Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I will address the minister’s concerns. I am shocked that she will not support this as it is a vote of confidence in the minister’s discretion to deal with these issues. The minister asks, quite reasonably, what the public policy benefit of this amendment is. It gives an additional level of flexibility in relation to the biennial reviews—and I commend Senator Milne for moving those reviews—that we have supported. It does not mean one form of technology or another will be favoured, but it does give the minister flexibility. If there is a new product on the market, such as a new, incredibly energy efficient renewable technology, then that ought to be the subject of this scheme, and of course there will be scrutiny through the parliament by regulation.

If there is an issue here with respect to the drafting, I would like to hear from the government. From a drafting perspective, however, it does seem to be quite straightforward in that it simply gives the minister discretion. It is not something that the minister has to exercise. The minister is not required to exercise discretion; it is simply that the minister can have this additional power to do so if there is an emerging renewable energy technology that has demonstrated its energy efficiency sufficiently to be included.

I know the minister has some concerns about other technologies. The fact is that the scheme is far from perfect—and I think we all acknowledge that—because of the inclusion of electric heat pumps, but I understand that they are included by virtue of their potential energy efficiency. This amendment is not inconsistent with what is in the scheme now in terms of current technologies. It does, however, give the minister that level of flexibility.