Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to speak in favour of the Save Our Solar (Solar Rebate Protection) Bill 2008. This bill seeks to right one of many wrongs of the Rudd government—one that relates to the important issues of climate change, how that is tackled effectively in Australia and how we support a growing small business sector in this country. It is very timely indeed that this is listed for debate today because tomorrow week is a meeting of COAG—the Council of Australian Governments—at which future support for the solar industry is listed as an agenda item. I hope today the Senate will pass this bill and send a very clear message to the government that the Senate throws the gauntlet down to it as it goes into the week leading up to the COAG meeting that it needs to address the mess that it has created in the solar industry.

The government’s means testing of the solar rebate program this year was an act of deception, confusion and decimation. ‘Deception’ because the government was elected on its climate change record—on signing Kyoto and making a difference. The government lured the solar industry sector and many Australians into believing that electing a Labor government would see the type of action and support for the solar industry that those Australians and small businesses wanted to see. It was an act of deception because at the first available opportunity, in this year’s budget, the government said: ‘No, we’re actually not supporting your industry. We’re out to give it a whack instead.’ It was also an act of confusion because it confused public policy objectives. You had the Treasury razor gang out to find budget savings somewhere whilst ignoring the government’s stated environmental policy objectives. It confused environmental objectives with budgetary objectives. It was a clear act of confusion.

And it has proven to be an act of decimation. We have an industry struggling under the weight of uncertainty. The industry is dealing with an uncertain future in relation to the type of support that it faces. The industry is not sure whether this rebate program will even last and is now concerned how the government is going to manage future support for the solar sector. It is, therefore, hurting and impeding investment decisions and the uptake of solar power in this country. The decision really is one that is decimating the future security of this growing and important industry.

It is important to look at the history of this. The previous government, the Howard government, began support for the solar sector with the provision of rebates in 1999. That is right—in 1999. For all we hear from Senator Wong and many opposite that nothing had been done on climate change issues, practical support to encourage the uptake of solar panel installation was actually brought in by the Howard government in 1999. It operated at various levels and by 2003-04 it was operating with a rebate of $4 per watt, up to a maximum of $4,000. That rebate remained in place until 2007, when the Howard government made the decision that would dramatically increase that rebate. It wanted to ensure strong, urgent, fast growth in the solar industry, so it doubled the rebate. In 2007 it doubled it to $8 per watt, up to a maximum rebate of $8,000. This saw significant uptake of solar cells around Australia. It was a boon to the industry, and it was one that was widely welcomed.

According to the Clean Energy Council, the solar industry employs an estimated 3,000 to 3,500 people right around Australia. Approximately half of them are working in the off-grid market and the other half in the on-grid market, which is what this bill and the solar rebate program relate to. In 2007 some 12 megawatts of solar power were installed across Australia. This was up two megawatts from 2006. Growth was tracking quite strongly. That growth was all driven by the solar rebate program. This program was delivering for the industry, for consumers concerned about the environment and for the environment overall. This program supported the installation of this renewable energy product that helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

When the Howard government doubled the rebate the industry had certainty. They had certainty because the then Prime Minister, when asked how far the budget allocation would stretch, told the Sunrise program on 9 May it:

... is a demand-driven program. So as many households as want it, can have it. If it turns out to be more popular, well, more money will be made available.

They were the words of the then Prime Minister. Going into last year’s election the solar industry had in place a government that had made a clear commitment of support to the industry, that had doubled the rebate that was in place and said that it would not let the funds run out. Then we had the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rudd, going down the road in Canberra and visiting solar operators. He stood there championing their cause and said that his government would be their best friend. He said that his government, because of their so-called climate change credentials, would be best mates with the solar industry. They are the claims. They are the types of things that Mr Rudd said.

It is little wonder that the solar industry thought it was in safe hands. It thought that, whatever happened in last year’s election, the rebate program was secure, the future for the industry was secure and that they could plan with confidence for the future and make investment decisions. And make investment decisions they did. They employed more people. More electricians and other tradespeople sought the qualifications to become solar installers. More people branched out and started their own businesses to install solar panels. And investment decisions were taken because they were confident that, whoever was elected, they would have a supportive government.

So it is of little surprise that the industry was, to say the least, shocked on budget night this year. It was shocked when the government came out with its means test. The industry was shocked because the bulk of their business to date had been from people who were going to be knocked out by the means test for eligibility for the rebate. The government decided to set the arbitrary figure of $100,000 in gross household income as an eligibility criterion for the rebate. This meant that two people earning $50,000 a year would be ineligible for the rebate.

I was quoted in the chamber today as saying that $50,000 a year is not a high income. That is right. I have been quoted on that. I was quoted by one of the ministers during question time and, indeed, by Senator Carol Brown during the taking note of answers debate. The government was taking great delight in saying that $50,000 was indeed not a high income. But, apparently, in this instance of a family in which two people are earning $50,000 it is a high income. This shows the inconsistency of the government. When it comes to a Medicare rebate, no, it is not a high income, but when it comes to the solar rebate, yes, it is a high income. We see gross hypocrisy and inconsistency in this matter coming from those opposite.

As I said, industry, environmental groups and others believed that they were in safe hands going into this year’s budget. Was there any warning? Was there any consultation with industry or others about the imposition of this means testing? The answer quite clearly is no. During the conduct of the Senate inquiry into this bill, we asked many industry groups and many large businesses in this sector whether they were consulted. Each and every one of them said no. A number of state governments have been looking to implement their own measures, in particular feed-in tariffs of various types, to encourage the uptake of solar to complement the rebate system. Indeed, here in the ACT the government has implemented a gross feed-in tariff. In a submission to the Senate inquiry, the Labor ACT Chief Minister, Mr Jon Stanhope, said:

No consultation occurred with the ACT Government prior to the announcement to the budget decision ...

He was no orphan there because no consultation occurred with anybody. It was quite clearly and transparently a figure that was plucked out of thin air, because it had no consistency with any other type of threshold that the government was considering. Mr Stanhope went on in his submission to say:

The sudden nature of the introduction of the means test sends a poor signal to our emerging solar industry, an industry that should in fact be receiving long-term security for investment in our clean energy future.

It sent a very poor signal indeed—and it was a signal that concerned people right across the solar industry. Not one of the solar operators, consumers, or environmental groups who came in and sat before the Senate committee, which received more than 100 submissions and held hearings in most capital cities on the mainland, said that this was good public policy. They all said that this was an erroneous decision. They said it was a flawed decision made by a government that had betrayed them. That is how they felt—betrayed.

Self Sufficiency Supplies told the Senate inquiry that they spoke for many small business owners in the industry who feel that:

... whilst the signing of the Kyoto Protocol was a nice symbolic gesture, when it came to doing something that really made a difference, the Government not only failed to do something that kept the status quo, but have gutted a scheme that made a positive difference to “working families”, to our solar industry and to climate change.

It is not surprising of course that people did feel very let down by this decision. They were not the only ones. Dr Shi Zhengrong, the Australian entrepreneur dubbed the ‘solar king’, has been quoted as saying:

... we are concerned that the means test has the potential to undermine the success of the rebate program and the growth of Australia’s solar industry.

And it did undermine it, because many Australians who prior to this decision, which was implemented at the stroke of midnight on budget night with zero consultation, would otherwise have considered installing solar panels decided not to.

Mr Tony Hansen told the committee:

I was prepared to spend $15,000 to install the PV cells on my house but without the rebate this will blow out to $23,000, which when added to a mortgage with an interest rate of nearly 10% ( who would ever had thought that was possible again) it is now not feasible.

Mr Hansen is an Australian who was prepared to dip into his pocket and spend $15,000 to put solar panels on his house. He was prepared to do his bit for the environment, for climate change and for the reduction of carbon emissions in Australia, and he was prepared to do so to the tune of $15,000. But because he has a gross household income of $100,000 the government said ‘No, zero help for you buddy,’ and they said the same thing to thousands of other households around Australia. So for people like that to do their bit for the environment the cost blew out by another $8,000 to $23,000. Not surprisingly he decided that that was too much to bear and that he could not afford to contribute that much. That is the concern surrounding the decision made by this government. That is the effect that it is having on the solar industry.

This bill seeks to turn that around. This bill seeks to give certainty to the industry, and that is the important thing. This program is at present administered purely by executive order, so the decision was announced in the budget and undertaken by executive order. With the snap of a finger, that was it. The government had introduced a means test and turned the tap off for thousands of Australian households and told them that if they wanted solar panels there would be no more help for them from the Australian government. The industry is crying out for certainty.

Beyond Building Energy told the Senate inquiry into this bill:

... for an industry to grow it needs certainty and the current rebate scheme provides anything but certainty.

…            …            …

however we do not know – from one month to the next – whether the rebates are still going to be there ...

And they do not know because the government has shown that it will make policy on the run and policy without any consultation.

This bill requires that, rather than the decision being a matter of an executive order, the minister will have to produce some guidelines that would be disallowable instruments. There would be something that actually had to come before this parliament so that the parliament could exercise its will on it and say ‘Well, that is not good enough because it provides no certainty to the long-term future of the solar industry. It is not good enough because it does not actually assist the growth of this important sector.’

We look to the future; clearly the government has outlined no plans. I know that other speakers are going to stand up here this afternoon and quote figures about the growth in applications for the solar rebate.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

‘Absolutely’, Senator Pratt said. I guess that is where you might go when it comes your turn to speak.

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

It’s true.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McEwen said that it is true and, from the data presented by the department, it is true that application numbers have gone up. We will see how many of them translate into installations, but what is most concerning is that we are getting much less bang for our government buck now. Application numbers have gone up but, because they are applications from a small group of households on smaller incomes, they are applications for smaller size systems. So every system that is getting installed today is 20 per cent smaller than those over the life of the program leading up to the budget. The government is still doling out $8,000 a pop to install a solar system, but we are getting 20 per cent less energy back. How is that good public policy, you might ask. How on earth is that good public policy?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi and Senator Williams are right to say that it is not. It is far from good public policy if your goal is to actually increase the supply of renewable energy, to decrease the output of carbon emissions and to have a system where the government is spending the same amount of money to get less renewable energy and more carbon emissions. Conergy were right when they told the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts into the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Feed-in-Tariff) Bill 2008 that the reduction in PV panels distributed around the country means that the emissions reductions occur at a greatly reduced rate. They asked:

Isn’t the idea to have as many solar panels on rooves in order to reduce our emissions? Emissions are not means tested so why should the rebate be means tested?

That is the position of the coalition. The position of the coalition is that there is no logical or sustainable reason for the government to create incentives for the uptake of solar panels for a small and narrow group of the community.

This is meant to be an environmental policy. An environmental policy should be available to the whole community. It should be focused on environmental outcomes not budgetary outcomes. That is what we seek and that is why this bill is so important for the Senate to support today—because it will throw down the gauntlet; it will send a message to the Rudd government and the other governments at COAG next week that they need to reconsider this decision and provide some long-term certainty to the solar industry. They need to deliver for an industry that can deliver for Australia economic benefits, small business growth, environmental outcomes and reduced carbon emissions. There is much to be had from supporting this industry and there is much to be had in supporting this bill. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say that being lectured by those on the other side of the Senate about climate change is about as convincing as being lectured by them about pensions. Just as those on the opposite side were not prepared to do the serious public policy work required to solve the problems faced by pensioners, they are not prepared to even take the first step required to face up to the challenge of climate change and ratify the Kyoto protocol.

But, as with pensions, it seems that the opposition’s electoral defeat last year has precipitated a sudden conversion. They have seen the light. Apparently they just cannot do enough on these issues now—except, as with pensions, their conversion is not a conversion of the heart; it is just skin deep. It is a conversion based on political expediency. We can see that by the fact that there is no evidence that the opposition have done, or are even willing to engage in, the serious public policy work that is necessary to deliver real outcomes in this area. They do not want to debate the hard questions about how limited resources can best be directed to achieve the most gains while protecting the most vulnerable as we work towards the transition to a truly environmentally sustainable economy. No, they are just after some cheap, quick and dirty political points.

Unlike those opposite, we on this side of the Senate are committed to assisting Australian households to take practical action on climate change. The solar panel rebate is one initiative among many in a comprehensive suite of Rudd government programs aimed at assisting households and communities to increase their use of renewable energy and to improve their water and energy efficiency.

Self-interest would dictate that I should be on the other side of the chamber for this debate. I was indeed in the process of applying for a grant to install solar panels at my home. My partner and I were a fair way down the path. I even had a solar company come around and have a look at the house and the roof. However, such was the level of interest in this rebate in about March last year that, as I was taking an interest, so too were many thousands of other Australians. And, yes, that is a great thing—you would be mad not to; it was too good to be true, as the cost of systems was coming down to such an extent that the $8,000 rebate covered anywhere between 50 and 90 per cent of the household’s costs.

Since its introduction, the demand for household solar rebates has continued to increase to record levels. In the six weeks leading up to the introduction of the means test, the department was receiving an average of 365 rebate applications a weak.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you had one installed since the means test?

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am in the process of looking at the loans. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I do need to look at my finances, but so I should—this is not free for all. Senator Birmingham quoted the former Prime Minister regarding there being an unlimited number of rebates.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is wrong with that?

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is wrong with that?

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Bernardi! It is disorderly to inject and it is disorderly to talk while I am speaking. I draw senators’ attention to the fact that the debate has been reasonably free of interjections and certainly we should not be having questions and answers across the chamber.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise, Mr Acting Deputy President; although, in taking that interjection, I would like to highlight that we have had considerable debate about the need to maintain our surplus in the current economic climate and to be prudent in our budget measures. We have had some debate already in the last couple of weeks in this place about the Senate taking actions which blow out budgets across the board in ways that the government has no control of and how unconscionable those acts are. The idea that we could just lift the means test is a pretty ridiculous notion, particularly in the context that there is a limited pot of money for this program. It is a very substantial pot of money, but expenditure does need to be limited.

I would like to highlight to the Senate that in the six weeks leading up to the introduction of the means test the department was receiving an average of 365 rebate applications per week and that this increased to an average of 522 applications weekly since the budget, with 794 in one week alone. To put this in perspective, the current weekly average is higher than in any single week prior to the budget throughout the program’s history, 150 applications per week higher than the average in the four weeks prior to the budget and far beyond the average of 30 weekly applications at the time of the last coalition budget. In other words, despite the scaremongering of those opposite, we have seen continued high demand for this program since the budget. There can be no doubt about the high level of our commitment to this program and our willingness to direct substantial resources toward it. This continued growth in the program has been supported by the Labor government’s budget, with the bringing forward of further funds to enable the program to continue to meet growing demand. Demand is growing and growing, and it is clear from these figures that an un-means-tested rebate was just not going to be sustainable.

As a consumer and as someone interested in lowering my own household emissions, I can understand that. I support the introduction of a means test of $100,000 for household rebates under the Solar Homes and Communities Plan. This ensures that funding is targeted towards those Australian families who need assistance with the high upfront costs of photovoltaic systems. With the ongoing strong demand since the means test was introduced, the government has further increased funding to continue providing rebates to those households that most need assistance with the upfront costs of photovoltaic systems. Frankly, with such a strong level of interest in the program, how would you propose that we fund an unlimited level of demand? With units now available for little more than the cost of the rebate, it makes no sense at all.

The Labor government is committed to assisting Australian households take practical action on climate change in the transition to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I would hope that in the future the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will start to have a meaningful impact on price and also contribute to making photovoltaic systems more affordable for householders. This is clearly an intention of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to assist in lowering our emissions. The Labor government has conducted a series of roundtables with key stakeholders to discuss practical action householders can take to save on energy bills and reduce their impact on the environment. Under Labor, the Australian solar industry is growing in a very healthy way. It can continue to grow and we are planning for this growth. In this year alone there is more federal funding for solar power and there have been more installations of solar power systems than in any year in Australia’s history.

I feel the coalition are irresponsibly pursuing this issue for narrow political ends, not because their position has any integrity. They have arrived very late to the climate change debate. Removing the rebate will see the number of places in the program oversubscribed to a ridiculous extent. Solar businesses have been growing at a great rate. This is all fantastic, but the coalition did not factor into their policies the fact that the number of rebates available just did not allow for this rate of growth. None of these issues were addressed by the former government, other than this whimsical notion that we will just lift the limit on the number of places in the program. It is not good public policy.

The introduction of a means test of $100,000 for household rebates under the Solar Homes and Communities Plan was aimed at ensuring that funding is targeted towards those Australian families who most need assistance with the high upfront costs of photovoltaic systems. The Labor government has committed $160 million towards the program and in the 2008-09 budget brought forward an additional $25.6 million because it foresaw the high level of demand for this program. More than $56 million in funding is available for an estimated 6,000 rebates this financial year.

Those rebates are very quickly being fully subscribed. With the ongoing demand since the means test was introduced, the government has increased funding to continue providing the rebate to those households who most need assistance. The Rudd government is committed to ensuring a strong and sure pathway for the solar industry. We recognise the importance of renewable energy in Australia’s future energy mix, particularly for households. Through the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme green paper, we have undertaken to provide additional support for Australian households to reduce energy use and save on energy bills. It is not just about providing subsidies and investments for photovoltaic systems and solar energy; there are a very wide range of subsidies that the government needs to provide and actions it needs to take in partnership with householders to ensure that they can adjust their consumer behaviour at home and adjust their houses to reduce energy use and save on energy bills.

Solar systems are great for getting the solar industry up and running, and that is very important, but there are a wide range of new frontiers here in relation to reducing our carbon footprint that we can engage in and assist householders to invest in. To that end, Minister Garrett has recently undertaken a series of roundtables with key stakeholders about practical action they can take to save on energy bills and reduce their impact on the environment. I am pleased to say that these roundtables have included participants from the community, NGOs, business groups, industry and indeed the solar industry. These discussions are helping inform the Rudd Labor government’s decisions as we bring forward a framework to really help households adjust to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and to ensure that a strong and sustainable solar industry is able to play its part in our response to the challenge of climate change.

There is no doubt we need to continue to grow solar energy industries and generation in Australia. They represent a great opportunity to lower emissions and to create new jobs. Doing it at a household level I think also has a strong educative effect so that we can all work in our own homes to reduce our emissions. It is my view—and it is a view reinforced by the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts—that rebates are not the key to the long-term public policy commitments promoting solar energy. There are ongoing complexities with this style of scheme. For example, it is clear that communities are now bulk-buying systems for little more than the cost of the systems.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were preaching that as a virtue just a moment ago.

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Just proceed, Senator Pratt.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This seems to indicate that the rebates may if anything be too generous, in my view, especially for a one-kilowatt system. I think we need to have some real policy debates about these issues in the future. I note that COAG is currently examining feed-in tariff schemes, and it is my hope that these will provide an important part of the way forward.

There is no doubt as we move into a time of carbon constraint, as we make efforts to reduce climate change impacts, that these issues will remain at the forefront of public policy debates. They need to remain at the forefront of public policy debates because we have real issues before us in terms of coming to grips with the need to constrain the carbon that Australia generates and puts out into the atmosphere. It is going to mean big changes for industry, households and communities, but if we do not take serious and meaningful action we will really be betraying our environment.

Australia is highly vulnerable to climate change. I know in the south-west of my own state of Western Australia we have already experienced significant declines in rainfall as a result of climate change. The impact of climate change is already being felt on biodiversity in the south-west of WA. In the south-west, the lowered rainfall has meant much less water for the environment, let alone for farmers and community use. We have seen changing weather patterns already having a substantial impact, and climate change scientists tell us that this is just going to get worse. It is going to escalate in ways that we cannot yet imagine. So we need to take real action in this time of carbon constraint, as we make efforts to reduce climate change impacts, and we are going to need to make some really hard decisions in the future—but we need real policies to do this and not cheap political shots like those before us. As a matter of public policy, it is clear that Labor has made the right decision to means-test this rebate, and therefore Labor opposes this bill.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My first job as a senator, in early July, was to be appointed to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts. I went off to my first meeting, in Sydney, where I was privileged to meet senators such as Anne McEwen, the chair of the committee, Senator Pratt, Senator Birmingham and others. It was a great learning experience. They told us in our orientation that one good thing about being on these committees is that you learn about issues that you are not familiar with, and that was certainly the case with me.

I am a big fan of solar and have been for years. It is interesting to note that in Australia we receive more energy from the sun than any other country in the world. I believe that is why there is such a good future for this country in solar. We have targets that have been put out there now—MRET, the mandatory renewable energy target—that must be met by the year 2020; 20 per cent of the electricity we produce in this country must be from renewables. I believe we have a great future in solar energy. It comes free from the sun. It is interesting that just a couple of weeks ago the little town of Bingara—up near Inverell in northern New South Wales, where I live—had a two-day forum on the future of solar and what the potential is for country communities to get into this industry and look at the manufacture, distribution and establishment of photovoltaic systems throughout country areas of New South Wales and, of course, Australia, where we can produce this clean renewable energy to provide our electricity—and likewise, of course, with solar hot water systems, which have been successful for many years now; as technology improves they are becoming more and more efficient and successful.

As I said, it was a learning experience to be involved in this committee and to hear the many submissions on this bill. As Senator Birmingham said, it was the coalition, back in 1999, that first introduced the subsidy of $4 a watt up to a maximum of $4,000 as an incentive for people to enter this industry, to put the PV systems on their houses, their businesses or whatever and to start in Australia the process of doing our bit to reduce the greenhouse gases. I support it so much because it is renewable, ongoing and obviously a good way to save on electricity bills. It was, of course, the coalition that in 2007 raised that subsidy to $8 a watt, up to a maximum of $8,000. The industry had certainty; it was keen to get on with the job and to develop the businesses around Australia who were installing these PV systems. As you would be aware, Mr Acting Deputy President, I am a staunch campaigner for small business. The businesses had certainty, and that is what they needed—certainty and some security to invest wisely to go out and grow their businesses, to employ and train more people and to get on with the job. The increase to a maximum of $8,000 was introduced by the previous government, and it was there because the previous government had the money to do it. They were the ones who paid off the $96 billion debt that they inherited and they brought the surpluses, and so they could put taxpayers’ money out there as an incentive to increase the PV systems throughout our nation.

A friend of mine in Inverell did exactly this, and I went out to his place only a couple of months ago to inspect his PV system. He invested $32,000 in 16 panels and a larger inverter so that he can put more panels on at a later date, and he received the $8,000 rebate, so his actual cost was $24,000. When I said to him, ‘How much are you actually saving on your electricity bill?’ he said, ‘I saved about $400 a year.’ I said, ‘$24,000 invested to save $400, if you are in business, is not a very good return; it’s less than two per cent.’ He said: ‘Yes, it is; however, as the price of electricity goes up’—and there is no doubt that that is going to happen, because of the trebling of the price of coal and the doubling of the price of oil and gas—‘I’ll be in a secure position where I can provide most of my household’s electricity and it will not cost me anything. I’m prepared to spend the extra money to get that low return now, knowing that it’ll be a good investment as time goes by.’ He was very grateful for the $8,000 rebate, which took a large slice of the cost off his $32,000. As I said, the incentive and the stability were there for the industry. This PV system is there to grow. There is demand, and I am sure that Australians are keen to get on with the installation of such systems on their houses and businesses to do their bit and to say that they are contributing their bit to clean the air.

It was amazing prior to the election when we saw Phil May, who has a business by the name of Solartec Renewables. The cameras went down to Phillip May’s business with one Kevin Rudd, the then Leader of the Opposition, who stood there and said: ‘I will support your industry to the fullest. I am a great supporter. I will do this and I will do that.’ It was great publicity. People probably believed what they were seeing. It is a different Phillip May whom I talked to today. What happened? We know what happened at election time and, come budget time in May, we saw Minister Garrett pulling the plug on support for those with more than $100,000 in income. I find this $100,000 quite amazing. That is obviously the rich! If you earn $100,000 in a family, you are extremely wealthy—that is obviously the impression of the government, until it comes to Medicare rebates, when, of course, the definition of ‘wealthy’ alters by about 50 per cent, up to $150,000. So I fail to see where the consistency is when the government comes to a conclusion about who is wealthy and who is not.

What have we seen with Phillip May’s business, Solartec Renewables, now? There were five people employed; now there are two—just him and his wife, Sophia. He has had to lay three people off. Let me quote from his submission to the ECA committee:

(a) the impact of the means test threshold of $100 000 on the $8 000 solar rebate per household on the solar industry;

As a renewable energy designer, supplier, distributor and installer of primarily Photovoltaic systems we have experienced a large drop in orders for photovoltaic system installations. We have also noted a drop in system sizing resulting in a reduction in carbon offset that otherwise would have occurred. I estimate that our average customer was earning in the range of $100,000 to $150,000.

So what was the effect on his business? The number of deposits taken had dropped from an average of five per week to just two per week. Solartec Renewables were installing 14 kilowatts of PV panels each week. In the months leading up to the rebate changes, that is what they were installing—14 kilowatts per week. In the previous 12 months, the average installation per week was 10 kilowatts of photovoltaic modules. So he had grown his business to average weekly installations from 10 kilowatts to 14 kilowatts. He says:

Our average installation, since the introduction of the means test, is 2.8 kilowatts per week.

So his business has reduced from 14 kilowatts per week to 2.8 kilowatts per week. Where are we going with this? The committee heard many submissions about the instability which has been introduced to their industry as a direct result of the government’s introduction of the means test in their May budget.

What happened at budget time? As I said, the means test was brought in and those who could most afford to install PV systems were the ones who simply pulled the plug on the industry. Susan Grant said in her submission: ‘We’re not wealthy people. Yes, we both work hard, my husband and I, and we have an income slightly over $100,000.’ She had entered into a contract with BBE to install solar panels as part of Samford solar neighbourhood initiative. She said she wanted ‘to do our bit for the environment and to save on our longer term electricity costs’. So what did they do? They withdrew their order. This has been the effect of the rebate change. We have heard in parliament in the last couple of weeks about incomes of $50,000 not being excessive but when it comes to installing PV systems a combined income of $100,000 is far too much according to the government.

I want to make a point about taxpayer value in all this. Senator Pratt was referring to some 790 applications a week—with some weeks averaging at 500—and she is correct. What has happened is that people with a combined income of under $100,000 have said, ‘We can apply for a one-kilowatt system.’ A one-kilowatt system is about $8,500 to install. So they make an application to the government for the $8,000 subsidy and they are getting it installed virtually for free. People are not installing the big 2½- or three-kilowatt system because the people who wanted to do that earn over $100,000 and they said: ‘No, there’s no incentive for us. We’ll walk away from it. We’ll cancel our order. We’re not going to be part of this.’ People who earn under $100,000 are ordering a one-kilowatt system and getting it virtually for free. As I said to my children, it does not come any cheaper than free. This is why there is so much demand on the government purse—up to 790 applications a week—for the $8,000.

The budget was to provide $56.8 billion for the 12 months in PV systems subsidies. Without a calculator and without using the intelligent brain of Senator Bernardi in front of me, I will work it out myself: 700 per week at $8,000 is $5.6 million a week. Multiply that by 50 and we have $280 million, with a budget of just $56.8 million for the year. So where are we going? I will tell you. People are jumping on the bandwagon to get free installation of PV systems. That is why the budget has blown to bits. That is why it is looking like going from a $56.8 million budget to somewhere between $250 million and $300 million—that is, if the government continues to support this system. At the same time, we have seen the average size of installations reducing. In other words, the taxpayer dollar, where we want the best value for each dollar invested, is simply not working. The size of the system is reducing but the cost to the government—that is, the taxpayer—is blown totally out of proportion. Here is the serious problem: what are we going to do about it? I hope it will not be long before Minister Garrett confirms that he is going to continue the up to $8,000 subsidy but we get some level-headedness put back into the debate where if people earn more than $100,000 they do have access to that $8,000.

If you want people to do things such as plant trees on prime farming land, you offer an MIS, an incentive—and what do we do? We see prime agricultural land being planted with trees. I do not know what we are going to do in the future. I hope we can get used to digesting trees as human beings because the supply of food will certainly be reduced. Here the dangling of the carrot to people who can most afford to install a large PV system is being removed. It is wrong. We are now seeing a waste of taxpayers’ dollars and, with the $250 million or $300 million that will be spent this year, how much volume in total kilowatts are we going to get? What will be the return on taxpayers’ dollars? It is going to be markedly reduced and we have seen that everywhere.

People working in the industry who wish to grow their businesses want stability. They want to buy in bulk because a lot of these PV systems are imported from Germany. Having been involved in international trade myself and having purchased things from overseas I know well that the bigger the order the cheaper the price. So if people in the industry who want to compete want to get the best value for those installing the PV systems, what are they doing? LCL, less than container load, orders? They are not getting the bulk purchases. They do not know whether they are going to get more orders next week. Certainly there will be plenty of small one-kilowatt systems, but not the large ones and that is what it is all about. It is about the best return for the taxpayers’ dollar.

In summary, the means test introduced in May has been a disaster as far as a return on taxpayers’ dollars goes. It has been a disaster for those involved in the industry—those in the business of installing PV systems. They want stability and security and they want to know what their future holds before they invest any more. It has been a disaster for people who work in the industry, as we have heard from Phillip May and Solartec Renewables. They had five people employed and now there are two. So the whole thing has been one big mess. I encourage the government to see that the means test is removed, at least until we get to something like a feed-in tariff—which will bring stability as well to the industry. Fairness should be reinstalled and people who earn over $100,000 should have the right to get a subsidy as well.

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

It is always good to have an opportunity to compare the environmental credentials of the government and the opposition. However, I am disappointed that we are here once again discussing the Save Our Solar (Solar Rebate Protection) Bill 2008 [No. 2]. This bill has been debated many times in the chamber before. The fact that it is back here again during general business time indicates the paucity of the opposition’s environmental credentials. You would think that, having had this opportunity to put forward what they wanted to discuss in the chamber, they might have for once addressed some significant environmental issues. Perhaps they could articulate their position on an emissions trading scheme instead of continually saying, ‘That is going to be an apocalyptic event and undermine the Australian economy.’ Instead of sensibly addressing the government’s proposals for a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, they just throw their hands up in the air. You would think that, if they wanted to talk about environmental issues, instead of rehashing the old debate about the solar rebate they might actually use this time to talk about what they would do to address the issue of water security in my state of South Australia. Instead they continually lambast whatever measures the government puts in place to try and address that terrible situation for communities along the Murray-Darling Basin system. You would think that they might even use the opportunity that they have here this afternoon to confront once and for all the climate change sceptics in their party and silence them so that they can move on with some constructive ideas about how to deal with the environment in Australia.

Before I go to some more comments about the bill that is, lamentably, still before us today, I have to say, Senator Williams, that I acknowledge your comments about managed investment schemes and I do share your concerns about the explosion of those schemes and the damage that they potentially have done to the environment. But I would remind you that the tax legislation that enabled those schemes to develop and to get out of control was introduced by your party when the coalition was in government.

Returning to the bill that is the subject of debate this afternoon, I was, as Senator Williams kindly acknowledged, the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts that conducted the inquiry into this bill. So I do have some knowledge of its contents and implications. The government oppose this bill because we see it as, I would have to say, a stunt by the coalition after the budget announcement with respect to the means test for the solar rebate. The bill was in response to that. The actual detail of the bill is not often discussed by the opposition, because they just like to use it as a tool to terrorise the solar industry and to make false promises to that industry. The actual bill requires new rebate guidelines to be determined by a legislative instrument subject to parliamentary scrutiny and potential disallowance by either house of parliament. So it is a kind of technical bill. It actually does nothing to address the means test or the level of the rebate, but you would be hard-pressed to detect that in the contributions from opposition senators on this bill.

In fact the mechanism that the bill uses introduces no certainty at all for the industry that the opposition claims it is trying to protect. It introduces no certainty because in fact if it were agreed to by the parliament then it would put in place a mechanism whereby every amendment to the scheme would be at the behest of a minister and therefore at the behest of the Senate chamber. What would happen is that the industry would still be hostage to the vagaries of the Senate. So the rebate could change or the means-test level could change and there would be no certainty given to the industry. One thing that the industry talked to us about during the Senate inquiry into this bill—and this was always mentioned by the many submitters who took the time to contribute to this inquiry—was that they wanted certainty. Of course, as we heard throughout the inquiry, as Senator Williams well knows, the one thing that the industry said they really wanted to get away from was a rebate system. They would prefer feed-in tariff legislation that gave long-term certainty to the industry, and that is what the Council of Australian Governments will be discussing next month.

The same committee that inquired into this bill is inquiring into the feed-in tariff legislation, another private member’s bill in the Senate. A number of the same submitters presented to both inquiries. There was a strong recommendation that the feed-in tariff legislation should be something that the government looks at in terms of working with the states to ensure nationally consistent feed-in tariff legislation. That is precisely what the solar rebate industry wanted from the government and is a strong recommendation in the report of our inquiry.

While the bill is subtitled the ‘solar rebate protection’ bill, it does nothing to protect the rebates; it merely says that the scheme for administering the Solar Homes and Communities Plan should be subject to parliamentary disallowance. Passing the bill will do nothing to ‘protect’ rebates in any form. It is mischievous language from the opposition and it caused considerable confusion during the committee process because people believe that if this bill were passed it would automatically get rid of the rebate. I wish that opposition senators would address themselves to the actual terms of the bill instead of pretending that if it were passed all would be hunky-dory in the solar industry. The manipulative way in which the opposition behaved during the inquiry was very disappointing. I think they led a number of submitters up the garden path as they painted themselves as some kind of environmental warriors. That was pretty laughable, as we know the only kind of fighting they have done has usually been against the environment. The exception was perhaps in the infamous orange bellied parrot case, when the opposition, then in government, decided they had better act to protect a bird, but in fact what they were trying to protect was a Liberal Party candidate in the Victorian state election who was under some pressure over the establishment of a wind farm in his electorate. However, that environment minister has moved on and the parrot has survived.

The opposition’s bill is also financially irresponsible. Senator Pratt went to some trouble in her contribution in this debate to demonstrate that, so I will not go over that. But it would be good if the opposition came clean on whether they think that all rebates offered by government should be unlimited, uncapped and infinite. I could not think of a more irresponsible way for government to manage the economy than to propose that there should be unlimited rebates of any kind. That is irresponsible economic management—but then this is a two-week sitting period when we have had the opposition attempt to blow a hole in the government’s budget. They clearly demonstrated their fiscal irresponsibility by attempting to vote down the government’s condensate tax legislation, they did vote down the luxury car tax legislation so that they could protect people who drive luxury cars and they also voted down the Medicare levy legislation which would have returned money to the pockets of Australians who deserve it. So I guess this bill could be seen in that context of economic irresponsibility.

As I pointed out during my speech on the committee’s inquiry report, the government’s changes to the Solar Homes and Communities Plan that came about in the budget earlier this year brought it into line with the Solar Hot Water Rebate Program. Senator Williams might be interested to know, because he made some points about the rebate level of $100,000, that it was actually the then environment minister and now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, who implemented a $100,000 means test on the solar panel rebate program, just in July last year. In a press release on 17 July 2007, Mr Turnbull stated:

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.

Well, there you go—$100,000. The Rudd government’s means test for the solar panel rebate is a reflection of the previous government’s policy, yet the opposition stand here today, accuse us of arbitrarily setting a figure and reject that figure. Of course, they reject everything we say. The opposition seem to think it is their role in opposition to simply oppose every measure introduced by the government, without any consideration for what is best for our nation, for the economy and for its citizens. We are getting used to that. Maybe one day in the not too distant future they will grow up and realise that unfortunately, yes, they are in opposition and that being in opposition carries with it some responsibility because they are the alternative government. You cannot carry on by just knocking back our bills and saying no, no, no. Just accept that you are in opposition, and work with the government to do what is in the best interests of Australia.

Let me shift those opposite back to some kind of reality with regard to this rebate scheme. The plan of the opposition when it was in government was to give $150 million over five years for 15,000 rebates. Now, of course, they are not in government, they do not have to be economically responsible and can say whatever they like—so they say they would lift that cap on the number of rebates. Labor, on the other hand, have dedicated $150 million over three years for 15,000 rebates. We brought forward $45 million from the last two years of the program into the first three years of this budget. We also doubled the number of rebates available, from 3,000 to 6,000, for the current financial year, 2008-09. That doubled our election commitment, in fact, and doubled what the previous government had budgeted for this year.

Another thing that came out during the inquiry, and in the subsequent discussions about this bill that we have had ad nauseam in this chamber, was that the opposition tried to put fear into the solar panel industry by saying that the rebate is going to run out and the sun will stop shining on the industry. In fact, the government has continued to meet demand for rebates while bringing forward other measures to help households take practical action to reduce their energy usage, noting that some programs, including solar rebates, may change in the transition to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

I would have liked to have spent some time on the CPRS, because of course it is the cornerstone of the government’s environmental agenda. It is a very exciting and daring initiative on the part of the government. It is something that the opposition could not possibly contemplate, and because they are frightened of it they are very negative about it and will not engage properly with the community about why it is important to have an emissions trading scheme.

I go back to the domestic initiatives that the government has put in place to assist Australians to be more environmentally responsible—and the inquiry into this bill left no doubt that Australians want to be environmentally responsible. The government has invested—and this is a government that has been in office less than a year—almost $1 billion to help Australians overcome barriers to making their homes more environmentally sustainable. That is far more than the opposition could even contemplate when they were in government.

One of the measures that we have implemented is green loans. Senator Pratt mentioned green loans in her speech. The government has allocated $300 million over five years for low-interest green loans of up to $10,000 to assist families to install solar water and energy efficient products. The green loan will provide participating households with a green renovation pack, a sustainability assessment for identifying potential energy and water efficient actions and a system to estimate savings for electricity and water bills and environmental benefits.

This measure will deliver cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions in up to 200,000 existing households. That is a lot more households than we are ever going to be able to address under the solar panel rebate scheme. It is an immediate benefit to Australian families who want to and who are striving to do the right thing. They are taking advantage of the numerous initiatives that the Labor government has put in place to assist them.

There are other environmental initiatives as well. We have the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative, which provides $250 million over six years for rebates of up to $500 to help Australian householders install rainwater tanks and greywater facilities. We are providing $10,000 to 300 lifesaving clubs, for example, to assist them to install rainwater tanks. We are working closely with community organisations such as those to enable them to implement measures to assist them to be more environmentally responsible.

Our Solar Homes and Communities Plan is just another one of the many initiatives that the government is continuing to fund, to promote and to support. That plan ensures that rebates get to the households that need them most. We did that through the introduction of a means test, and we are shameless about saying that we did that to ensure that those households who most needed assistance to do something would get that assistance. We maintained the maximum rebate at $8,000 and, let us not forget, it was the previous government that introduced the $8,000 rebate program. The comment was made in the inquiry into this bill that the government should look—and I agree—at the size of the systems that are being installed at the moment. But let us be clear about that: that change started to happen when the previous government increased the rebate to $8,000.

Included in the other initiatives that the government is implementing is the National Solar Schools Program, which offers grants of up to $50,000 to schools to install solar and other renewable power systems. I can tell you from my travels around schools in my constituency that it is an extremely welcome and well-regarded program. It has the benefit of not just assisting schools to reduce their energy bills but also providing an educative input at the school level so children can see clearly how important solar energy is going to be to the future of Australia.

It has annoyed me immensely during this debate that the opposition has continued to claim, ad nauseum, that somehow the Rudd Labor government is anti the solar industry. We have in fact invested more money in the solar industry and supported the solar industry through our many initiatives, not just with the Solar Homes and Communities Plan but also with other initiatives, much more than the previous government ever did, and we will continue to do so.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, continues to work with the industry to ensure that what government does with the industry is in the best interests of the industry and the people of Australia, who are desperate to do whatever they can to improve their environmental responsibility, particularly at the domestic level. We are very proud of what we have done in this regard and we will continue to work with the industry to ensure that it is viable, secure and growing into the future.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking on the Save Our Solar (Solar Rebate Protection) Bill 2008 [No. 2], like Senator McEwen, I welcome the opportunity of comparing the Liberal Party’s approach to the environment with that of the Labor Party. We only have to go back to the days of the saving of Fraser Island by a Liberal government or the saving of the Great Barrier Reef all those decades ago by a Liberal government. When the last Labor government was in power, they had not even heard of the word ‘greenhouse’. Mr Keating’s government had no program addressing greenhouse gas emissions. It took a Liberal government to set up the world’s very first Greenhouse Office. That was an initiative of a Liberal-National Party government, particularly of Senator Hill, the then environment minister. The Labor Party, for all their bleating now about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, in their last term of government did absolutely nothing about it. It took a Liberal government to start us on the path to negotiating for a Kyoto outcome, as the Liberal-National government did.

You only have to look at the Natural Heritage Trust payments to the environment: the largest environmental program ever in the history of this nation. Already, after 10 short months, we see the new Labor government slashing up to 40 per cent off the funds available to community groups and natural resource management agencies that are doing the work on the ground of protecting our environment.

We have the saga of the Murray-Darling Basin. I hear a lot about this from Senator Wong and others these days, but what did they do in the 13 years that they were in government? Nothing. They also obstructed the Liberal-National government at every turn and encouraged their Victorian Labor colleagues in the state government to wilfully go against what the Howard government had proposed for saving the Murray-Darling Basin.

And just as recently as this last week, Mr Garrett has given approval for a pipeline which will steal water out of the Murray system and take it over the range to feed the toilets and water tanks of the good citizens of Melbourne. They are stealing water from the Murray-Darling to put it into Melbourne because the state Victorian government has been too incompetent and inefficient to consider other means of providing the water that that city needs. I would love one of the Labor speakers to explain to me how they can be so concerned about the Murray-Darling system when they are allowing their state counterparts in Victoria to steal water from the Murray River and take it over the range into Melbourne. It is an initiative of the Victorian Labor government, but it is Mr Garrett in this parliament who had the ability to stop that with his powers under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, but he failed to do it. He acted quickly to give permission.

He did not act so quickly in addressing the issue of the greatest environmental disaster that Queensland is likely to see in the future, and that is the Traveston Crossing Dam proposed by the Queensland state Labor government. While Mr Garrett has been so quick to make decisions to allow his Labor mates in Victoria to take water out of the Murray and while he is so quick to stop a lot of developments along the Queensland coast—it did not take him long to make decisions then—when it comes to an action by his Labor mates in the Queensland government to perpetrate the greatest environmental diaster we are likely to see on the Mary River, he is finding it very difficult to make a decision.

I will tell you why he cannot make a decision: it is because he is under pressure from his Labor mates in Queensland. Mr Rudd and Mr Swan come from Queensland. They used to run the Queensland Labor government. Mr Rudd did. They have all the tentacles out there. The Queensland Labor government do not want Mr Garrett to knock this off, because what are they going to do for water for Brisbane in dry times? Because they have been so incompetent in recent years in managing the water supply in South-East Queensland, they are having to embark upon this quite stupid and quite ridiculous proposal of damming the Mary River at Traveston Crossing. It is great for us to compare the Liberal government’s approach to the environment with that of Labor.

The Liberal government had some programs for assisting country people to have solar power out in the stations. What happened? The Labor government slashed them. We had a good program to help Indonesia save its forests as a real contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. What happened? The first initiative of the Labor government was to slash that program. How dare they feign any interest in global warming and climate change when they slashed these programs.

It is similar with the issues surrounding the bill that we are discussing today. The Labor government, without any warning, took away the solar rebate from those mums and dads—a teacher, perhaps, and a plumber; two partners—with a combined income of over $100,000; $52,000 each. They were the people who were interested in doing their bit in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They were looking for the subsidy. What did the Labor government do? Without any warning, it brought in this means test, which effectively meant that many Australians are financially precluded from getting solar panels.

I am very surprised at the figures that the department produced to the committee hearing after first of all refusing to even attend the committee hearings on the instructions of the Labor minister. But they eventually turned up, because they were threatened with a summons if they did not turn up.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They were always going to turn up.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn’t that right? Why didn’t they turn up? It was only after they were threatened with a summons from the Senate that they turned up. I do not blame the department; they received their instructions from the minister. But they eventually turned up and had these statistics. I cannot wait for estimates. Let me now put them on notice that I cannot wait for estimates just to see how these figures are running. That was a good program, and again the Labor Party has slashed it.

We hear all this talk about an emissions trading scheme—the one that Senator Wong is in charge of. She obviously has no idea how to manage it. She has let the genie out of the bottle on that. They have put out this green paper, and I have not heard a person yet—except some in these radical environment groups—who has any confidence in the green paper and any confidence that the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, or the government can handle this. It is becoming increasingly obvious that this is a dog of a proposal.

I heard the other day about a zinc refinery up my way in Northern Australia. If this emissions trading comes through in the way that Senator Wong and Mr Rudd are proposing, they will become unprofitable. What will they do? They will move to China, where they will be able to employ people at a much cheaper rate. All of those people at the refinery in Townsville will be without a job. This is at the behest of a party that claims to be interested in working families. Not only will the jobs be exported offshore but, more importantly, they will go to a country that is about half as efficient as Australia, which means, in other words, that they will pump out twice the amount of greenhouse gas to get the same end product. I have not yet heard China indicating when it is going to bring in an ETS.

The whole stupidity about the Labor government’s approach is that they will tax Australia out of existence, tax workers’ jobs, for the thought that they—Mr Rudd and Senator Wong—can be world heroes by leading the world. Australia produces less than 1.4 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions; and it does not matter what we do in Australia, we will not make one iota of difference to the changing climate of the world. Yet the Labor government for political reasons are determined to carry on at full strength.

If they were really serious about greenhouse gas emissions, what about clean nuclear power? There are no greenhouse gas emissions at all there. That would mean of course that we could do something for the changing climate of the world. Let us ask the Labor Party what their view is on that sort of energy. I know that they think it is okay to have uranium from three mines being mined and exported but to have uranium from the fourth mine does not seem to be equally acceptable. The Labor Party are all over shop on this but, if they are serious about carbon emissions, there is an answer. Why won’t they even have a look at it? I am not advocating it particularly but I am advocating looking at it. It should be in the mix, but the Labor Party seem incapable of doing that.

I do not want to say too much more. I know that many other people want to have a say on this and I have spoken a couple of times on the report. It is a very good bill. I congratulate those in the coalition who have promoted this bill. It will bring some transparency, some parliamentary control, to the solar rebates. I think that it is a good way to deal with it. I think that it will address all of the problems that have been identified by Senator Birmingham and Senator Williams, who spoke before me, and it is a piece of legislation that I would urge support for.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the matter of the solar rebate. As a member of the Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts, I sat on the recent inquiry into the Save Our Solar (Solar Rebate Protection) Bill 2008 [No. 2]. The terms of reference within which the committee operated were focused, among other related matters, on the impact on the solar industry of the means-test threshold on the solar rebate per household, the effect on the uptake of solar panels on households and the impact on the number of applications for the rebate since the current budget measure was announced.

It is interesting to note that the committee found that, in addition to the government’s extensive range of policies targeting the development of renewable energy industries and, by extension, addressing the climate change imperative, some states and territories are moving towards implementing a feed-in tariff for renewable energy—indeed, the renewable energy bill 2008 is under examination by the standing committee. I mention this today because of the interplay between the issues of the rebate and the feed-in tariff, a term which will become very familiar to those in this place and to the community as the year moves on. To return to the issue at hand, however, I can advise that certain familiar themes emerged from the evidence given. As a result, government senators recommended in the report that the government continue to provide support to households to take up renewable energy and energy efficient initiatives, including through schemes such as the SHCP.

Climate change is one of the greatest social, economic and environmental challenges of our time and the Rudd government is committed to ensuring Australia meets its responsibilities in facing this global challenge. This government remains strongly committed to helping Australians take practical action to tackle climate change, building a strong solar industry and harnessing our abundant solar resources.

So what have we done to advance down this path? In this year alone, the year of the government’s first budget, there will be more Commonwealth funding for solar power and, in fact, more installations of solar power systems than in any other year in Australia’s history. The $100,000 means test for household solar power rebates was introduced to ensure that funding is targeted towards those Australian families who most need assistance with the high upfront costs of photovoltaic systems, and that is exactly what is happening.

Interestingly, the means test has been set at the same level as the existing means test for solar hot water rebates, which was introduced by the previous government under the then environment minister and now Leader of the Opposition. It is significant that since its introduction the demand for household solar power rebates has increased to record levels. This government is committed to assisting Australian households to take practical action on climate change in the transition to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Debate (on motion by Senator McLucas) adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.