Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Abetz, the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. Does the minister recall saying, in answer to my question on Tuesday, that the government did not support state based renewable energy schemes? Is the minister aware that Pacific Hydro said yesterday that their $300 million worth of investment in projects in regional Victoria was driven by the Victorian renewable energy target? I ask the minister whether he is aware that Pacific Hydro also said:

Without the Victorian Target, we would not be able to commit this level of investment in Victoria which creates jobs and helps to reduce Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions ...

Minister, aren’t there also a number of renewable energy projects in Tasmania that will only go ahead under the New South Wales based scheme? Minister, isn’t government policy putting at risk significant investments, along with hundreds of regional jobs?

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call Senator Abetz, could I remind you, Senator Marshall, that you should address the chair and not the minister.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The short answer to the senator’s question is, of course, no. I noticed him during question time jumping on each occasion, so I thought he was going to have a real doozy of a question. I must say that I was quite disappointed at how flat it actually was. The renewable energy sector is an important sector, but we have to have all these things in a sensible construct. The IPCC has in fact said to the Australian community that the Howard government’s approach is the correct approach. That is why we as a government have invested heavily in renewable energy in a host of ways without insisting that the mandatory renewable energy target be increased.

Pacific Hydro are in the business of renewable energy. They just got a $300 million contact courtesy of the Victorian government. So guess what they are going to say? They are going to say, ‘We love it.’ What their press release did not say was that that target and their income resulted not only from Victorian government policy but also at a cost to the Victorian taxpayer. That is the important thing that people need to understand. If you were to increase the renewable energy target, you would increase the cost of energy and that would impact on every energy user in this country, especially in the manufacturing sector—which the Australian Labor Party profess to champion.

Those opposite go to the manufacturers, hand on heart, and say: ‘We want to look after you. Isn’t the Howard government policy bad?’ And then they go over to the Greens and the green groups, hand on heart, and say: ‘Guess what we’re going to do? We’re really going to do over the manufacturing sector, but don’t tell anybody, because we want your Green preferences. So you just tell all your supporters.’ This has been the problem with Mr Rudd and the Australian Labor Party. No matter what the issue is, they seek to walk down both sides of the street. It is about time the people of Australia were made aware of that by our friends in the media—rather than giving him the easy run that he has had.

In relation to renewable energy, I say to the honourable senator opposite: we have invested $252.2 million for solar hot water rebates; $336.1 million for green vouchers for schools; $201.8 million for the Photovoltaic Rebate Program; $328 million for the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program; $100 million for the Renewable Energy Development Initiative; $75 million for Solar Cities—something that the state of Victoria has in fact benefited from, which I thought Senator Marshall, as a senator from Victoria, might have had the good grace to refer to rather than trying to make cheap, political comment; $20 million for the advanced electricity storage initiative; $14 million for an advanced wind forecasting capability; and $25 million to develop renewable energy technology through the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. And the list goes on and on.

What the people of Australia want, and what they are in fact receiving from this government, is a sensible, measured approach to the issues that are confronting us not only as a nation but also as a world. What those on the other side are doing is simply jumping onto slogans and claiming that somehow those slogans will benefit the community—but they will not. (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Has the government undertaken any assessment of the number of jobs that would be lost in regional centres if the state based renewable energy schemes were abolished? Why does the government fail to understand how these renewable energy targets work? Why is the minister ignoring the advice of Australian businesses that are creating jobs in regional areas and cutting greenhouse emissions?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One thing that we are not doing is ignoring any advice. In fact, what we are doing, in a way that has now attracted the support of the IPCC, is going through this in a measured way and getting all the evidence together so that we know what the impact of any policy might be in the long term. That is why we have said, ‘Let’s have a look at the economic and other impacts of setting a particular target.’ Mr Rudd ran out to the electorate in the hope of getting a short-term headline—which he did—and said, ‘This is going to be our target.’ When he was asked what the consequences were going to be, he said, ‘I don’t know.’ You cannot run a trillion-dollar economy with that sort of nonsensical approach to the wellbeing of the Australian people. That is why our measures have now been endorsed by the IPCC.