to say my government dedicated $150 million over three years for 15,000 rebates in the recent budget and we doubled the number of rebates available from 3,000 to 6,000, doubling our election commitment and doubling what the previous government had budgeted for this year.

With the ongoing success of this program, we have now said that we will continue to meet demand for the program—a fact that the opposition chooses not to throw into the mix of scaremongering when it is whipping up the industry to be afraid of the future of government support for renewable energy sources in this country. It is clear that the driving force behind the opposition bill was that it hoped for—it actually wanted—a decrease in the number of solar rebate applications following the introduction of the means test. That is what it wanted, and it was very disappointed when the numbers did not stack up and the number of rebates increased.

As of a couple of weeks ago, an average of 522 applications per week had been lodged since the budget for the rebate available under this excellent program. That is 150 more applications per week than were made prior to the budget and way beyond the 30 weekly applications at the time of the last coalition budget. In one week alone we noted that there were 794 applications for the rebate, post the budget change which included a means test so that this program could be targeted at low-income Australian families who most need assistance to install alternative energy sources in their homes.

Of course, I could go on about other excellent measures that the government has taken to improve the uptake of renewable energy sources, not just in people’s homes but in our communities and schools, but perhaps I will leave that for another day, given the time. The committee did note, as I said, the trend to smaller systems as people use the maximum amount of rebate to buy what they can afford, and the committee realise that that trend is not new. In fact, it started when the previous government increased the rebate to $8,000, and that information was verified by the federal Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. The department alerted us to that fact.

The fact that solar systems are becoming more affordable for low-income families is an excellent thing, a great thing for our nation. Actually, that is exactly what a former environment minister, Ian Campbell—they have had a few former environment ministers over there—called for in 2006 when he said that the solar rebate scheme should be targeted at low-income families. But, of course, that was another day and another position from the opposition on this very important issue.

In closing, I would like to thank the other members of the committee, who participated in this inquiry with goodwill and cooperation. Also, I would like to thank the secretariat and the many people who made an effort to contribute to the inquiry into this bill.