Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Senator Joyce, proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Rudd Government’s hypocrisy on renewable energy and the recent closure of the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program that has been supporting remote Australian homes, communities and businesses since its introduction by the Howard Government in 2001.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn’t it amazing that, in a time when the centrepiece is apparently about producing a more carbon efficient society, a society where if we reduce carbon it will have an effect on the globe, the only tangible thing that this Labor Party government has done is that it has made the situation worse. Every time there is some kerfuffle in this parliament or there is some issue in the other place, what happens is that either Mr Garrett or Minister Wong runs out of the joint and scraps a scheme. The latest is one that has been pursued through this place since 2001. It was the Howard-Anderson government that commenced the RRPG scheme. In fact, the program was revised again in 2004 by the Howard-Anderson government to be extended to 2012. It was the Howard-Vaile government that put in a further $123.5 million, offering 50 per cent rebates of up to $8,000. But ever since the Rudd government has been in we have had the paradox of the difference between what it intends to create for the planet and intends to deliver to Australia and what it actually has delivered to Australia, especially regional Australia.

Solar panels in regional Australia are an extremely effective and efficient way of delivering power to remote areas. Solar panels actually take out of production diesel engines. I thought it was the reduction in the reliance on fossil fuel which was the whole crux of the Labor government’s ETS policy. But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot go through every day using rhetoric and the raving-banshee approach of, ‘The world is going to come to a screaming halt unless the emissions trading scheme goes through,’ and put up your authenticity on that issue, and take it to this chamber—with, you know, the serene looks: ‘We are going to save the world this afternoon with the emissions trading scheme’—while, at the same time, for something that really does have an effect, really does reduce carbon emissions and actually is working in the Australian economy, you pull the funding.

It was a complete surprise when one day, about a month ago, in the paper the people in the solar panel industry were talking about how good the industry was, and doing a great sort of promotion job for the government, and yet, the next day, Mr Garrett pulled part of the rebate scheme. And now, today, we have the cessation of the capacity of those in remote and regional areas to get access to solar panels to take the place of diesel generation. That has been pulled. We know exactly why they have done it—because there has been a torrent of media and the spotlight is on the other place. So, whilst it is, they are doing what they are always doing—running out and scrapping schemes because of the reality of exactly where they are financially.

Where they are financially, as we all know, is on the road to insolvency. This government is on the road to insolvency. It is very cryptic that it is today that we find out about this scheme being scrapped. My office has contacted the Australian Office of Financial Management to find out exactly what our bills and notes are drawn down to, and they are drawn down to approximately $99.9 billion. So we are about to crack the first $100 billion in federal government debt—and that is actually quite an increase from only about a month ago. In celebration of cracking that $100 billion in federal government debt in notes and bonds, we are going to scrap a scheme for regional Australia. It is a scheme for those people who are the most removed from the public service dollar that is so apparent in other areas, a scheme for those people to whom we are trying to deliver some semblance—if only a parody—of that standard of living by giving them access to a solar-generated power supply. It is peculiar that, on this day, the $100-billion birthday of the Labor Party’s debt, we are scrapping a scheme that has been so effective in so many parts of this nation.

This scheme was brought about by the side of politics that the Labor Party has always insisted are the sceptics, the people who do not want to do anything about the climate. But this was clear evidence of a policy that was part of a program to reduce carbon. A carbon pollution reduction scheme is completely encompassed in what this was. But it has been scrapped because it is not the type of scheme that the Labor Party want. The Labor Party want the broker-bureaucrat-banker scheme, in which we open up an absolute gravy train of largesse for certain people, who are probably very wonderful and well-meaning people, in the middle of town—brokers, bankers and bureaucrats—who will be the profiteers from the impediments that are going to be put on the productive side of our economy.

This scheme shows the conservative side of how we deal with this issue—investment in the areas that are the productive capacity of our nation, to assist them and, at the same time, reduce the carbon component of their footprint. It is the practical form of going forward with a policy of carbon reduction, which is the complete antithesis of the banker-bureaucrat-broker scheme that the Labor Party is inspiring.

Today is the $100-billion-debt anniversary of the Labor government—or $99.9 billion; that is what they have got us in hock for today. Remember, they always thought that this was going to happen in 2013-14. Well, here we are, on 23 June, and we are $100 billion in hock today. To celebrate that, to put the candle on the cake, they are going to turn off the solar program for remote and regional Australia! Why? If you wished to be authentic then you should have had the authenticity to continue with the schemes that are doing the job that, as you have so ably displayed in this chamber, is your ultimate wish. In your ultimate wish to save the planet, your desire is to reduce carbon emissions. How can you possibly keep a straight face when the crux of today’s ploy is to actually increase carbon emissions—to move people from solar back to diesel? What is the logic of that? The metaphor you are selling is completely and utterly confused. But you think you can get away with it because of the ruckus that is going on in other places—just like the last time Mr Garrett pulled the pin on one of these schemes. It was the same deal: ‘We wait for a ruckus and then we run out and pull the scheme.’

Well, Mr Garrett no longer has any credibility, I believe. Everything he has ever stood for has paled into insignificance. I can see members of the Labor Party nodding, so they are probably acknowledging that—the issue of Mr Garrett’s authenticity in everything he has done. I remember the times when I used to watch him at the Arts Factory at Byron Bay with Midnight Oil, and then at uni. I mean, who was that person? Who is the person we have got now?

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

Where did he go?

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where did he go? What happened to him? What hole did he disappear down? And who is the person who looks awfully like him down in the other place? But the authenticity of Peter Garrett on these issues is the authenticity he has displayed personally in this complete 180-degree turnaround in his personal life and his personal beliefs. He used to rant and rave about nuclear energy and uranium mining. Those are things, actually, that I believe in, but I could listen to his music without believing in his policies. But what has happened to him now? He is part of a government that mines uranium! He holds a ministry in it! Such was the depth of this man’s conviction. He is the former president of—what was it? the nuclear-free party or the wonderful new party—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Nuclear Disarmament Party—that is it! And now he is a minister in a government that exports uranium to countries that produce nuclear bombs. There has to be something a little bit confusing about that—and there is something totally confusing when we wake up today and find that the party that said they were happy to go to the election on a policy of reducing carbon emissions in our nation deliver today to the Australia people an increase in carbon emissions because they have run out of dough.

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

It is always a pleasure to follow Senator Joyce. When I read Senator Joyce’s motion I was intrigued by the hypocrisy that is implicit in it. You have to ask: where does the hypocrisy lie in this debate about Australia’s low-emissions, low-carbon green future?

It is true that after taking government from the Liberal Party in 2007 the Rudd Labor government continued with the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program because it was a useful program that provided financial support to increase the use of renewable generation in remote parts of Australia that otherwise relied on diesel and other fossil fuels for electricity supply. However, since the dramatic rise of diesel prices, particularly in the last year, the government has seen a significant increase in the number of applications for the program and, in approving the qualifying applications, the government has exhausted its budget allocation for the program. Ultimately, it became too successful a program for the government to continue to provide it in an affordable and responsible fashion. The industry had been aware for some time of the increasing number of applications for funding under this program just as the industry was also aware that the program had a finite budget, and the industry was also aware that that had rapidly been fully committed. I acknowledge also the concerns of industry about the notice given for the cessation of funding for the program, but because of the huge increase in recent applications it was imperative for the government to give notice of the end of the program without encouraging even more applications which could not be supported.

Focusing on the achievements of the program in the seven years that it has been available for remote Australian homes and communities, not-for-profit organisations, businesses, governments and industry, we acknowledge that more than $300 million was committed to renewable energy generation in remote and regional Australia. Additionally, more than 7,000 residential and medium-scale projects up to 20 kilowatts in size went ahead, almost half of them being approved in the last 18 months. Residential and medium-scale projects, plus renewable energy water pumps, with a total power capacity of more than 10,600 kilowatts of solar, wind and microhydro, which are estimated to have saved more than 24 million litres of diesel fuel each year, have also been implemented, and the program is still supporting 31 major projects with $52 million in funding, saving more than seven million litres of diesel fuel each year as well as other fossil fuels. One hundred and seventy renewable generation systems for Indigenous communities were installed. What the opposition probably will not tell you is that there are still more than 1,100 applications remaining in the pipeline for this program. It is estimated that that will result in at least another six months work for the industry, and there will be continued support for industry training, accreditation, inspections, testing and standards development.

Those opposite will of course claim, as they always do, that the government is not supportive of remote and regional communities. However, what they fail to tell you about is the range of initiatives that the government has and its ongoing commitment for a cleaner and more energy efficient future throughout Australia. The motion that we are debating fails to recognise that and the number of other options that people in businesses in remote communities can still take advantage of in the fight against climate change. These include support for households, businesses and community groups for the first 1.5 kilowatts of small-scale installations completed under the program on or after 9 June 2009—that is, of course, if the renewable energy target legislation is passed—and access for homeowners to free, tailored advice for their homes, and interest-free loans of up to $10,000 through the Green Loans Program. Homeowners can benefit from Australia’s most comprehensive rollout of energy efficient rebates in history through the $4 billion Energy Efficient Homes package. There is also the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative, which provides rebates of up to $500 for households to install rainwater tanks or greywater systems.

Businesses, community organisations, not-for-profit organisations and governments will all receive support under the government’s $2.75 billion Climate Change Action Fund. There is also the government’s $2 billion Caring for our Country program, which is available to regional natural resource management organisations, not-for-profit organisations, Indigenous organisations, community groups et cetera. As well, there is the government’s Solar Flagship program, a $1.6 billion commitment which will rapidly accelerate the deployment of commercial-scale solar technology in Australia. That funding will be used to construct large-scale power stations in Australia, targeting 1,000 megawatts of electricity generation. Funding will be allocated under a competitive process, with the intention of funding projects across a range of solar technologies designed to move solar into mainstream energy supply. That will be a cooperative program between the federal government, state governments and private investment—a very significant initiative which will do a great deal to improve the availability of renewable energy sources across Australia.

Additionally, the government will continue to provide $2.2 million over the coming two years to support the not-for-profit Bushlight program, a renewable energy program devoted to assisting Indigenous communities with energy advice and renewable energy support services. As has been often mentioned by government senators, the government is committed to closing the gap of Indigenous disadvantage in remote and regional Australia and through a whole-of-government approach a range of additional education, health, housing, employment and family and community services are being implemented to do just that.

As I mentioned at the outset the whole thrust of this motion that we are debating today is pretty extraordinary given that it is sponsored by a climate change sceptic—a senator who vehemently opposes the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. This motion, like so much of the activity that has happened in this chamber over the last couple of days, indeed the last week, is another hypocritical and low-rent political stunt by an opposition that are divided and dysfunctional and will do anything that they possibly can to delay the debate and a decision being made on the single biggest environmental initiative by any government in Australia. Those opposite want to delay the debate and the decision on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme because they cannot work out what their position is on it. It is clear though, I think, that the Nationals will vote against the CPRS. Yet Senator Joyce and others still insist on playing these games and moving these ridiculous motions to prevent that debate from even continuing.

There are two significant factors which stand out as reasons that this MPI today is a pointless waste of Senate time. Firstly, there is the alleged hypocrisy in the government’s action of ceasing funding for one renewable energy program, while we are trying at the very same time to pass an even greater program through the Senate, a national initiative of the kind that the nation has never seen before. Senator Joyce and all of those opposite do not want to see the CPRS pass through the Senate yet the motion has been lodged today here in this pathetic attempt to divert the debate from what the debate should be about—which is nation building and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the importance of that to Australia’s clean green future. You would have to ask why someone who is so dead against actually believing in climate change is so adamant on this motion. The hypocrisy there is breathtaking.

The second reason that the MPI is a waste of time is the fact that the Renewable Remote Power Generation program has ceased to be funded because it came to the end of its budget allocation. The government has made a wise decision that to go on funding it beyond the budget allocation would be fiscally irresponsible. The government has made a decision that the funding that would otherwise go to programs such as this can be much better used on more comprehensive, strategic and effective programs. This program was always going to be a capped program and the government has reached the limit of that cap. So now we have this ridiculous MPI from the so-called bush accountant over there who says that we should ignore budget realities and ignore our budget responsibilities.

We have had endless hysterical utterances from those over there since the announcement of the government’s 2009-10 budget—hysterical claims that the Labor Party is sending the nation into debt and accusations of reckless spending and record debts. They have condemned our successful economic stimulus packages that have saved jobs and reduced debt. In fact, they voted against those responsible economic stimulus packages. And yet when we act in a responsible manner, as we have with regard to this program, to reduce debt then suddenly the same bush accountants over there are up in arms and accusing us of being hypocritical. I know who the hypocrites are in this particular chamber and I think some of you over there do too.

I have already mentioned a number of programs which rural and regional communities have access to to continue the fight against climate change. If the opposition stopped acting to delay the passing of the renewable energy target bill along with the CPRS legislation in the Senate this week, further options would be provided for an energy efficient future. When the government came to office some 18 months ago we did inherit a collection of ad hoc and uncoordinated climate policy measures and programs. Few of them though there were, they were not part of any strategic plan on the part of the former government. In fact, the former government did no comprehensive planning for the future of our environment. Indeed the former government neglected to comprehensively deal with climate change at all and, as we know, were constantly in alliance with the former United States government to stop any global action on reducing carbon emissions. While they were in government, they refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol and they failed to engage with the global community on the debate on climate change.

I have said many times in this chamber how pleased I was when one of the first actions of the Rudd Labor government was to ratify the Kyoto protocol and to take the step up to engage with the rest of the global community to address the very significant effects of climate change that we are feeling everyday in this country. The former government neglected to invest in renewables; they failed to see the importance of investing in creating new jobs in environmentally-friendly industries. They neglected to improve our rivers. And I cannot conclude this speech about the environment without once again mentioning that in the whole of the term of the former government they failed to purchase a single litre of water to put back into our rivers.

Many of their climate change policies, of course, hinged on voluntary actions on the part of the nation’s residents who, with goodwill, wished to do what they could. But it is time for the nation to take the next step up. We need a comprehensive national strategy to address climate change, and the core components of that are the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the Renewable Energy Target. It is about time those opposite addressed the really important issues in this debate and stopped wasting the Senate’s time with ridiculous MPIs.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hypocrisy on renewable energy oozes off the seats in both sides of this parliament. I have heard a lot about a comprehensive strategy on climate change but there is not one in this parliament from this government; nor was there one when the Howard government was in power. What we actually have is a strategy to destroy solar and renewable energy. That is a more appropriate description of what has gone on in relation to renewable energy since the Rudd government was elected. The reason for that is simple and it is why hypocrisy oozes off these seats when it comes to renewable energy and solar: coal. Neither side of this parliament is prepared to do anything to get solar and renewables to a scale that could challenge coal. It is why day in, day out we see billions of dollars going to the coal industry and the large emitters. It is why we see billions going to carbon capture and storage and why we constantly see that being given priority while what we see for renewables is exactly as the previous speaker said—ad hoc, uncoordinated, not strategic and designed to destroy.

The way the government have behaved in relation to renewable energy is like a cat playing with a mouse. They let it get just a little bit of confidence and then back it to one side. It gets up and starts again and—wham—it is hit by something else. Let me give you the box and dice on what has happened here. First of all, the Photovoltaic Rebate Program was so successful that the minister said it was too successful—so in this country we can be too successful at reducing emissions from coal fired power by getting photovoltaic renewable energy into the market. We were too successful, so Minister Garrett introduced a means test to try to slow things down. But the community were not to be slowed down, because the community, unlike the government and the coalition, actually want to move to renewables and away from coal. When the means test failed to slow things down, overnight and without consultation the minister ended the rebate. Hundreds, probably thousands, of people across the country were left in a position where they had filled out the forms, rung up, expressed interest and planned on getting a system before 30 June but then found that, no, the program was gone.

Then we had the Renewable Energy Target discussed—it still has not been introduced into the Senate, I might say. Here, the responsibility for the complete mess with renewable energy lies with both the government and the coalition, because the legislation for the Renewable Energy Target would have been passed—had the government got around to introducing it into the Senate—except that the government decided to protect the old sectors, the big emitters, by exempting those polluters from the Renewable Energy Target but saying that the exemption would apply only if the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was passed. And the coalition was not prepared to pass the Renewable Energy Target legislation without the exemption for the big emitters. So who was being given security here? The big emitters. Who has been hung out to dry? The renewable energy industry.

Right on the back of that complete failure we now have an end to the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program and with it the demise of Bushlight. In Indigenous communities in particular this has been an extremely successful program. Not only has it been successful in terms of the quality of life in those Indigenous communities; it has been extremely successful in building capacity for Australia to sell its expertise and intellectual property in remote power generation, in particular in the Pacific.

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

And who introduced the scheme? John Howard.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate those behind the Bushlight program, because it has been a great success. Now that it has gone, what are those communities who have not yet taken advantage of it going to do? They will go back to diesel. With diesel they will get the diesel fuel rebate, so they are going to be subsidised for using diesel to generate greenhouse gas emissions when they should have been given the money upfront by way of the subsidy to put the solar programs in place.

Years ago the Greens introduced a solar fund into this place to try to remove all of these diesel generators and replace them with solar systems, but it has not happened. I have had several emails about this in the last few weeks. One in particular—and I told the author I would quote the case study but not his name—said:

… our rural location means that connecting to the grid is expensive (more than $30,000), and given our limited income we were really relying on the RRPGP …

… they told me that as far as they knew the programme was going to carry on.

This was on budget night, when he rang the department.

Nothing was said to me about the limited budget or that it might end soon. So I was really shocked to hear that the programme ended …

It’s unlikely we’ll be able to afford to put in a solar system now: we need a reasonably powerful system—

and so on. So people right across the country are being denied this.

The answer to this is clear—that is, a national gross feed-in tariff. Who has resisted this to the very last? The government. Minister Wong is totally opposed to a gross feed-in tariff. How did both the coalition and the government kill off a gross feed-in tariff? By referring it to COAG, knowing that it would get the lowest common denominator. Now state after state is going to a net feed-in tariff, which is no use at all in driving the investment that is necessary to go into renewables. The more successful a subsidy is, the more likely that it is going to be axed, changed, limited or destroyed because it is a cost to the government. The more successful a feed-in tariff is, the better it is all round. It encourages greater investment. So you have to ask yourself: why, when Europe has benefited so amazingly from a gross feed-in tariff, when Spain’s renewable energy has expanded and when right across Europe we are seeing this work, is there such trenchant opposition to it from both the government and the coalition in Australia? The only answer is: they cannot afford to give renewable energy a go because it will leapfrog so-called clean coal. Renewables will be online, cheaper and more cost-effective, and the coal industry will be at risk. That is why we end up with this ridiculous situation of ad hoc, stop-start arrangements for renewables.

The Minister for Climate Change and Water herself says ‘industry needs certainty’. They certainly do. Can you point to any venture capitalist or any superannuation fund that would think there was any certainty at all about investment in renewables in Australia—in solar in particular—when we have witnessed this disgraceful litany of, first of all, the means test, then the abolition without consultation and then the messing about with renewable energy technologies to give certainty to the big polluters? Then we get what we have now: the abolition of our remote scheme. Of course, the answer is always, ‘But we are giving you $1.3 billion for up to four systems for solar thermal around the country.’ Yes, that is true. But where is the pathway after the four? If you had a gross feed-in tariff, there would be an investment pathway to roll out renewables on a grand scale. Talk about hypocrisy. We see it here on these red seats—oozing out from both the government and the coalition. I wish they would have the honesty to stand up here and say that they will never see the renewables get ahead of coal and that they will do everything in their power to not allow the renewables to take over. Because as long as they sit on these red seats, Australia will be a coal exporter and Australia will generate coal fired power.

In the UK they have moved to say ‘no coal fired power stations without CCS by 2020’—and it will not happen—but we do not have that here in this country. Every time a renewables proposal comes forward, they check to see what the big emitters think, and the big emitters say, ‘Just give it a photo opportunity.’ My final question to the Senate is: how many ministers have taken their photo opportunity with their leaflets on the one-off solar panel? It is a disgrace. People who see those pictures need to see that behind that smirk there is a great big coalmine and that the great big coalmine will prevent any kind of coordinated or systemic effort. If the government were serious, we would have a gross feed-in tariff. I welcome a change of heart from either the government or the coalition in supporting a strategy to give us real renewables in this country.

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

The two previous speakers, Senator McEwen from the Labor Party and Senator Milne from the Greens political party, started off their contributions talking about hypocrisy, and I might just do the same. Hypocrisy epitomises both the Rudd Labor government and the Greens political party. Let me demonstrate.

We have two ministers related to the environment and climate change in the Rudd government. Both have been complete and abject failures, and their reign as ministers has been marred by backflip after backflip. You might remember that Senator Wong used to come in here and lecture us on how important it was to get this CPRS up and running with the greatest urgency. Every day that went by, she told us, would destroy the world. So what happens with Senator Wong? When she finds that she cannot bring her backbench with her, that she has got it all wrong, she is taken over by Mr Combet—then a mere parliamentary secretary, who is given the job of getting it back on track—and delays the commencement for more than 12 months. So that is hypocrisy example No. 1.

Mr Garrett is a nice enough sort of fellow, not a bad musician, but completely out of his depth when it comes to looking after the environment. Indeed, as I said during question time, Mr Garrett is one of those who, whenever there is a photo opportunity with Indigenous people around, is there with them, blowing the didgeridoo and pledging his undying support. When they want some money for their Laura dance festival up in Cape York Peninsula, what happens? He refuses to give them money for that dance festival—money which has been given by previous governments, coalition governments, for many, many years.

Talking about hypocrisy, let us get on to the Greens, the ultraleft of the political spectrum in this parliament. They just hate Mr Howard and the Liberal Party so much that they cannot even acknowledge that the programs that Senator Milne was talking about—and this particular program today which is the subject of this debate—were programs of the Howard Liberal government. The solar program, the $8,000 figure, was an initiative of the Howard Liberal government. But can you get the Greens to acknowledge that? Their hatred for Mr Howard and the Liberal Party is so great that they cannot even acknowledge the great steps forward that were taken by the Liberal Party and the National Party when in government. Those two programs I have mentioned are just two of any number of very good programs introduced by the Liberal and National parties to help save the environment. Indeed, we are very proud that it was the Liberal and National parties that established the first ever greenhouse office anywhere in the world that actually started work on abating greenhouse gases.

The Labor Party’s attitude to the subject of this matter of public importance debate, the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program, was again clearly explained by the first speaker for the Labor Party. She said that the debate was a complete waste of time. How many times did Senator McEwen say, ‘This is a complete waste of time’? Do you know why, Madam Acting Deputy President? Because it has to do with rural and remote Australia. Regrettably, the Labor Party has absolutely no interest and very little representation from rural and remote Australia. The Liberal and National parties put this program into operation and I, like Senator McEwen in her contribution, can read about the program on the government website. It is still there. It lauds the success of this program introduced by the Howard government in 2001. It was a good program. It did a lot to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and at the same time it did something to help those less fortunate than most of the Labor senators in this chamber with the provision of power on their remote properties. They had a subsidised program from this government that enabled them to create power without the cost, both in money and greenhouse gas emissions, of diesel motors.

Mr Garrett has tonight committed those people again without any warning to the costs and the environmental degradation of diesel motors. He has done it, as he did with the solar rebate, without any warning. What has this done for the small businesses dealing in the area of alternative power which have been built up over the Howard government years? Overnight they have been smashed by Mr Garrett and the Rudd government. Indeed, I have here a media release by Solar Shop Australia, and I do not think I can put it any better than Mr Liam Hunt has in talking about what happened last night. He said:

This is the third setback for the industry in as many weeks ...

We were promised a smooth transition from the $8k rebate to the new Solar Credits scheme and instead the old rebate was pulled early with only hours of notice.

The Government then fiddled with the Renewable Energy Target policy, making what was a policy with bipartisan support an unwinnable piece of legislation, and now they have retrospectively pulled the RRGP which was a very popular and important program ...

He went on to say quite rightly that the Rudd government:

... was elected into office partly on the back of the green vote, he started well by ratifying Kyoto, but since then he has seemed to turn the lights out on the domestic solar power industry. It has thrown the whole industry into turmoil ...

He quite rightly asked at the end what is happening to all those green-collar jobs which have been promised and which are now in limbo. This government is not interested in the environment. This government is not interested in greenhouse gas reductions. This government is not really interested in saving the climate of the world. What it is interested in is political spin. Anything this government can do to win a vote it will do. It signed Kyoto—not that that had any impact on anything—but when it comes to the real programs that were actually doing things, like the solar rebate subsidy and the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program, what does it do? It axes them. By axing them not only does the government lessen our impact on reducing climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions but also it once again attacks country people in whom it has no interest. The action of Mr Garrett in both these instances is a disgrace. (Time expired)

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate Senator Macdonald on his manful defence of the indefensible, but now the time has come for us to switch the channel from vaudeville back to policy. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about the Rudd government’s commitment to renewable energy. This government is indeed committed to moving the Australian economy towards a cleaner and greener future by encouraging the use of renewable energy wherever possible, wherever practicable, wherever viable. This is a vital part of our overall scheme to reduce Australia’s emission of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels. The other part of our scheme is the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a scheme which the Senate is currently debating, a scheme about which Senator Macdonald and his colleagues have made clear their intent. These are the two chief policy weapons which Australia must deploy if we are to reduce our emissions and accept our fair and proper share of the international responsibility for tackling dangerous climate change. Both these policy weapons are necessary. Neither will be fully effective without the other. As Senator Macdonald and his colleagues well know, what we are debating here at the moment is in practical effect a complementary measure of the CPRS and it is vitally important that both the CPRS legislation and our measures with respect to renewable energy are put in place as quickly as possible.

We have seen today that the opposition are determined to do everything within their power to delay the progress, the consideration and the debate in this place of the CPRS bills. They will filibuster this legislation in the Senate for all they are worth. They are determined not to allow a vote on this legislation this week. They are determined not to allow for these bills to be passed this year. They are doing this partly because they are terrified of the possible political consequences of rejecting the CPRS legislation—and rightly so—but mainly because they cannot agree on their position on climate change in general and the CPRS in particular. There is no ambiguity about the fact that, when it comes to the climate change and global warming debate, the other side can be found on every part of the debate on every side of the street—indeed, meeting themselves coming through the door.

Today we have an opposition leader whose authority has been fatally undermined by his own reckless and irresponsible behaviour. He has made unsubstantiated allegations against the Prime Minister of corruption no less and lying to parliament no less, based on what we now know is a forged email. His cunning plan has blown up in his face with the exposure of this faked email. His authority is now so weak that not even today, let alone on any other day, can he impose on his party or on his senators here in this chamber any decision to support the CPRS legislation, legislation which Mr Turnbull and Mr Hunt know full well is necessary. One might say that the Liberal Party senators and the National Party senators have kidnapped the coalition and dragged it kicking and screaming, with a weak leader at the helm, to a position which is completely indefensible and a position which today it can only sustain through delay and verbal fraud. This is why the opposition is so desperate today to move the debate away from its obstructionism of the CPRS and have us debate renewable energy instead.

It is quite amazing that Senator Joyce should come into the Senate and propose this matter of public importance—Senator Joyce, of course, being one of the most vociferous opponents of the CPRS Bill. He has made it clear that the Nationals will oppose not just the CPRS, not just this emissions trading scheme, but any emissions trading scheme. As he put it so eloquently, the certainty he intends to provide to the Australian business community is the word ‘no’. He and his party here in the Senate have made it clear that he will ignore any decision by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow cabinet to support an emissions trading scheme. And, I might say, it is now quite clear that, for most senators opposite, the opinion of the opposition leader is of no account.

Senator Joyce would have Australia do nothing to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions—nothing. He would have us go to the Copenhagen climate conference in December with no greenhouse gas emissions targets in place at all. Who is going to listen to Australia’s argument at Copenhagen if our parliament has just voted to do nothing whatsoever about action on climate change? It was Senator Joyce’s party that prevented the Howard government ratifying the Kyoto protocol and therefore wasted an entire decade in which Australia could have made a serious start on reducing our emissions and made an important contribution to the global climate change debate. Now Senator Joyce and his colleagues want to waste yet another decade by blocking the CPRS Bill in the Senate indefinitely. Senator Joyce has no credibility on this subject, and his motion is just part of a broader opposition attempt to distract attention away from its own obstructionist strategy.

Let me now turn to the subject of this motion. The Renewable Remote Power Generation Program is a program to support remote Australian homes, communities, businesses, governments and industry. The government committed $300 million to renewable energy generation in remote and regional areas. More than 7,000 residential and medium-scale projects were approved. These projects, with a total power capacity of more than 10,600 kilowatts of solar, wind and micro hydro, are estimated to save more than 24 million litres of diesel fuel every year. This was a useful program, but it was always a transitional program; it was never an end in itself. The fact that the funding allocated for this program has now run out was never disguised. The program has invested over $215 million in supporting renewable remote power generation, with a further $85 million under construction or approved—a total of $300 million. The program had funds to run until 2011 but, due to the recent spike in demand, these funds are now fully committed. The renewable energy industry has been aware for some time that this program has finite funds and that full commitment was imminent.

The decision to wind this program up was not taken in a vacuum. It was taken in the context of the government’s overall commitment to renewable energy. On 9 June, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts announced the final legislation for the expanded renewable energy target, which will allow for the creation of new solar credits. These solar credits will build on the largest ever investment in solar panels in this nation’s history, with more than 80,000 solar systems set to be installed on Australian rooftops since the Rudd government came to office. The opposition does not like being reminded of this, but it remains the fact that this government has overseen more installation of solar power systems in 18 months—that is, since we came to power—than we saw over the previous eight years of the Howard government. As the minister said, the renewable energy sector has changed from being a cottage industry to being part of a productive and growing green-collar workforce. This government has done more to foster the growth of renewable energy than any other government in Australian history.

It is in that context that the farce of those opposite is truly seen, because not only are they opposing the CPRS—not only are they twisted in knots as they try and debate their own internal position—but, on that side of the chamber, they are not even sure that climate change is happening. Now we have to put up with them coming into this place and pretending, for brief moments every day, that they are in fact green—that they believe in a green future and that they understand what the green and clean future of this country could mean in terms of jobs, job opportunities and new industries. But we on this side are not surprised that the coalition—which is tortured, twisted, divided and led by a man who cannot lead and which has a creative writing team which might be good at emails but is no good at policy—remains a mess.

The previous government had no real interest in renewable energy. The only reason the Howard government ever created this scheme in the first place was that they were forced to by the Australian Democrats as part of a deal they negotiated with Meg Lees to get the GST bills through the Senate. That is the whole sum of your commitment, Senator Macdonald: a deal with the Democrats. Senator Joyce is claiming this scheme as the Howard government’s child, but it was an unwanted child of very dubious parentage indeed. It is particularly curious to see a Nationals senator coming in here and crying crocodile tears about renewable energy. During the recent hearings of the Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy, Senator Joyce’s colleague Senator Boswell—that notorious green—never tired of telling us what a disaster mandatory renewable energy targets would be. He raised this matter with virtually every witness, as Senator Macdonald well knows, inviting them to agree with him that the renewable energy target would have disastrous effects on their industry. Senator Boswell is not only adamantly opposed to an emissions trading scheme but also opposed to government leadership in making the transition to renewable energy. The other side’s colours are well and truly up the mast here. Renewable energy is an alien notion for those opposite. I am very interested to know what Senator Joyce’s position is this minute, because we can be sure that, whatever it is, it will remain complete humbug.

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

Let me be absolutely clear at the outset that no Australian industry has been more stuffed around by the Rudd government than the solar industry has been. No Australian industry has been more screwed over by the Rudd government than the solar industry. The solar industry has had strike after strike after strike from the Rudd government. Indeed, if it were a ‘three strikes and they’re out’ type of policy, they would have been out long ago because, from what I can see from the treatment of the solar industry by this government in its fairly short time in office, there have been no fewer than six strikes on the industry—at least. First of all, we had the means testing. That came along, unannounced, in last year’s budget. Lo and behold, buried in the budget papers was the means testing of the solar rebate under the Solar Homes and Communities Plan. What happened from there was that it shut out of the marketplace everybody who could afford to buy larger-sized solar power systems.

As all households with a taxable income over $100,000 were shut out of that program, the average size of solar units installed in Australian homes went down, down, down under the government. So, instead of getting the maximum bang for the taxpayers’ buck when it came to installing solar systems in households, taxpayers were instead subsidising the smallest possible systems. A plethora of one-kilowatt systems were being installed as a result of the government’s decision to means test. It did not do what they hoped it would do and slow demand and fix the budgetary problems that they had in terms of how much was allocated. Instead, demand kept surging but they kept getting less bang for their buck—strike 1 on the solar industry.

Then, because that plan did not work, the government decided that instead it would axe the solar communities program altogether and replace it with a new system based on the new renewable energy certificates system. The problems with the REC system were that people would get less of an incentive to install a solar system, it was harder to understand and it is almost impossible to quote for because, as it is a market, nobody knows what the price of a REC will be at the particular point in time it is issued, so the solar industry find themselves having to quote to the marketplace not knowing exactly what type of subsidy will be on offer—strike 2 against the solar industry.

Then, lo and behold, the government brings forward the axing of the solar rebates under Solar Homes and Communities. That is despite Minister Garrett giving assurances to the industry and consumers on ABC’s PM program on 17 December last year that it would be phased out after 1 July. That is despite the COAG community on 30 April this year telling the industry and consumers that the new program was intended to commence on 1 July. That is despite even this year’s budget papers stating that the funding for solar rebates will continue until the program has transitioned to Solar Credits on 1 July 2009. This is another broken promise, another strike—strike 3 and counting—against the solar industry.

Of course, the solar rebates were axed early, ahead of 1 July, without any replacement. Minister Garrett, Minister Wong and the government said, ‘We’re introducing a new renewable energy target that will encompass the new Solar Credits program.’ Guess what: they did not even have the legislation finalised when they announced the axing of the current program. No legislation was finalised, there was no legislation in the parliament, there were weeks to go until their ‘planned’ conclusion of the program and they axed it early, with nothing to replace it—strike 4 and counting against the solar industry.

This all happened only a couple of weeks ago. The industry were still reeling from the last strike against them when the government came along and decided to axe early the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program, which was critical to regional Australia in terms of allowing regional areas to wean themselves off diesel powered generators and actually have renewable energy alternatives in their communities. This program was axed by email on Monday of this week at 8.33 am. That is how the industry found out. There was no warning, no planning, nothing—they just got an email at 8.33 on Monday morning. That is how the industry found out, so little wonder the industry are reeling from the latest blow to them—strike 5 and counting.

The Clean Energy Council has indicated that the impact on the industry will be serious and has highlighted that the government cut this program last year by $42 million—strike 6 and counting, in terms of blows against the solar industry.

Senator Milne in her contribution to this debate highlighted the government’s stance when it came to feed-in tariffs. Back on 30 October 2007, in a policy document, Minister Garrett stated:

… Labor believes it is important that there is a consolidated and consistent approach across jurisdictions to renewable energy policy. A Rudd Labor Government will work through the Council of Australian Governments to develop a consistent national approach to feed in tariffs.

Guess what: strike 7 and counting. There is no national approach—they have backed away from that policy—and Minister Garrett now says it is up to the states. There have been too many strikes too many times against the solar industry. (Time expired)

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for discussion of this matter has expired.