Senate debates

Thursday, 22 June 2006

Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2006

In Committee

Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.

11:31 pm

Photo of Christine MilneChristine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

I move the Greens amendment on sheet 4938:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 27 (after line 6), after item 89, insert:

89A  Section 40

Repeal the table, substitute:

Required GWh of renewable source energy

Year

GWh

2001

300

2002

1100

2003

1800

2004

2600

2005

3400

2006

4500

2007

5600

2008

6800

2009

8100

2010

9500

2011 to 2020 increased by 1050GWh per annum

20000

This amendment effectively inserts into the bill the main recommendation of the Tambling report—that the mandatory renewable energy target be increased in size and extended to 2020 so that it would be 20,000 gigawatt hours in 2020. That is an extremely modest amount of extra renewable energy but, nevertheless, it would continue to lead to greater investment and security in that particular sector. Of course, I would like things to go much further, and I would be very happy if the minister sought to amend it even further. I would then withdraw this amendment and happily go with that, but I will at least test the government first on implementing the main recommendation of its own report.

11:32 pm

Photo of Jan McLucasJan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | | Hansard source

On behalf of the Labor Party, regarding both the Greens amendment before the chamber and the forthcoming Democrats amendment, I indicate that, whilst Labor is extremely supportive of the principle of increasing the MRET, we cannot support proposals defined as specifically as they are in the amendments today. We do recognise that, when MRET was first announced, it was the government’s stated intention that it would increase market share of renewable energy as a percentage by two per cent. The government said in its review of the operation of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000:

Electricity retailers and other large electricity buyers will be legally required to source an additional 2 percent of their electricity from renewable or specified waste-product energy sources by 2010.

However, we know that in its design MRET has become a gigawatt hour target rather than a percentage of market share. By making the target a gigawatt hour target rather than a percentage, the target has in fact become a dead target. The result is that market share of renewable energy in 2010 will be approximately 10.5 per cent, exactly the same as it was in 1997. Labor support significantly increasing the MRET target, and we will be announcing our detailed policy on that matter closer to the next election.

This is an area of policy that requires close consultation with industry, careful thought as to how best to support renewable energy and creative thought as to how MRET can be complemented with other supportive measures. Labor supports significantly increasing the MRET, but to do it through either the Greens amendment or the Democrats amendment is not appropriate at this time.

11:34 pm

Photo of Lyn AllisonLyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | | Hansard source

The Democrats will support this amendment moved by Senator Milne and, as has already been observed, we have a similar amendment but it has an even higher target. We took our target from the submissions made to a number of inquiries, including the Lurching Forward, Looking Back report into the energy white paper, so we do support this. It is a pity that Labor cannot bring themselves to also support this, because it is not something that we have dreamed up. It has been a commonplace recommendation. In the case of the Milne amendment, if I can put it that way, it was recommended in the Tambling report, which is the government’s own report. We are acting on the best advice that has been received. The government has not been able to say why this should not take place, and it is disappointing that Labor cannot take that extra step. They are prepared to ratify Kyoto, and that is good. They recognise that there are deficiencies in MRET, which is also good, but I wonder why Labor cannot say what is actually wrong with it.

We need to be specific. That is the whole point of the MRET scheme. That is why we have 9,500 gigawatt hours—it is a specific target. I think, in fact, it would better to have a percentage. Let us go for 20 per cent of the actual by 2020. That is really what our amendment does but, of course, we do not know what the energy consumption level will be by 2020. We could be way out, as indeed the government was when it set up this target. I am all for going for a percentage. In fact, maybe we should have put an amendment up to that effect, but the government argued for certainty. It wanted to be able to tell the industry exactly what the gigawatt hours were year by year, and that is why it was converted to a target such as 9,500 gigawatt hours.

I will not speak any further on my amendment because it has all been said before. There are good arguments for these targets to be increased one way or the other to 20,000 gigawatt hours, or 30,000 in the case of our amendment. They are all justifiable. They have all been said before. They have all been put up by those who know what Australia is capable of doing and what is affordable. So I reject the minister’s argument that poor old Comalco will have to find a bit more money to pay for the energy they consume, which they consume in huge quantities of course. That is why Australia is attractive to Comalco and other aluminium smelters. We said earlier that we have the cheapest energy in the OECD. I was just looking at the Tambling report and there we are right down the bottom, even behind the United States, which is saying something. So it is time that we increased our prices for electricity, and the best way to do that is through the MRET scheme.

11:37 pm

Photo of Eric AbetzEric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | | Hansard source

I think Senator Allison summed it up well when she said, a number of times, ‘It’s all been said before.’ It has been, and has been by the government as well. We oppose the amendment.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Milne’s) be agreed to.

11:47 pm

Photo of Lyn AllisonLyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | | Hansard source

I move the amendment on sheet 4982, which I have already spoken to:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 27 (after line 6), after item 89, insert:

89A Section 40

Repeal the table, substitute:

Required GWh of renewable source energy

Year

GWh

2001

300

2002

1100

2003

1800

2004

2600

2005

3400

2006

4500

2007

5600

2008

8100

2009

9500

2010

11,000

2011

12,500

2012

14,000

2013

16,000

2014

18,000

2015

20,000

2016

22,000

2017

24,000

2018

26,000

2019

28,000

2020

30,000

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.