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

The committee is considering the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009 and amendments (6), (1) to (5), (9), (11) and (19) on sheet 5816 revised, moved by Senator Milne. (Quorum formed)

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

Just before we broke last time I asked the minister to indicate whether the furnace from the proposed Gunns pulp mill in Tasmania would be able to generate renewable energy certificates. As I was saying, it is 184 megawatts, which will be generated from burning native forests. I would like the minister to indicate whether that will generate renewable energy certificates and whether people who are paying extra for their power because of renewable energy will be paying for the burning of woodchips from native forests.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The senator raised a range of issues to which, if I could suggest—I am not going to debate the issue—I have probably responded in terms of what the government asserts is correct in relation to those issues. That includes her suggestion as to what proportion of the target will be taken up by solar hot water and heat pumps. I think I have responded to that, which is to say that the MMA modelling suggests five per cent. We have acknowledged there is an issue with heat pumps. I have also flagged the COAG review process, which I have discussed separately with Senator Milne.

In relation to the issue of native forests, I know the position that the senator puts on this. We did go to the election with a commitment to retain existing eligibility. I would make the point that this native forest biomass has been an eligible source under the current MRET since 2001. There are additional eligibility criteria in relation to the use of native forest biomass, including restrictions on the areas where the native forest wood waste can come from in order for it to be used in generation that is eligible to create RECs.

The expanded Renewable Energy Target Scheme agreed to by COAG on 30 April 2009 maintains this eligibility criteria, which ensures that only genuine waste from sustainable forestry operations can be eligible to create renewable energy certificates. The existing regulations underpinning this prescribe that, to be eligible under the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target, native forest wood waste must either come from an area where an RFA, a regional forest agreement, is in place or, if it is from outside an RFA area, it must be produced from harvesting carried out in accordance with ecologically sustainable forest management principles that the minister is satisfied are consistent with those required by an RFA, which I understand is referred to as an RFA-equivalent area.

The regulations also prescribe a primary purpose test—that is, the wood waste must be primarily harvested for a purpose other than biomass for energy production. The wood waste must also be either a by-product or a waste product of a harvesting operation for which a high-value process is the primary purpose of the harvesting—known as a ‘high-value test’—or a by-product of a harvesting operation that is carried out in accordance with ecologically sustainable forest management principles. The wood waste is taken to be from a high-value process only if the total financial value of the products of the high-value process is higher than the financial value of other products in the harvesting operation. The regulations define a high-value process as ‘the production of sawlogs, veneer, poles, piles, girders, wood for carpentry or craft uses or oil products.’ Woodchips are not specified as a high-value process, so waste from operations where woodchips are the primary purpose is not eligible. Sawmill residue produced by the processing of native forest timber is eligible without reference to the high-value test.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, no answer to Senator Milne’s question as to whether the forest furnace attached to the Gunns pulp mill in the Tamar Valley would be eligible for this program. I did hear the minister say that by-product from woodchipping would not be but, as she knows, and we all know, woodchipping is said to be a by-product from saw-logging. The whole thing is an incredible scam because, for the 300,000 tonnes of sawlog produced in Tasmania, five or six million tonnes of woodchips are produced. A lot of that is stuck in ships and sent to Japan—where, by the way, recent shiploads have been trialling forest furnaces in Japan. This is native forest we are talking about here. The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this—the minister may disagree; and I hope she does, if I am wrong—is that, yes, the Rudd government is accrediting the forest furnace at the proposed pulp mill in the Tamar Valley as a renewable energy generator. The question that comes out of that admission by the minister is: what is the value to Gunns, on an annual basis, of the 800,000 to one million tonnes of forest that will be fed into this furnace—certainly in the initial years—through getting this certification under this legislation? Can the minister tell the chamber what the actual subsidy from the Rudd government for the destruction of Tasmanian forests to be burnt in this forest furnace will be through this proposal that she has before the chamber?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I may make a very brief contribution in relation to this. Senator Brown continually raises the issue and misrepresents the situation in relation to the potential of a pulp mill in Tasmania. It is quite clear from all the plans et cetera that within a matter of years the full resource that will be used by the mill will come from plantations. If Senator Brown understood the renewable energy legislation he would know that section 17(e) does refer to black liquor as a renewable energy resource.

In relation to wood waste from native forests, given the test that Minister Wong has just read out, I would have thought it makes good sense that this waste be put to a use. It is a good thing. No matter how you use a tree, just as long as you replant it after harvesting, it is a renewable resource. It is a cycle that we can sensibly use and harvest for human resources. I have said on odd occasions before that if I were a beaver the Greens would allow me to chop down trees and dam rivers to enhance my personal habitat, because that is what beavers do. But as I am a human being, I am not allowed to dam rivers or chop down trees to enhance my habitat and my lifestyle. I have news for Senator Brown and the Greens: humans are in fact part of nature and from day 1 we have been using water resources and timber resources. The test is: do we use them sensibly and sustainably?

Because so much of Tasmania is now locked up in reserves, in World Heritage areas and in national parks, there is the requirement that our timber production come from plantations. I recall a former Leader of the Tasmanian Greens in the Tasmanian parliament championing the cause of tree plantations on fertile agricultural soils and seeking tax incentives for those plantations. That former Leader of the Tasmanian Greens is now the Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in this place, conveniently forgetting all her arguments of about a decade ago. I remind the Australian Greens that timber is a genuine renewable resource.

I am going to leave the debate for a short period of time, unfortunately, because of another commitment. I indicate for the benefit of senators that all the opposition amendments on the running sheet will be withdrawn, other than the one standing in the name of Senator Ron Boswell, which will be moved by him. I will be giving an explanation for this at a later stage of the debate, but am telling the Senate now so that honourable senators can get a handle on how the debate might go.

The reason for the withdrawal of our amendments is that the negotiations that I hinted at in my contribution on the second reading have been largely successful. I welcome the government’s attitude to the opposition’s suggestions. It is always very difficult to put a numerical figure on it, but in general terms the opposition got about 80 per cent of what it asked for, especially in relation to decoupling—that was vitally important. We have indicated that we will be moving a separate private members bill to give expression to our views in relation to emerging renewable technologies. Although Senator Xenophon’s amendment, and I will talk in greater detail about that, had some attraction, we will not be supporting it. We will be discussing that further, I am sure. So, the opposition will be withdrawing all its amendments other than the one in relation to food processing, because we have been able to come to a good arrangement with the government. I understand that the minister will be reading certain words and commitments into Hansard. It is on that basis that I give that indication.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will very briefly respond to Senator Brown. I have outlined the legal situation as it is expressed in the bill and regulations in relation to native forest wood waste. It is not for the government to make any specific allocation in relation to particular firms. It is for the regulator under the bill to apply the law in accordance with the principles that I have outlined.

I thank Senator Abetz for his indication. In accordance with what has been agreed, I propose to read into Hansard a range of propositions that we have agreed with the opposition on in order to ensure passage of this bill, which is important to the government for a range of reasons, the first being that 20 per cent renewable energy by 2020 is a good outcome and the second being that it delivers on a Rudd government election commitment.

I thank the opposition for their engagement on this issue on their negotiation with the government and their willingness this week, unlike last week, to put up specific amendments. That enabled the negotiations to proceed. The only comment I would make is that it would have been courteous for the opposition to formally respond to the government about what was put to them before they announced at a press conference that they had agreed with it. But that is a matter for those conducting the negotiations. In general, these negotiations have been constructive and we thank the opposition for being prepared to walk into the room.

I propose now to go through a range of things which have been agreed and to read them into Hansard, given that Senator Abetz, on behalf of the opposition, has indicated their approach and withdrawn the amendments. The first matter concerns exemptions for industry. The government will replicate the industry assistance provisions from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme for the purposes of the renewable energy target. The government will provide partial exemption to all activities that would qualify for the emissions-intensive trade-exposed assistance under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

The government will use the same eligibility thresholds as under the CPRS, with partial exemptions of 90 and 60 per cent depending on the emission intensity of the activity. The current criteria for determining eligibility under the CPRS has been robustly debated and extensively documented through the green paper, the white paper and the emission-intensive trade-exposed guidance document. Furthermore, the process has benefited from oversight by the Warburton committee. The need for a separate eligibility assessment process for activities that will provide partial exemptions under the renewable energy target will not be necessary.

As CPRS eligibility assessments are finalised, these will be used as the basis for determining eligibility under the renewable energy target and for preparing appropriate regulations. The government has also agreed that transitional arrangements will be subject to the recommendations of the 2014 review. I say on this that the government is very pleased that the opposition has backed the industry assistance regime under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

In relation to aluminium and other emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities, the government recognises that the increased cost associated with the expansion of the renewable energy target has two components. First, if the renewable energy certificate price increases above the level of around $40 then the increased renewable energy certificate price increases the cost impact of meeting the current mandatory renewable energy target liability of 9,500 gigawatt hours. Second, the higher annual targets under the expanded renewable energy target increase the costs associated with the RET.

Accordingly, following the passage of the CPRS, the government’s intention is to provide additional assistance under the renewable energy target for eligible emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities by adjusting the partial exemption rate to ensure that the same assistance rate—being either 90 per cent or 60 per cent—applies to the increase in costs associated with the expansion of the renewable energy target. In calculating the increased costs above the existing mandatory renewable energy target liability, the government will use a renewable energy certificate price of $40.

In relation to food processing, the government will extend the current potential review provisions under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme—as set out in the white paper at section 12.7.4—to industries potentially affected by the renewable energy target once the renewable energy target has commenced. These arrangements allow firms, including those that do not qualify for industry assistance, to make representation to the government to request that the government commission the Productivity Commission to undertake an assessment of the renewable energy target’s impact on their industry. The government will not necessarily refer all requests to the commission; it will take into account the nature and details of the request.

The Productivity Commission will make an assessment of this industry’s circumstances, taking into account the range of factors unrelated to the scheme that will also affect the profitability of firms and industries, such as exchange rate movements, capital and labour costs, and commodity price movements. It will assess whether the introduction of the renewable energy target—including the assistance provided under the renewable energy target and Climate Change Action Fund assistance programs—will substantially adversely affect the industry in which the firm is located within the next five years, result in carbon leakage and be likely to result in the premature closure of an industry that would be likely to be competitive in a carbon constrained world. Taking into account all of the above, the commission will make recommendations to the government about whether it should provide additional support to this industry from the Climate Change Action Fund and the appropriate mechanism for that support.

In relation to heat pumps, the government agrees that certificates must only be created for the bona fide installation of a solar water heater intended to remain in its original configuration and location for the life of the unit. To ensure this, the government proposes that regulations be passed to require a statutory declaration to this effect from the purchaser and also a statutory declaration from the installer stating that the installed unit is appropriate for the intended use. In terms of the eligibility of heat pumps overall, COAG has agreed to examine further by the end of 2009 some of the eligibility provisions of the renewable energy target for new small-scale technologies, as well as heat pumps, to ensure that the eligibility rules remain relevant over time to reflect new technologies and recent developments in renewable technology.

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

As he indicated, Senator Abetz will be withdrawing certain of the listed opposition amendments later. He has already indicated that the statement that the Minister for Climate Change and Water just made is one that has been negotiated between the parties. Senator Abetz will be back shortly; in fact, he is back now.

Before I leave the debate, I go back to the amendment moved by the Greens, and about which we had some discussion this morning, on the use of biomass and wood waste. Senator Milne read out a long list of groups, indicating that they were opposed to biomass. She did not mention at the time that the World Wide Fund for Nature, WWF, had issued a paper entitled Biopowerswitch: a biomass blueprint to meet 15% of OECD electricity demand by 2020.

This is a very useful publication by WWF. It is a group who I do not always agree with but who I have always thought was sensible, considered and very conscious of its environmental responsibility and advocacy. I wish I had time to read the whole of its document into the Senate, but suffice it to say that WWF is very supportive of biomass and the use of forest waste for the creation of renewable, sustainable energy. I cannot imagine why the Greens did not mention WWF in moving their amendment. It is a very good paper and I would certainly recommend it to anyone who might be listening to the debate. I am sure it is available online.

It does clearly set out that other countries, such as Germany, the United Kingdom and France, are all using biomass—comprising, at least in part, wood waste—for the creation of renewable energy. This document goes through the benefits in some detail: how it helps with the environment, how it helps with jobs and how other countries in the world are doing this. The Greens amendment would have Australia again out by themselves opposing this for nothing other than what are clearly ideological reasons. As I indicated before, the opposition will be opposing the amendment and Senator Abetz will indicate further our position in relation to the matters negotiated with the government.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to respond to parts of the conversation that Senator Abetz and Senator Wong have just shared in the chamber. I think that when the Australian public see their power bills skyrocket in price they should send those bills to the Prime Minister’s Lodge and ask him to pay them. It is outrageous that the deal done today is not a commonsense decision at all. Have a look at the detail. The coalition are saying that they have 80 per cent of what they want, but there is still a definite link to the CPRS legislation. It is not unhooked at all. Look at what the minister was saying before. She said:

Accordingly, following the passage of the CPRS, the government’s intention is to provide additional assistance under the renewable energy target ...

Quite clearly, these bills are still linked. This is in the statement that was just read out. Quite clearly the bills are still linked and the coalition has been dudded. Senator Abetz has spoken many times about people rolling over but the coalition has rolled on this issue. When the Australian public see increases in their power bills—when they see them skyrocketing—they need to send them to the Prime Minister’s Lodge for the Prime Minister to pay.

The deal done on the renewable energy targets is yet another example of something done by a turncoat party running scared from an early election on a double dissolution. Quite clearly, they have rolled. Quite clearly, the renewable energy targets are still linked to CPRS. Senator Abetz can shake his head all he likes but it is quite clear that the coalition has rolled. The Australian public will pay dearly for what is happening here today.

Malcolm Turnbull says that the deal between the government and the coalition was a win for common sense. The only way Mr Turnbull could show common sense would be to use the words, ‘I quit.’

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

Can I indicate that I do not support Senator Milne’s amendment. I think Senator Milne’s amendment is still the amendment we are talking about, despite a few intermissions in relation to other issues. I have a question to put to the minister. I appreciate that it may have to be taken on notice, in a sense. It relates to the issue of the biomass and the projected emissions from burning woodchips. Have any projections been done or any studies, analyses or modelling been carried out by the Commonwealth to find out about the emissions with respect to woodchips, particularly in Tasmania? What would the potential impact be on greenhouse emissions? What is the extent of the modelling over the period between now and 2020? Again, I appreciate that that information may not be available now.

I indicate that I cannot support Senator Milne’s amendment, even though I am very sympathetic to the amendment with respect to biomass, because I think it goes too far with respect to getting rid of all solar water heaters being part of this scheme.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne explained that her proposal would not cost in terms of solar hot water heaters. We have plans afoot to promote them much more vigorously than this legislation would. This amendment would prevent them from competing with renewable energy. And that brings us to biomass. The authorities in New South Wales who licence green power have refused to licence the pulp mill in Tasmania because, whatever else it is, it is not green.

The pulp mill burns native forest and the habitat of rare and endangered species. Senator Wong’s colleague the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, said just two days ago that endangered species were in such numbers in this country that we can no longer afford to be looking at programs to save single species. The government has abandoned that in an age of mass extinctions and climate change—forest destruction being the single biggest destroyer of species on the terrestrial part of the planet—in favour of protecting ecosystems which have rare and endangered species in them.

When you come to that issue you look straight at the forests of south-east New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and of course my home state of Tasmania, where there are an array of endangered birds, mammals, reptiles, insects, molluscs, amphibians and plants, headed rapidly for extinction because their ecosystems are being destroyed. Who are they being destroyed by? The Rudd government and the ministries of Senator Wong, Mr Garrett and the other ministers who gather around the table to wash their hands of their responsibilities.

We have not only a complete breach of the aims of the nation’s environment legislation—which is not only to protect biodiversity but to enhance it and put in place management plans to bring those species back from the brink of extinction—but a very forward plan by Senator Wong, Mr Garrett and the Prime Minister Rudd. The plan has been much deliberated on—we are having this debate to emphasise that point—and the plan is to keep putting the match under these ecosystems, and the bulldozers and the chainsaws into them, so that they are destroyed for Gunns Limited and the Eden pulp mill owners in this country. Those owners take the forests of East Gippsland, the central highlands of Victoria to some degree and certainly the forests of south-east New South Wales, including koala habitat. The national icon does not escape this. There is targeted koala habitat right now on the agenda under the regional forest agreement that Senator Wong cited.

Now we come to this proposal, which is to give subsidies, effectively—through giving the proposed forest furnace in Eden, like that at the pulp mill in Tasmania and the proposed mills in southern and north-west Tasmania and elsewhere in the country, the advantage of being called ‘environmental’—to produce green power when it is destroying the habitat of the very rare and endangered species that the minister for the environment said in Brisbane the other day we, as a desperate last measure, have to protect. Here is a government plan to subsidise the destruction of ecosystems. The Rudd government are ready to pour millions of dollars into subsidising the destruction of native forests. They are to be put into furnaces to be converted into power, which will be sold to unsuspecting customers in Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Hobart and Perth as green power. The authorities in Sydney have sensibly said they are not going to allow their name to be attached to this. But that is not going to stop the Rudd government from according it exactly the same environmental kudos as a wind farm, an array of solar panels or a geothermal plant.

The woodchip industry began with Harris-Daishowa’s mill at Eden, which was followed up within 12 months by a mill at Triabunna in Tasmania. That is now 40 years ago. They said they were going to clean up the waste after sawmilling. Senator Abetz and Senator Macdonald are still back with the dinosaurs, still believing the propaganda coming out of this, on a ‘you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours’ arrangement with the logging industry and the unions—which, incredibly, stick with Gunns and other corporations even when they are shedding jobs, as they are doing at the moment, to feed a future job-sparse, computer-rich industry of forest furnaces.

The proposed Gunns pulp mill and the forest furnaces proposed at Judbury and Smithton in Tasmania will burn native forest. I will ask the minister what component of her scheme would be taken up in the first year of running a pulp mill the size of the Gunns’ proposal in the Tamar Valley—the size at least of a large wind farm. It will be in competition with and will undercut the wind farm. While the wind farm will be accredited by the authorities with green power, Gunns pulp mill will not be, but that does not alter the Rudd government’s proposal to subsidise the proposed mega-forest-furnace at the pulp mill in Tasmania.

Remember that the ships have already arrived and offloaded the prime components for this forest furnace. Gunns intend to set it up whether or not they get the go-ahead for the pulp mill, and the only thing stopping that is international investors. Certainly the minister for the environment, the Hon. Peter Garrett, is not going to stop it. He has not stopped it so far and there is no way he is going to stand in the way of it, whatever the results of further studies. Gunns has landed its furnace components on the wharf at Bell Bay and the furnace is largely coming to fruition through the legislation we are discussing here today. This is a death warrant—thanks to Senator Wong, Prime Minister Rudd, environment minister Garrett and the minister for forestry, whatever his name might be, who is just a cipher of the forest industry—on the habitat of rare and endangered species in Australia, subsidised by this government.

It is going to produce so-called environmental energy—that is what Mr Gunns calls it these days—which will be sent through Basslink, highly subsidised under a secret contract by the last three Labor governments in Tasmania, putting all the attendant risk through the Basslink cable to consumers in Melbourne. What is effectively going to happen here is that the public subsidy is going to prevent the establishment of real renewable energy, an enormous amount of it, because this pulp mill furnace will squeeze it out. So the unsuspecting denizens of Melbourne, as well as those of Launceston and Hobart, while toasting their bread or having their showers in the morning, are going to be paying a premium for so-called renewable energy. In fact, they are burning the habitat of rare and endangered possum and bird species in the forests of Tasmania.

We have a compliant media on much of this. We will not see too much of this being carried into the public arena. Why not? Because the big story of the day is the coalition and the government getting together to agree on the passage of this legislation, just as the government and the coalition will get together—I told the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Turnbull, this as far back as last February—to agree to an emissions trading scheme sometime this side of the next election. The danger for the opposition is that it may dawn on the government that, if they want to keep the opposition wedged on the issue of an emissions trading scheme, whereas now the opposition wants that legislation put off until next year, it may end up being the government who want it put off until next year so it becomes next year’s issue—if an election is left until next year.

In the middle of the Faustian bargain in this legislation to burn native forests and the habitat of rare and endangered species to produce so-called ‘green energy’, to be sold at a premium are the unsuspecting, good-hearted Australians who will pay more for it. Already, 50,000 or 60,000 have signed up to these schemes. They will in fact be destroying the habitat of the very species the government proclaims it wants to protect.

I will give as an example the giant wedge-tailed eagle of Tasmania. I am told by Mr Webb, who has the eagle recovery centre at Kettering, south of Hobart, that the biggest recorded wingspan of a Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle was 2.98 metres. That is almost three metres. I can hold my arms out and it is nowhere near three metres. This is the sixth-largest eagle species on the face of the planet. It is not going to worry Prime Minister Rudd that a report by Melbourne University, which Forestry Tasmania itself commissioned, found that the probability of this great species in north-east Tasmania going extinct is 65 per cent within the next century or two. But bring in the current Rudd government proposals for logging in north-east Tasmania, as signed off by Prime Minister Howard but taken up, under his own words, ‘100 per cent’ by Prime Minister Rudd, and see that targeted logging go to its endpoint, and, according to this university study—and there is no countermanding study to this; this is Forestry Tasmania itself and the University of Melbourne—the chance of extinction in north-east Tasmania of the giant wedge-tailed eagle goes from 65 per cent to 99 per cent. That is the price of the pulp mill. I might ask any of the senators speaking up in favour of having our native forest fed into these giant forest furnaces and passed off as green energy, displacing real renewable energy under this proposal—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are you going to do with the sawdust?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I won’t have to do anything with the sawdust, Senator Boswell, because—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell, could you please restrain from interjecting while Senator Brown is speaking.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

it is packed in between so many National Party members’ ears that there won’t be any left over!

The whole point of this is that we have a proposal here which is an utter disgrace to this parliament and to this generation of parliamentarians. In an age of prodigious threat, of climate change threat, people reading this in years to come will not be able to believe it. I went and saw the film The Age of Stupid in the theatre here last Monday night. It is on in Sydney tonight and I think Senator Milne will be there at the end of that film for a question and answer session. I only wish every parliamentarian would see it. It shows the world in 2055 and looks back to this period and asks, ‘How could we have done it?’ Well, here we are in this chamber doing it. Here is Senator Wong, supported ably by Senator Abetz in this bargaining, doing the unthinkable, against the interests of the future of this planet. Senator Milne has got up a sensible amendment to take out this destruction of forests. Senator Wong says, ‘It is there under previous legislation.’ Yes, but here is the opportunity, Senator Wong, for you to support this sensible move—and I predict you won’t.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise briefly to comment on some of the points that have been made in relation to Senator Fielding’s orchestrated appearance in the chamber. All I would invite him to do is actually read and consider the detail. I think he might then reflect that his words were not as well chosen as they otherwise might have been. But I say in relation to Senator Fielding that I accept that what he says is in good faith and that he is just personally mistaken as to the outcome of the agreement between the government and the opposition.

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about the Australian Greens. They seem to live in the world of believing that if you repeat a myth often enough, time and time again, and then pretend to sound sincere in saying it, that somehow myth is turned into a fact. Facts are facts, irrespective of how often somebody wants to repeat a myth. The simple fact is that there are huge tracts of plantation in Tasmania which will be the feedstock for the pulp mill. We all know that. Do we engage in native forest harvesting in Tasmania? Yes, we do—for the high-quality timbers, for the craftsmen, for veneer logs, for sawlogs. But are there special practices under the forest practices code to ensure that threatened and endangered species are looked after? Yes, there are. Senator Brown knows that. He in fact raced to the Federal Court and lost. He appealed to the High Court and lost. We know the facts about this but, unfortunately, Senator Brown and the Australian Greens just find it necessary to come in time and time again to repeat their myths. The simple fact in relation to the pulp mill is that if it does have a furnace in relation to its operations it will be using the black liquid that gets extracted out of the woodchips. The fibre gets turned into the paper and a waste product, the black liquor, will actually be the fuel. It is genuinely renewable. It will be grown in a plantation, will be a waste product from the papermaking operation and we can harness it as a fuel source. And, as we know, in Tasmania more trees than are harvested are planted each year. As a result, Tasmania’s forest estate is in fact growing. Even if you were to burn the totality of the tree, which of course we do not, the carbon dioxide that is released by that tree would be absorbed by the growing of the new tree that is always planted in its place.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

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

Senator Feeney interjecting—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask senators not to interject or be engaged in conversations across the chamber.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens chuckle, as well as, might I add, foolishly, Senator Feeney, whose government’s policy is in fact to be supportive of what I am saying. I think just his personal dislike of me made him chuckle in such a way that has now embarrassed him and his own colleagues. That aside, we know that in our native forest harvesting we go through a cycle of literally decade upon decade, and that is why our forestry practices are regarded as world’s best.

When I was forestry minister I asked Senator Bob Brown which country has better forestry practices than Tasmania and Australia. For years and years he could not answer, and then finally he foolishly interjected: ‘New Zealand’. New Zealand uses 1.2 tonnes of 1080 per annum in its operations compared to Tasmania’s 1.2 kilograms per annum and ever decreasing. Having been pointed out some of these basic facts, Senator Brown no longer champions the cause of New Zealand forestry. I wonder what other country he points to, given that he no longer relies on New Zealand.

I say to him that, in relation to the wedge-tailed eagle, there are many measures in place to seek to protect it in Tasmania. He knows that to be the case, he knows that to be the fact, but I think he also knows that wind farms in Tasmania have occasioned a toll on the wedge-tailed eagle population—I think more so than any forestry operation has ever done. Having said that, I simply indicate that, as is so often the case with the Australian Greens, if it does not suit their cause, especially their cause of fundraising, they will simply repeat the myths time and time again in the face of objective evidence and in the face of what world practice is, be it anywhere in Europe or be it the WWF report on biomass—you name it. The world is saying that waste wood should be used as a renewable energy. That is what people all around the world are saying other than one group of people, and that is the Australian Greens.

In relation to the first tranche of amendments by the Greens, I indicate that the opposition will be voting against them.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst I am obviously very pleased to participate in a lengthy debate, we have been debating for some time this issue of native forests. I think people have put their views on the table. I appreciate that Senator Abetz and Senator Bob Brown have very different views on this issue, but I would encourage the chamber to consider, if we are able to, getting to a point where we could vote on these amendments.

While I am on my feet, I would like to take the opportunity to respond to two or three issues. There was quite a lot of rather strong language in some of the contributions in relation to forests—words such as ‘death warrant’ were thrown around. Again I simply reiterate what I have already said about the protections in the existing legislation in relation to native forest wood waste. I do not propose to canvass that again.

In relation to Senator Xenophon’s question, would he indulge me by allowing me to take that on notice. That information may well be able to be obtained from the Department of Climate Change, from its carbon accounting section of the department. I will endeavour to find whatever information we can to assist him on that.

Senator Boswell some time ago asked me quite a range of questions in relation to low- and middle-income families and the Climate Change Action Fund. These are matters that are contained within the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme policy and legislation, not in the renewable energy target legislation. They were announced by the Prime Minister in December. They are legitimate issues, and we are very happy to take him through those if he would wish us to. I would suggest that perhaps a better use of time would be if he wished for that briefing to occur in relation to the specific issues he raised. The government would be very happy to provide him with that. I respectfully suggest that that would perhaps be a more expeditious way of dealing with some of the issues he raised. That is what the government would propose.

I should also indicate, for the reasons I have outlined, that the government will obviously not be supporting the amendments from the Australian Greens.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Wong for offering me a briefing. I would have preferred for it to be given in the parliament where it goes on the public record. I would have thought that indicating what is a low-income or a middle-income household that would get compensation would not have been that hard. It would have been $50,000 or $40,000—whatever it is. I do want to know how people access the Climate Change Action Fund stream—because there seems to be some money there—that will cover every contingency that may ever show itself on ETS or RET.

There are a lot of people out there who are particularly worried about this issue. I could give many examples, but I have just picked health because I believe it is very relevant. As I said, the non-profit organisations are going to have to find probably $100 million. My question is pretty specific: how do those people access—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order relating to relevance. I have attempted to deal with Senator Boswell courteously. What he is raising has nothing to do with renewable energy legislation and nothing to do with the Greens amendments before the chair. It is about another piece of legislation which was debated last week. If he wanted to have this debate then, the government would have been happy to have that debate. But he is choosing to have that debate now in relation to the wrong bill and is certainly not relevant to these amendments.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, these additional costs on health and aged care go to something like $2.7 million. That is relevant to—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Madam Temporary Chairman, could you just hear me out. That is relevant to the RET bill. That is the cost through RET that the industry will face and there will be an additional cost under the ETS. If you do not want to debate the ETS, Minister, I accept that we are on the wrong bill. But if we are not on the wrong bill—

The Temporary Chairman:

Senator Boswell, I take it your response to the point of order is that the issues you raise are relevant to the debate.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are relevant because the cost is something like $2.7 million under RET.

The Temporary Chairman:

I will allow your questions to continue. If the minister then indicates that they are not relevant to this debate, that will be her response. It will be part of the whole debate. On that basis, if you have questions that you want to put, continue with those questions.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is all right. The minister has refused to talk to Catholic Health. Yes, you have, Minister. You can get up and deny it if you like, but my information is that they sought some accommodation with you and you failed to respond. If you want to respond now that would be good. I am sure they would welcome your response. They are very concerned about the renewable energy target and the impact it will have on them financially. They want to know what services they are going to have to reduce. That will be compounded by the $10.8 million, which I will not talk about. If you do not want to answer them, that is okay. Let it stand on the record that you refused to answer them and you refused to take questions in the chamber. I am sure it will be welcomed out there in the Catholic Leader and in all the Catholic newspapers that the minister refused to accommodate the Catholic hospitals or any other hospital.

The Temporary Chairman:

I remind the chamber that we are debating the Greens amendments (1) to (6), (9), (11) and (19) on sheet 5816 revised.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that those assertions have been made, I now have no option but to respond, Senator Boswell. I did extend to you some courtesy around this and you have chosen to make political points. I could make some comments about the fact that, if you had chosen to allow the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation to reach the committee stage, we could have traversed all of this. But you opposed that legislation without even allowing it to be read a second time. You refused to allow it to go into committee, so do not blame me as to the fact that you, on that side of the chamber, refused to support even allowing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation going into committee, where you could have dealt with all of those issues.

On the issue of the household assistance measures, which you say we are somehow avoiding putting on the public record, these were announced in December. I refer you to 17.2.2 of the white paper released by the Prime Minister in December. There were pamphlets put out by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs or perhaps through Centrelink which detailed the assistance under the CPRS. We have been completely upfront and provided a significant amount of information on the assistance measures under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, including in relation to low- and middle-income families. The tables are all in the documents which have been provided and I can send copies to your office if you have not had the opportunity to read them. Obviously, in the definition of low-income household the income level changes depending on the household type, whether single, couple, couple with children or single parent. The indication in the white paper, for example, is that low income refers to earnings of less than $30,000 for a single person, $45,000 for a couple with no children and $60,000 for a couple with children. There are a range of other tables I could read into Hansard, but I suggest it would be a much better use of the chamber’s time if we could simply send them to you.

In relation to the Climate Change Action Fund and the question of where people should go in order to obtain assistance through it, the Climate Change Action Fund is funded in most part out of the CPRS revenue. If the senator wants to ensure that entities and organisations such as the one he mentioned are able to have access to the Climate Change Action Fund, I suggest to him that that is one of the key measures under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Again, we have spelt out in the white paper released in December the way in which that fund will work.

The senator made a number of allegations about engagement with the non-government sector. I have previously said in this place in answer to his earlier propositions that, in fact, one of the reasons that we included the non-government sector in the Climate Change Action Fund was as a result of discussions we had had, particularly with welfare organisations. That is precisely why we did it.

Finally, I make the point that I do not concede the amounts that Senator Boswell has put on the table. His party, with respect, have put a lot of figures on the table without backup or evidence as part of their fear-mongering campaign against action on climate change. If you wish to choose to do that in the National Party, that is a matter for you. I do not necessarily accept the numbers you have put down. In answer to a previous question, I indicated to you the impact on electricity prices through the renewable energy target. I also make the point that one of the things that the government wants to support is increased energy efficiency in organisations, whether businesses or non-government organisations, so that they can reduce the impact on them of a carbon price. These are issues we have considered in detail, Senator Boswell. Frankly, I am sorry that you have not had the opportunity to understand the government’s policy on these issues and I again offer you the opportunity to get across it if you wish.

In relation to the amendments before the chair, I think I have previously indicated our views.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The figures that I have given you, Senator Wong, are not my figures at all; they are taken from the Catholic Health Australia submission on the ETS and from submissions to you. I do not like the suggestion that we just throw figures up in the air and hope they come down somewhere. These are figures provided by Catholic Health Australia from their aged-care homes and from the hospitals. So do not accuse me of just throwing figures around, because I am not. They are very precise figures, but if you want to deny them that is up to you. I know this is very uncomfortable for you, Senator Wong, but I would like to take you to your statement on food processing. I listened very closely to that, and it seemed to me that if a food processor wanted to become part of a program that would give him some sort of compensation and he did not meet the criterion of electricity or—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Boswell, I draw to your attention the fact that we are actually debating the Greens amendments. If you can bring your question into line with those amendments, that is what we need in the chamber.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a very difficult area. Before you were in the chair, Madam Temporary Chair, Senator Milne sought leave to move amendments. I then asked the Clerk and was told that we could speak generally on Senator Milne’s amendments. If I was to be told otherwise, I would have refused leave to Senator Milne. I did not because I think Senator Milne is a very nice person—a little misguided but a nice person—so I did not like to refuse her leave. But I do claim the right that was given to me before to debate these issues.

The Temporary Chairman:

Senator Boswell, my understanding of the amendments is that they are to do with solar hot water, solar heaters and energy. If the questions you are asking are around those issues, that meets the need to be relevant to these amendments. So, if you can move your questioning in that direction, general questions about that issue would be appropriate.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On your ruling, Madam Temporary Chair: Senator Wong got up 10 or 20 minutes ago and read out a list of amendments and a list of agreements that the coalition and the Labor Party agreed to. I believe I have a right to ask questions about that statement read by Senator Wong.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe you should ask your shadow minister.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not need any help from you.

The Temporary Chairman:

Senator Boswell, if the list was in the debate, go ahead with the question. However, your proposed amendment and schedule 2, item 8 both refer specifically to the food-processing industry. It may well be that questions around that would be better placed at that stage, but if you want to continue bringing into relevance the solar aspects, please continue.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In that case, you force me to make comment on Senator Brown’s statement about wood by-products. I do not know how you get rid of them. The only way you do not get wood by-products is by not having a timber industry—not having thousands of jobs that are in the timber industry in Tasmania. You have to understand that if you process wood you are left with a by-product. What do you do with that by-product? We have heard Senator Brown say that we should not be burning this wood and making power from it. The only other suggestion I can think of is that it be buried. I actually saw that happen in a little mill in Allies Creek. I have mentioned this before, but I think it is worth mentioning again to Senator Brown because he was not in the chamber at the time. This mill, which was closed down by some activists, potentially had thousands and thousands of tonnes of wood waste and before they could get their compensation they were told that they had to bury it. They responded: ‘Why should we have to bury it? The electricity generators want this wood—they want it, they are prepared to pay for it and they are prepared to cart it away.’ They were told, ‘No, you are not going to use that wood.’

Do you know what replaced that wood, Senator Brown? Black coal. That is what went into the generator that could have been running on a renewable by-product, and that was because people of your ilk, the Greens, stopped it. So, instead of using a by-product of wood, they used black coal. That is where your statement ends: we have got to bury, remove or dump into the sea or the river the by-products of the timber industry. Alternatively, you can put it in a furnace and create power.

Senator Brown, you stand up here and pontificate about the timber industry, and we all know that you do not want a timber industry. You would be perfectly happy if there was no timber industry in Tasmania. In fact, you would rejoice if there was no timber industry in Tasmania. But you would not have a hobby horse to flog. You have flogged the timber industry all around Australia. You have just flogged it and flogged it and flogged it. Yes, you have got your little nine or 10 per cent, but you have alienated the other 90 per cent.

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

What did the Nats get?

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Nats get a lot more than you and they get them in seats in the House of Representatives. You have never been able to achieve—

The Temporary Chairman:

Senator Boswell, I remind you to go through the chair.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, but I am being provoked.

The Temporary Chairman:

Work through it, Senator Boswell.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might have to review my assessment of Senator Milne. When Senator Bob Brown gets up and makes statements like that, he ought to be brought to court. He is making his statements, as he always does, in prime time and when we are being broadcast. I think the absolute hypocrisy of Senator Brown should be pointed out. Senator Brown, as I have pointed out to you before, you are a doctor. If the worst comes to the worst and you get thrown out of this place, you can hang up your shingle and you can earn $100,000 or more, probably $200,000. Just think about the guys that drive the trucks, the guys that cut the trees down, the guys that take the trees out of the forests and the whole economy of Tasmania. They do not have your option of moving out and starting another job. You deny them every time you stand up in this place, and you should not do it. It is hypocrisy at its worst. It comes from an educated person who should know better, from a person who has been to university. But you exploit these people time and time again. I ask you to think about what you say before you say it and to think about the other people who have not had the advantages that you had when you went through university.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do like it when I get some inherent support from Senator Boswell! I must say that Senator Abetz is never so impressive as when he is embracing Labor legislation with some coalition amendments. Senator Boswell, I will test you in the next day or two by bringing in here a motion in defence of the timber workers currently being sacked by Gunns Ltd. To keep the profit line up, they are putting people out of work in this recession. It is only the Greens who have ever spoken up for them in this place.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You would get rid of all their jobs!

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz! Here we go. I remember very well putting forward the proposal when the regional forest agreements legislation was being put through here that, at the same time as guaranteeing Gunns and the logging industry access to the destruction of forests for their profit line, they guarantee the jobs of workers in the logging industry. Senator Abetz and his colleagues, along with the Labor Party, voted against that proposal. They would not have a bar of it. So much for the defence of workers. It had nothing to do with that. It was all to do with being in the sway of the National Association of Forest Industries.

Senator Wong did not answer the question about the value of this legislation to the proposed Gunns pulp mill. The legislation is so enthusiastically being amended in a joint arrangement between the coalition and the government, but they are denying the amendments that Senator Milne put forward. About $20 million on the back of an envelope will pour to Gunns. That will squeeze out genuine renewables, as they feed native forests into the proposed furnace. There is more to come. That is why the government has set up a panel that includes the CEO of Gunns and the head of the union, who is on a $570 a day payment as an executive, to work out what other subsidies the Rudd government will give to this pulp mill before we get to the next election. That is another story.

A spin-off for Gunns—directly in its proposal—will be some $20 million plus a year. If the minister has different figures, she is welcome to come back with those. That will directly cut out true renewable energy and the jobs that go with it, by the way. That furnace will not create jobs but renewable energy will. It will destroy not just forests but jobs. I asked for the figures from the minister. She has not given them. We will get none from the coalition. I am giving those figures to this chamber. It is not my job to do that. I am giving those figures to the chamber because the Senate needs to be aware of what it is doing when it comes to the vote now at hand.

Question put:

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

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 5880 and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5885:

(1)   Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 22), after item 2C, insert:

2D  Subsection 5(1)

emerging renewable energy technology means a technology specified by the regulations to be an emerging renewable energy technology.

(2)    Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 3), after item 3M, insert:

3MA  Before section 18 in Subdivision A of Division 4 of Part 2

Insert:

17B  Application of Subdivision

                 This Subdivision does not apply to an accredited power station that generates electricity using an emerging renewable energy technology source.

Note:   Subdivision BC applies to an accredited power station that generates electricity using an emerging renewable energy technology source.

3MC  Subsection 18(1)

Omit “whole”, substitute “1.25”.

3MD  Subsection 18(1A)

Omit “whole MWh”, substitute “1.25 MWh quantity”.

3ME  Subsection 18(2)

Omit “1 MWh”, substitute “1.25 MWh”.

3MF  Subsection 18(2)

Omit “0.5 MWh”, substitute “0.625 MWh”.

(3)    Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 14), after item 3Q, insert:

3T  Subsection 22(1)

Omit “1 MWh”, substitute “1.25 MWh”.

(4)    Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 19), after item 5, insert:

5A  Section 23B

Omit “1 MWh”, substitute “1.25 MWh”.

(5)    Schedule 1, item 7, page 8 (line 9), omit “4 to 6”, substitute “4, 5 and 6”.

(6)    Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 10), after item 7, insert:

7AA  After Subdivision BB of Division 4 of Part 2

Insert:

Subdivision BC—Electricity generation using an emerging renewable energy technology source

23G  Application of Subdivision

                 This Subdivision applies to an accredited power station that generates electricity using an emerging renewable energy technology source.

Note:   Subdivision A applies to an accredited power station that generates electricity using an energy source other than an emerging renewable energy technology source.

23H  Creating certificates for additional renewable electricity

        (1)    The nominated person for an accredited power station that uses an emerging renewable energy technology source may create a certificate for each 0.75 MWh amount of electricity generated by the power station during a year.

        (2)    A certificate must not be created in respect of a 0.75 MWh amount of electricity generated partly in 1 year and partly in the following year.

        (3)    If the amount of electricity generated during a year by an accredited power station that uses an emerging renewable energy technology source is less than 0.75 MWh but greater than or equal to 0.375 MWh, the nominated person for the power station may create 1 certificate in respect of the electricity generated during the year.

        (4)    The amount of electricity generated by an accredited power station that uses an emerging renewable energy technology source is to be worked out in accordance with the regulations.

        (5)    Electricity is to be excluded from all calculations under this section:

             (a)    to the extent that the electricity was generated using any energy sources that are not emerging renewable energy technology sources; or

             (b)    to the extent that the electricity was generated during any period of suspension of the accreditation of the accredited power station under section 30D or 30E.

        (6)    The nominated person for an accredited power station that uses an emerging renewable energy technology source must not create any certificates during any period of suspension of the person’s registration under section 30 or 30A.

23I  When certificates may be created

                 A certificate may be created at any time after the generation of the final part of the electricity in relation to which it is created and before the end of the year after the year of generation.

Note:   For offences related to the creation of certificates, see section 24.

23J  Electricity generation return

        (1)    The nominated person for an accredited power station that uses an emerging renewable energy technology source must give an electricity generation return for a year to the Regulator on or before:

             (a)    14 February in the following year; or

             (b)    any later day allowed by the Regulator.

        (2)    The return must include details of:

             (a)    the amount of electricity generated by the power station during the year; and

             (b)    the amount of that electricity that was generated using an emerging renewable energy technology source; and

             (c)    the number of certificates created during the year in respect of the electricity generated by the power station using an emerging renewable energy technology source during the year; and

             (d)    the number of certificates created during the year in respect of any electricity generated by the power station using an emerging renewable energy technology source during the previous year; and

             (e)    any other information specified by the regulations.

23K  Amending electricity generation returns

        (1)    The Regulator may amend an electricity generation return if the nominated person for the accredited power station concerned requests, in writing, an amendment within 12 months of the return being given.

        (2)    The Regulator may also amend an electricity generation return on his or her own initiative if the amendment is made within 4 years of the return being given.

        (3)    If the Regulator refuses to amend an electricity generation return upon a request by a nominated person for an accredited power station, the Regulator must notify the person accordingly.

(1)    Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 22), after item 2C, insert:

2D  Subsection 5(1)

emerging renewable energy technology means a technology specified by the regulations to be an emerging renewable energy technology.

(2)    Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 13), after item 8D, insert:

8DA  Before section 155 in Part 16

Insert:

154A  Regulations to provide assistance to emerging renewable energy technologies

        (1)    The regulations must determine a scheme of assistance to be provided to emerging renewable energy technologies based on a provider’s capacity to meet criteria determined in the regulations to consistently provide baseload power.

        (2)    Regulations made for the purpose of subsection (1) must commence on or before 1 July 2012, which must be after the end of the disallowance period for the regulations (subject to section 42 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003).

        (3)    In this section:

disallowance period for regulations means the period:

             (a)    beginning on the earliest day on which the regulations are laid before a House of the Parliament in accordance with section 38 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003; and

             (b)    ending on the day on which 15 sitting days of each House of the Parliament have passed since the regulations were laid before the particular House of the Parliament.

Firstly, the amendments on sheet 5880 relate to providing additional RECs to be created for emerging renewable energy technologies. It is about sending a clear signal to those emerging technologies that can provide baseload power. If we want to wean ourselves off coal fired power generation, we need a transition plan for the future, and these emerging technologies are the way forward. For instance, instead of getting one REC for every one megawatt hour, emerging renewable energy technology will receive one REC for every 0.75 megawatt hour and existing technologies would require 1.25 megawatt hours. This would provide a weighting to encourage the growth of new energy technologies.

Amendments on sheet 5885 are a fallback position to sheet 5880, to ensure that the government has an obligation to put regulations in place to provide assistance to emerging renewable energy technologies. It is to acknowledge that those technologies which can provide reliable baseload power are required and that there must be different regulations in place to make the point that there are different signals in place for investment in those emerging technologies. It is also based on the capacity of these energy technologies to provide consistent baseload power and would commence from July 2012 on the basis that it is clear that 2010 would be too soon and that, with the advances in emerging renewable technology, 2012 would give enough time for the government to have regulations in place.

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

The coalition have enormous sympathy for what Senator Xenophon is attempting to achieve with these amendments, but, as Senator Abetz indicated previously, we are unfortunately in a position where we are not able to support them. That comes from a twofold perspective: firstly, there are some concerns about the detail of the amendments and the proposed banding approach that Senator Xenophon has taken; but, secondly, the coalition has, as indicated by Senator Abetz, negotiated a position and an outcome with the government.

We had of course sought to address ourselves in our own amendments to some of the issues that Senator Xenophon is attempting to address with these amendments. Amendments on sheet 5853, as proposed by the coalition but now withdrawn, had sought to achieve some of the same aims as Senator Xenophon. In my remarks in the second reading debate, I made a number of comments about the importance of the RET actually delivering baseload power and supporting the development of renewable energies with baseload power capacity within the target range.

We would hope that the government would be very mindful of this. We are disappointed that in our negotiations with the government they did not accept those amendments moved and proposed by the coalition. We achieved significant concessions from the government, and welcomed those, but we are disappointed that in this one area they did not accept the move by the opposition to preserve some 8,875 gigawatt hours out of the target of baseload capacity for emerging technologies. Those technologies, like solar thermal or solar concentrator energy, ocean thermal energy, tidal energy, biofuels, biopower or biomass and of course geothermal energy—all important ones that the coalition thought should be supported—deserved a particular band segment to ensure that, just as the initial renewable energy target when it was introduced by the coalition in government was about the development of technologies, in this expansion we would again encourage and incentivise the development of baseload technologies in particular.

This is the natural and necessary evolution within the renewable energy target. From a South Australian perspective, I note the great advances and potential of some of these baseload technologies in my home state—and the minister’s home state—especially those of the geothermal industry where we have, indeed, over 28 exploration licences.

I am not going to go into detail of all of those. Suffice to say that the opposition does take this matter seriously. We will be presenting a private member’s bill around the amendments that we had proposed. We will be presenting that at the earliest opportunity to try to preserve the potential for baseload energies in this regard. We would invite Senator Xenophon and the Greens to join with us in that and we hope that we can continue discussions with the government over the next few weeks in the same cooperative manner that we have on so many other issues, and that they will reconsider this issue and come up with a way to ensure that we can guarantee the potential for baseload power within the renewable energy target.

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

I just rise to indicate that the Greens will be supporting Senator Xenophon’s amendments here to try to get support for emerging technologies. I have heard some excuses in my time, but the fact of the matter is that the coalition were desperately concerned about emerging technologies until they got the deal with the government to favour the exemptions to the big polluters—to favour coal gas, to favour everything they wanted—and then they dropped their interest in emerging technologies and have now said that they will bring it on as a private member’s bill in the lower house, knowing full well that they do not have the numbers there.

It is clear, again, that the reason this was not dealt with in June was that the coalition were more concerned about getting the exemptions for the aluminium industry et cetera than they were about putting the renewable energy target through. So what we have just heard is a whole lot of excuses. But people who want to see those emerging technologies brought on are going to know that the deal between the government and the coalition means that there will be no incentive whatsoever in this legislation to bring on solar thermal, geothermal and wave technologies. Let us get that on the record and stop this doublespeak that is going on.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is just to indicate the government’s position on this. As I have indicated to Senator Xenophon, we will not be supporting either of these groups of amendments. I think that the government’s policy position on this has been clear all along. We are supporters of emerging technologies as well. The policy question in relation to this issue is not whether you think that geothermal and other emerging technologies are a good thing and we need to invest in them; the question is: what is the best mechanism?

We are of the view that we should have a renewable energy target that is not about picking winners but about driving the deployment of renewable energy. It is a very significant expansion of the target that is being proposed by the government. But we also say that you do need to ensure that this market incentive, this market mechanism of the renewable energy target, is complemented by significant direct support for the development, commercialisation and deployment of emerging renewable technologies.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, I will take that interjection because actually, yes, you might be surprised, it is the government who have been arguing for a market mechanism through the Carbon Pollution Production Scheme—obviously a market that is well regulated. We do think the renewable energy target needs to be complemented by significant direct support, as I said, for the development, commercialisation and deployment of emerging renewable technologies, including geothermal, and I would remind the chamber that the government have done this. We have a $4.5 billion Clean Energy Initiative, announced as part of the 2009-10 budget, which includes just over $1½ billion to support research and development of solar technologies and $465 million to establish the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy. The geothermal industry has, I am advised, received some $83 million in targeted grant support through government programs since the year 2000. Under this government, the geothermal drilling program, which is part of the Clean Energy Initiative, has seen $14 million in grants awarded in April this year, with $36 million remaining in the program. Applications under the second round of that program closed on 4 August. I also indicate that my colleague Minister Ferguson announced two successful projects under round 1, including $7 million each for the Limestone Coast project from Panax and MNGI’s Paralana project. It is also open to the geothermal industry to apply for grants to support demonstration of renewable energy technologies under the $300 million Renewable Energy Demonstration Program, which is also part of the Clean Energy Initiative.

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

I thank the minister for her response. In relation to Senator Birmingham, I take issue with his saying that my amendments on sheet 5880 are about banding. They are not about banding, technically, in the sense that the amendments are about giving incentives, as distinct from the coalition’s amendment, which has been withdrawn. That clearly was a banding amendment, and I was prepared to support that because I saw that as a way forward. I think there is a distinction between the two.

In relation to what the minister has said, it should not be about picking winners and I take her point. I guess my concern is that insofar as there has been a proliferation of wind energy, which is welcome, it does not provide consistent baseload power. In February this year, during a heatwave in South Australia, the reliability of wind turbines went down to three per cent. There is a concern that we will squeeze out emerging technologies such as geothermal, which will need very significant investment to get up and running, and that is my concern. Whilst this is not about picking winners, in a sense maybe we have already picked winners with the way that the RET has been structured, or the MRET scheme, in the context of wind energy. There has been a proliferation of wind energy, it is using up those RECs and the problem is that it may squeeze out emerging technologies, although I do take on board what the minister has said and I do note that the government does have a commitment for these emerging technologies.

I indicate that I will not request a division on these amendments. The opposition, the government and the Greens have indicated their positions and I know where people stand in relation to this.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for his mature engagement with these issues. Just briefly, I want to make the point that the modelling the government has undertaken or commissioned—and I appreciate this is only modelling—indicates that geothermal would take about 20 per cent of the renewable energy target in 2020. In terms of the other issue he raises, which is the potential for crowding out, I make the point that the government is proposing to review the renewable energy target in 2014, so those issues could be dealt with in that context.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, can I just confirm whether you want your amendments voted on together or separately?

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

Strictly speaking, they are separate notions, so let us have them separately.

The Temporary Chairman:

It is your call. So the first question is that Senator Xenophon’s amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 5880 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question now is that Senator Xenophon’s amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5885 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The Temporary Chairman:

Opposition amendment (1) on sheet 5869 has been withdrawn so the next series of amendments will be yours, Senator Xenophon.

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

by leave—I move my amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 5875:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 14), after item 2A, insert:

2AA  Subsection 5(1)

Insert:

air source heat pump water heater means a device that uses a vapour compression cycle incorporating a compressor, an evaporator that collects energy from the latent and sensible heat of the atmosphere and a condenser that delivers heat either directly or indirectly to a hot water storage container.

(2)    Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 14), after item 3Q, insert:

3R  At the end of subsection 21(3)

Add “which must not be before the actual date of installation”.

3S  At the end of section 21

Add:

        (4)    Certificates must only be created for the installation of an air source heat pump water heater having a volumetric capacity of not more than 700 litres.

(3)    Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 14), after item 3Q, insert:

3U  At the end of Subdivision B of Division 4 of Part 2

Add:

23AB  Regulations to phase out air source heat pump water heaters from scheme

        (1)    The regulations must provide for air source heat pump water heaters to be phased out of the scheme constituted by this Act by the end of 16 February 2010.

        (2)    For the purposes of subsection (1), the regulations must provide that each month the number of certificates that can be created for the installation of an air source heat pump water heater having a volumetric capacity of not more than 700 litres are proportionally reduced, so that no certificates can be created for such an installation after the end of 16 February 2010.

These amendments relate to what is clearly a rort. The amendments define air source heat pump water heaters, stop the RECs multiplier for commercial heat pump installations and introduce a six-month phase-out of air source heat pumps.

Amendment (1) inserts a definition for air source heat pump water heaters. The reason that this is important is that there can be some confusion as to the different types of water heating. A common form of water heating is solar hot water units. These units run water through a solar collector panel on a roof where the water is heated before being stored in a tank. Where there is not enough sunlight to heat all the water, either electric or gas powered boosters can be used. These units will not be impacted by this amendment. Another form of water heating is heat pumps. Broadly speaking, heat pumps use ambient energy to collate and deliver heat to water in a storage container through a condenser.

By contrast, air source heat pumps, as this definition indicates, use an air source evaporator which runs on electricity to collect both latent and sensible heat, as it is defined, to collect ambient energy. For the sake of clarity, ‘sensible heat’ refers to the heat that can be sensed or measured. Without a solar attachment this form of heat pump is little more than an inefficient electrical appliance which uses a refrigerator to create a differential that draws in heat from the atmosphere around it. It is this specific heat pump that is the target of the following amendments. The amendments make it clear that this is about closing a loophole. I think it ought to be acknowledged that this is not what the RET scheme should be about and that it has been rorted. The amendments, by the linking of the REC to the installation date, mirror other provisions for REC calculation in the bill and give some clarity and a time frame in which to phase out these heaters.

The amendments also relate to domestic heaters. My first preference is to get rid of all of these air source heat pump heaters but also to have an alternative amendment with respect to commercial heaters over 700 litres. I note that the coalition has expressed concern in relation to this as well, as has the government. My concern, based on the evidence that was given to the Senate committee hearing in relation to this recently, is that this has been the subject of considerable rorting and abuse. That is something that we ought to stop. There have been real problems with this, particularly in relation to commercial water heaters over 700 litres. In the evidence given to the Senate inquiry recently we heard that, for instance, it might cost $2½ million to install multiple units and there are RECs of double that amount. They are being installed by one particular installer, from the information that I have been given, simply for the purpose of rorting the RECs. That crowds out installers of other, genuine renewable forms of energy and prevents them from availing themselves of this scheme.

These pumps do not create energy. They use electricity to create hot water. They have been abused on a widespread basis. It is important that we act on this to get rid of the commercial pumps immediately, and that is what this amendment seeks to do. By way of context, my office was recently contacted by Dr Hugh Saddler, Adjunct Professor at ANU and Managing Director of the Sustainability Advice Team. His organisation was previously involved in modelling the energy efficiency performance of all water heaters, including heat pumps. He has expressed concern that the modelling that he did previously for the department of the environment, which used preliminary assumptions about heat pump performance, has been used as the basis for the continued inclusion of heat pumps in the RET. He is also concerned that the modelling used by the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator to calculate RECs entitlements for heat pumps compounds the problem of incorrect performance assumptions by using inappropriate climate assumptions. He believes that when modelling is carried out to take into account what is now known about the lower performance of heat pumps in cool climates, where the ambient temperature is lower—that is, where the appropriate climate data is used—it shows that heat pump water heaters are provided with far more RECs than their actual energy efficiency should allow. He suggests that the amount of energy purchased to meet the set demand for water heating varies greatly by city, time and season and that this should be factored into the REC calculations.

I have raised with the minister’s office what Dr Saddler has put forward, so I would be grateful if I could get a response from the government in relation to that. I would also like to know their attitude—and the opposition’s attitude, for that matter—towards what is clearly a rort in the system. The sooner we get rid of this rort, the more viable the renewable energy target will be.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure that Senator Xenophon was in the chamber when I indicated our attitude on the heat pumps issue. I did read into Hansard the government’s approach on this, including the flagging of regulations and the COAG review. I think senators in the chamber do share a concern about this aspect of the legislation—that is, the actual effect on the ground not being consistent with the policy outcome. I think people would share that view in relation to heat pumps. I have put that on the record, Senator. I am happy to take you through it again if you wish me to, but I think I did that earlier in the debate.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I briefly indicate that the opposition will not be supporting Senator Xenophon’s amendments. The opposition had similar concerns to Senator Xenophon’s. There is the potential—but I think that potential is also a reality for some—to use the scheme for purposes for which it was not intended. The government has indicated to us—

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

It’s called rorting.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I heard that in your introductory comments, Senator Xenophon, and I thought I would not go quite that far. The chances are that what you are saying is right. We saw that as a deficiency that needed to be addressed. We have been convinced by the government that, by way of regulation, the matter can be addressed. In those circumstances, we are willing to accept the government’s approach on this. I think that, in general terms, the issue of not achieving the desired policy outcomes—which Senator Xenophon calls rorting—will be addressed through the government’s mechanism, which we accept as workable and doable. We think it will achieve the policy outcomes that we believe are desirable in relation to the matters raised.

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

In my speech earlier today I referred to what a rort this is—to the point where some retailers are actually giving away these heaters for free because they benefit so much under the current rort that exists. That has to be stopped. This legislation is meant to be rolling out renewable energy, not allowing rorts, so I support the amendments that Senator Xenophon has moved.

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

I thank senators for indicating their position. Can the minister indicate the time frame in relation to this issue? She may be repeating herself, and I apologise for that. It may not be necessary for me to move the next amendment. Can she indicate what the time frame will be to deal with these issues? Finally, I did make reference to the work of Dr Hugh Saddler and the communication my office has had with him about the whole issue of modelling. Can she respond to that or at least take that on notice, because I think what Dr Saddler is saying about modelling ought to be used to ensure that we have a scheme that is robust. Taking into account climatic variations is important in the context of this particular part of the scheme.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the question is asking what proportion of the 20 per cent target under the government’s modelling would be taken up by heat pumps and solar hot water, I think I said previously that the modelling indicated five per cent. I also said that that is obviously impacted upon by what the parliament does around eligibility criteria and the design of the scheme. The COAG process that is dealing with this issue is due to report by the end of the year. I have indicated to the opposition and the chamber that the government proposes between now and then—in the near future—to have an interim measure to try to improve the integrity of this aspect of the scheme.

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

Further to what the minister has said, if those who are currently rorting or doing the wrong thing—and I think Senator Abetz acknowledges that there are real problems with the scheme—know that the writing is on the wall with respect to commercial pumps of over 700 litres then there could be massive orders or a massive push with that. Finally, Dr Saddler asked whether the modelling took into account the lower performance of heat pumps in cooler climates. Rather than delaying this committee stage, the minister could provide a response to that in due course.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that on notice, if I may.

Question negatived.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, do you wish to proceed with amendment (1) on sheet 5884?

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

Given what has transpired and Senator Wong’s comments, I will not proceed with amendment (1) on sheet 5884.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (12) on sheet 5816 revised:

(12)  Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 17), after item 7E, insert:

7F  After Part 3

Insert:

Part 3A—Acquisition of electricity from owners of qualifying generators

34A  Object of Part

                 The object of this Part is to support the commercialisation of a broad range of prospective renewable energy technologies by:

             (a)    providing specifically tailored support for a range of renewable energy technologies that are currently not adequately assisted by the mandatory renewable energy target;

             (b)    requiring electricity distributors to permit owners of both small and large scale qualifying generators to supply the electricity grid with electricity generated from selected renewable energy sources;

             (c)    providing a payment or a rebate to owners of qualifying generators after the commencement of this Part for the renewable electricity which they produce after the commencement of this Part from renewable energy sources;

             (d)    establishing an effective regime to monitor the extent of production of renewable electricity by owners of qualifying generators.

34B  Definitions

                 In this Part:

direct customer means a person or company who:

             (a)    is directly connected to an electricity distribution network other than by means of the distribution system of the electricity retailer; and

             (b)    satisfies other criteria (if any) prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition.

electricity distributor means:

             (a)    a company or other entity licensed for the distribution of electricity through an electricity network; and

             (b)    in relation to an electricity connection service for premises—a company or other entity licensed to provide the service for the premises.

electricity retailer means a company or other entity that supplies electricity to customers.

excluded network means an electricity distribution network that supplies electricity to less than 10,000 retail customers.

Feed-in-tariff rate scheme means the scheme established by section 34F.

kWh means kilowatt hour.

qualifying generator means a renewable energy electricity generator:

             (a)    that complies with the relevant Australian Standard; and

             (b)    that is connected to an electricity distribution network in a manner that allows electricity generated by the renewable energy electricity generator to be fed into the electricity distribution network, other than where the electricity distribution network is an excluded network; and

             (c)    that generates electricity from a source listed in subsection 17(1) as an eligible renewable energy source; and

             (d)    that forgoes participation in the mandatory renewable energy target scheme; and

             (e)    for which an application for registration has been made under section 34D after the commencement of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Act 2009.

quarter means a period of 3 months commencing on 1 January, 1 April, 1 July or 1 October of a year.

quarterly return means a return for a period of 3 months commencing on 1 January, 1 April, 1 July or 1 October of a year.

retail customer means a customer who:

             (a)    ordinarily acquires electricity primarily for domestic or business use; and

             (b)    is not a direct customer; and

             (c)    satisfies other criteria (if any) prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition.

34C  Feeding-in of electricity to grid by owners of qualifying generators

        (1)    Electricity distributors must, subject to compliance by the owner of a qualifying generator with any relevant technical, safety or other requirements imposed by or under this or any other Act or relevant instrument, connect the qualifying generator to the grid and permit the owner to feed into the grid electricity generated by the qualifying generator.

        (2)    Electricity retailers must:

             (a)    purchase, on application in the prescribed form by an owner of a qualifying generator connected to the grid under subsection (1), any electricity fed into the grid by that qualifying generator; and

             (b)    comply with any reporting requirements in this Act or that are prescribed in the regulations.

        (3)    Payment for electricity purchased by an electricity retailer under paragraph (2)(a) is to be made under section 34J or 34K, as the case may be.

        (4)    An owner of a qualifying generator who feeds into the grid under subsection (1) must install a meter, of a type prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection, to measure the total amount of renewable electricity energy generated by the qualifying generator.

34D  Registration of qualifying generators

                 The owner of a qualifying generator must apply in the prescribed form for registration of the qualifying generator in the Feed-in-Tariff Register established under section 34I.

34E  Eligibility for payment or rebate of feed-in-tariff rate

        (1)    The owner of a qualifying generator who feeds into the grid electricity generated by the qualifying generator is eligible to receive payments or rebates of the feed-in-tariff rate under section 34J or 34K, as the case may be, subject to:

             (a)    registration of the qualifying register under section 34D; and

             (b)    compliance with any relevant technical, safety or other requirements imposed by or under this or any other Act or relevant instrument.

        (2)    If a qualifying generator has been registered under section 34D and included in the Feed-in-Tariff Register established under section 34I and there is a change to the installed capacity of that qualifying generator, the owner of the qualifying generator must advise the Regulator, in the prescribed form, of the new installed capacity of the qualifying generator.

34F  Feed-in-tariff rate scheme

        (1)    The feed-in-tariff rate scheme is established by this section.

        (2)    The feed-in-tariff rate scheme is the payment under section 34J or the rebate under section 34K of an amount to the owner of a qualifying generator that is registered with the Regulator, calculated by reference to:

             (a)    the relevant feed-in-tariff rate set by the Minister under section 34G; and

             (b)    all the electricity produced by that qualifying generator, not just the electricity which is fed into the electricity grid.

34G  Feed-in-tariff rates

        (1)    The Minister must, within 28 days of the commencement of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Act 2009, set the feed-in-tariff rates for qualifying generators that are to be paid or rebated under the feed-in-tariff rate scheme in respect of a qualifying generator that is registered for the first time during the financial year in which that Act commences.

        (2)    The Minister must, by the end of each financial year:

             (a)    review the current feed-in-tariff rates for qualifying generators, taking into account the following factors:

                   (i)    the prospect of the technology reliably producing competitively priced electricity by the end of the calendar year 2020; and

                  (ii)    the environmental cost or impact of the technology; and

             (b)    set the feed-in-tariff rates for qualifying generators that are to be paid or rebated under the feed-in-tariff rate scheme in respect of a qualifying generator that is registered for the first time during the following financial year.

        (3)    In setting the feed-in-tariff rates under subsection (1) or (2), the Minister may take into account:

             (a)    any Commonwealth, State or Territory government payments or rebates already made or received in respect of a qualifying generator; and

             (b)    the type of renewable energy technology used by the qualifying generator; and

             (c)    the location of a qualifying generator; and

             (d)    the installed capacity of a qualifying generator.

        (4)    If the Minister has set the feed-in-tariff rates that are to apply for a financial year, the Minister must not vary those rates during that financial year.

        (5)    In setting the feed-in-tariff rates under subsection (2) that are to apply for the following financial year, the Minister may increase, vis-à-vis the current financial year feed-in-tariff rates, a feed-in-tariff rate that is to apply during that following financial year.

        (6)    Subject to section 34E, the relevant feed-in-tariff rate is payable or rebateable to an owner of a qualifying generator for each kWh of electricity generated by the qualifying generator during a billing period.

        (7)    In setting the feed-in-tariff rates under subsection (1) or (2), the primary objective of the Minister is to support the economic viability of a range of prospective renewable energy technologies.

        (8)    If the Minister reduces a feed-in-tariff rate, the reduction must not be more than 5% of the rate that applied before the reduction.

        (9)    A feed-in-tariff rate set under subsection (1) or (2) and payable or rebateable to the owner of a qualifying generator at the date of the registration of the qualifying generator is fixed and guaranteed for a period of 20 years from the date of that registration. That period of 20 years does not restart if the installed capacity of that qualifying generator is increased at any time.

      (10)    The Minister must provide a statement explaining how the feed-in-tariff rates are calculated and must table that statement in both Houses of Parliament within 15 sitting days after the end of each financial year.

      (11)    The feed-in-tariff rates set under subsections (1) and (2) are legislative instruments for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

34H  Feed-in-tariff levy rate

        (1)    The Minister must, within 28 days of the commencement of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Act 2009, set the feed-in-tariff levy rate per MWh of electricity acquired from the electricity grid, to fund payments under the feed-in-tariff rate scheme in section 34H for that financial year. The feed-in-tariff levy is to be imposed by the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Feed-in-Tariff Levy Act 2009.

        (2)    The Minister must, by the end of each financial year, set a feed-in-tariff levy rate per MWh of electricity acquired from the electricity grid, to fund payments under the feed-in-tariff rate scheme in section 34H for the following financial year. The feed-in-tariff levy is to be imposed by the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Feed-in-Tariff Levy Act 2009.

        (3)    The Minister must ensure that the feed-in-tariff levy rate set under subsection (1) or (2) is sufficient to cover the estimated cost of payments under the feed-in-tariff rate scheme under section 34J.

        (4)    The feed-in-tariff levy is payable by all electricity retailers and direct customers, calculated by reference to the amount of electricity acquired by an electricity retailer or a direct customer, as the case may be, as set out in its annual energy acquisition statement lodged under section 44.

Note:   The annual energy acquisition statement is used to calculate the renewable energy shortfall charge of an electricity retailer or a direct customer (a liable entity). The same statement is to be used to calculate the amount of the feed-in-tariff levy.

        (5)    The Minister must provide a statement explaining how the feed-in-tariff levy rate is calculated and must table that statement in both Houses of Parliament within 5 sitting days after:

             (a)    in the case of the levy rate set under subsection (1)—setting the rate; or

             (b)    in the case of a levy rate set under subsection (2)—the end of each preceding financial year.

        (6)    The feed-in-tariff levy rates set under subsections (1) and (2) are legislative instruments for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

34I  Establishment of a Feed-in-Tariff Register

        (1)    The Regulator must establish a register to be known as the Feed-in-Tariff Register (the Register).

        (2)    The Regulator must record in the Register:

             (a)    details of all qualifying generators for which an application for registration has been made under section 34D, including the name and address of the owner of the qualifying generator, the date of registration of the qualifying generator, the type of renewable energy technology used by the qualifying generator and the installed capacity of the qualifying generator; and

             (b)    in the case of a qualifying generator with an installed capacity equal to or greater than 1MW, the total amount of electricity produced each quarter by that qualifying generator, as notified in the quarterly return lodged under subsection 34J(1); and

             (c)    the feed-in-tariff rate to be paid to the owner of a qualifying generator and the period for which the feed-in-tariff rate will be paid; and

             (d)    if there is any change to the installed capacity of a qualifying generator, the new installed capacity of the qualifying generator.

        (3)    The Regulator must provide details of the amount of total payments made under the feed-in-tariff scheme under subsection 34J(2) for inclusion in a report prepared under subsection 34L(1).

34J  Feed-in-tariff rate payments—installed capacity equal to or greater than 1MW

        (1)    The owner of a qualifying generator with an installed capacity equal to or greater than 1MW must lodge with the Regulator within 15 days after the end of each quarter that ends after the date of registration of the qualifying generator a quarterly return in the prescribed form indicating the metered electricity produced by the qualifying generator in respect of that quarter.

        (2)    The Regulator must make a payment, calculated in accordance with the feed-in-tariff rate, to the owner of a qualifying generator within 30 days of receiving from the owner a quarterly return under subsection (1).

        (3)    Payments under subsection (2) are to be made from money appropriated by the Parliament for that purpose.

34K  Feed-in-tariff rate rebates—installed capacity of less than 1MW

        (1)    The owner of a qualifying generator with an installed capacity of less than 1MW is entitled to payment for electricity purchased by an electricity retailer under paragraph 34C(2)(a), in the form of a rebate against charges payable by the owner for the supply of electricity by the electricity retailer to the owner.

        (2)    An electricity retailer must read a meter installed under subsection 34C(4) by the owner of a qualifying generator at the same time as the electricity retailer reads the meter for the supply of electricity to the owner.

        (3)    The rebate under subsection (1) must be calculated in accordance with the feed-in-tariff rate, and credited to the account of the owner of the qualifying generator for a billing period on the same day as any charge for the supply of electricity is debited against the account for the billing period and before the account for the billing period is sent to the owner of the qualifying generator.

        (4)    If the whole of an amount to be credited to the owner of a qualifying generator under subsection (3) in a particular billing period has not been set-off against the charges payable by the owner for the supply of electricity by the expiration of 12 months after the end of that billing period, the owner is entitled to the payment of the outstanding balance.

34L  Review of operation of Part

        (1)    The Minister must cause to be prepared an independent report on the operation of this Part for the period beginning on the date of the commencement of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Act 2009 and ending on the next 30 June after that date, and for each subsequent 12 month period ending on 30 June in a later year.

        (2)    If the day on which the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Act 2009 commences is on or after 1 January in a year, the report prepared under subsection (1) in relation to the period from that day to 30 June in that year must be included in and presented with the report prepared under subsection (1) for the year beginning on 1 July next following the commencement of this Act.

        (3)    The Minister must cause a copy of a report prepared under subsection (1) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days of that House after the day on which he or she receives the report.

        (4)    A report prepared under subsection (1) must include:

             (a)    details of total renewable energy produced from each source listed in section 17; and

             (b)    total payments made under the feed-in-tariff rate scheme under section 34J; and

             (c)    total amounts of feed-in-tariff levies received under the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Feed-in-Tariff Levy Act 2009.

The Greens also oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:

(7)    Schedule 1, items 4 to 7, page 7 (line 15) to page 8 (line 10), items TO BE OPPOSED.

Senator Milne has been proposing a national feed-in tariff for a long time now. This is something that has worked extraordinarily well in Germany. Here is an opportunity for the government and the opposition to support the proposal, but I am not holding my breath. The great value in this can be seen with the much lauded pig farmer in Germany who got rid of his pigs and put solar panels on his two hectares. Because of the feed-in tariff he sat on the veranda watching the money come in and did much better than he did with his pigs.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What happened to the people who wanted to buy bacon?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell wonders about people who want to buy bacon. If he went to Germany, he would very likely find that the bacon is processed with renewable energy, so you can feel good about having your bacon without having so much of an impact on the planet, although my friends in the vegetarian movement say that, if you stop eating bacon, there will be a double advantage for the planet.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And your health.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert reminds me, ‘And for your health,’ too. We have seen the statistics for cancer if one has too much bacon for breakfast, particularly with coffee.

Let us get back to this serious proposal. It is a fundamental part of the reason that Germany has the biggest renewable energy industry in the world—and it may be overtaken by China shortly—with some 250,000 people employed and a multibillion dollar income from the export of renewable energy and other technologies to the rest of the world. It is a much better system than the multiplier proposal that is in this legislation. It deserves to be taken up. This is the opportunity for the big parties to consider that. The issue has been discussed before at large, with Senator Milne displaying her usual panache and second-to-none knowledge in this area. I propose that this amendment be adopted.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have previously indicated to Senator Milne that we cannot support this amendment. In general, there are two different policy alternatives: the feed-in tariff and the renewable energy target. The government chose before the last election to go to the Australian people with a renewable energy target rather than a feed-in tariff. I have previously indicated our views to the good senator.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of the feed-in tariff is that it stimulates the renewable energy sector. I wonder if the minister could tell the chamber whether the government has taken a feed-in tariff off its policy agenda, which is what that sounded like to me.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps not.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will put the question again: Minister, is a feed-in tariff not on the policy agenda of the government?

The Temporary Chairman:

Senator Brown, I cannot call you a third time.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is true. With this deafening silence, I will leave the chamber to make up its own mind.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that items 4 to 7 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question now is that Greens amendment (12) be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (8) and (14) on sheet 5816 revised, together:

(8)    Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (lines 1 to 3), omit subsection 23B(3), substitute:

        (3)    However, the regulations may provide for a number of certificates to be multiplied only if the certificates relate to:

             (a)    in the case of a small generation unit whose energy source is hydro—the first 10kW of the rated power output of the unit;

             (b)    in the case of a small generation unit whose energy source is wind—the first 10kW of the rated power output of the unit;

             (c)    in the case of a small generation unit whose energy source is solar (photovoltaic)—the total rated power output of the unit.

(14)  Schedule 1, page 10 (before line 1), after item 8, insert:

8AA  After section 40

Insert:

40A  Required GWh of renewable source electricity for 2011 to 2016

        (1)    The required GWh of renewable source electricity in section 40 for the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 must be increased as specified in a declaration made under subsection (3).

        (2)    The Regulator must, by the 30 September next after each period specified in column 1 in subsection 23B(2) (a relevant column 1 period), calculate the number of certificates created in accordance with the regulations as mentioned in subsection 23B(2) and publish the result of that calculation on the Internet.

        (3)    The Regulator must, within 15 days of complying with subsection (2), make a declaration increasing the required GWh of renewable source electricity in section 40 for the following year to offset the certificates created in accordance with the regulations as mentioned in subsection 23B(2) for the relevant column 1 period.

        (4)    A declaration made under subsection (3) is not a legislative instrument.

The purpose of this is to remove the 1.5-kilowatt cap and replace it with a 10-kilowatt cap. The reason for that is, for example, if you have a remote community who are not connected to the grid and want to build a facility of more than 1.5 kilowatts, they are not going to get the benefit under this system for the whole of their scheme. The cap should be lifted to 10 kilowatts so that, by inadvertence, the government and opposition do not legislate such very worthy communities out of the full benefit of this legislation.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Brown, can I confirm that you are speaking to sheet 5816 revised?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am speaking to amendments (8) and (14).

The Temporary Chairman:

Yes, on sheet 5816 revised?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is correct.

The Temporary Chairman:

That is correct. Please proceed.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to hear from the government and/or the opposition as to what their objection to that proposal is.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Temporary Chairman, and I appreciate that perhaps I have it wrong, but I think sheet 5816 revised deals with the required number of gigawatt hours and, essentially, making it a total proportion of energy as opposed to gigawatt hours. But I appreciate that Senator Bob Brown is obviously handling this debate in the absence of Senator Milne so I propose to respond on both amendments.

In relation to the first amendment on sheet 5816 revised, I have indicated to Senator Milne that I am prepared to read into Hansard certain words that deal with one aspect of her concerns—I do not pretend that it deals with all of them—and that is in relation to the 2014 review. The 2014 review will examine the likely effectiveness of the renewable energy target legislation in supporting deployment of renewable energy equivalent to 20 per cent of electricity demand by 2020. This would include consideration of actual deployment at that time, updated projections of renewable generation deployment and electricity demand, and any necessary adjustment to the target expressed in gigawatt hours. That was the government’s response to the amendments (8) and (14) on sheet 5816 revised.

In relation to the amendments on sheet 5887, the contents of which I think Senator Brown was referring to, can I say that this was raised with us this morning by Senator Milne. There is some merit in the matters raised by the Greens on this issue. I would like to indicate that we are prepared, as the government, to consider introducing a measure for off-grid power systems. We do think, after considering this issue in recent hours, that there are a range of policy issues which would merit full consideration of this matter before being put to parliament. We propose to refer this issue to the COAG review of small-scale technologies which can consider the desirability, the measure, and information on the extent to which this benefits remote communities including, in particular, Indigenous communities.

The review would take into account the experience with the renewable remote power generation program. It would also assess whether some of the parameters of that program are still relevant. For example, there are issues relating to the definition of remoteness from the grid, the costs of connection and the costs of both small-scale renewable technologies and other power generation technologies. The government would need to ensure that the level of any assistance contemplated is commensurate with contemporary and likely future trends in key costs. Finally, the review would need to consider the implications for the renewable energy target as a whole consistent with its focus on other small-scale technologies.

So, as I said, we think there is some merit in the policy issues raised. We would like to consider some of the issues I have raised more closely in a measured and timely manner, and I have indicated to the chamber that we propose to look at this through the COAG review process.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that response. I have a little bit of difficulty with the use in the same sentence of ‘measured and timely’ and ‘COAG’ because COAG, as we know, is a lowest common denominator outcome where the eight or nine governments of the Commonwealth get together and whoever holds back prevents an agreement. With that in mind I ask the minister: has the rest of this legislation gone through COAG and, if it has, can the minister give some measure of assurance that this part of the legislation will go through the next appropriate COAG meeting? In short, I would like to know whether the minister anticipates having legislation which reflects the intent of this good amendment available, if it is found to be acceptable in the way we both think it is, this year.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, it is a pity that you have not been part of the discussions. The COAG review is scheduled to report at the end of the year and, yes, this legislation did go through COAG. The policy parameters went through COAG and were announced in April of this year.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, the policy parameters do not exclude this amendment by the Greens. I am wondering why the minister is singling out an amendment from the Greens—it has accepted a whole tranche of amendments from the coalition today—when it obviously has merit. If there is a problem with it down the line, we all know that that can be fixed up. I am concerned that this is going on to the never-never. The minister has made no real commitment to getting back to the chamber with a determination on this matter, and I would like to know whether we can get an agreement that that will happen this year.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There does not appear to be a response to that, Senator Brown, so I will put your amendments (8) and (14).

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know it is late in the proceedings, but there should be a response to that. This is a chamber discussing important matters, and silence on a simple question about the timetabling of an important amendment, which the minister sees merit in, is not satisfactory. I am not going to press the issue. If that is the way it is going with the minister, so be it. But it is not satisfactory as a response from a minister in a chamber discussing issues like this. Communities across this country would want to have the certainty of the outcome which this amendment provides, but which they will not have. Some certainty could have been provided by the minister in a spirit of goodwill, but there you go.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move Australian Green amendments (8A) and (8B) on sheet 5887 revised:

(8A) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (line 1), after “However,”, insert “subject to subsection (3A),”.

(8B) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (after line 3), after subsection 23B(3), insert:

     (3A)    However, in the case of an off-grid small generation unit, the regulations must provide for a number of certificates to be multiplied in relation to the first 20kW of the rated power output of the unit.

      (3B)    In subsection (3A):

off-grid small generation unit means:

             (a)    a small generation unit at least 1 kilometre from the nearest main-grid line; or

             (b)    in the case of a small generation unit less than 1 kilometre from a main-grid line—the owner has provided written evidence from the local network service provider that the total cost of connecting the unit to the main-grid is more than $30,000, making it uneconomic to connect the unit to the main-grid.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendment (10) and (15) on sheet 5816 revised:

(10)  Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 10), after item 7, insert:

7AB  At the end of Division 4 of Part 2

Add:

Subdivision D—Period of validity of certificates

24A  Period of validity of certificates

                 A certificate created in accordance with this Division is a valid certificate for the period ending 4 years from the date of its creation.

(15)  Schedule 1, page 10 (before line 1), after item 8, insert:

8AB  Section 45

Before “A certificate”, insert “(1)”.

8AC  At the end of section 45

Add:

        (2)    For the purpose of paragraph (1)(a), a certificate is a valid certificate for the period ending 4 years from the date of its creation.

These amendments limit the banking of the RETs to four years. The outcome of this amendment would be to smooth out the boom-bust potential in the system as it is before the chamber. We are not going to die in a ditch over this, but it would give more stability to the system were it to be accepted.

Question negatived.

I move Australian Greens amendment (13) on sheet 5816 revised:

(13)  Schedule 1, item 8, page 9 (line 18) to page 10 (before line 1), omit the item, substitute:

8  Section 40

Repeal the section, substitute:

40  Required GWh of renewable source electricity

        (1)    The required GWh of renewable source electricity for the years 2001 to 2009 is set out in the following table:

        (2)    The required GWh of renewable source electricity for the years 2010 to 2030 is set out in the following table:

        (3)    The Minister by 30 September each year must cause to be prepared and tabled a report estimating for subsequent years the GWh of renewable source electricity to which the percentage targets in subsection (2) are likely to equate.

        (4)    The Minister must review and increase the target specified in subsection (2) for a year if the value of a renewable energy certificate is below $40 for more than 6 months.

This is an important amendment, and this is certainly one that will show the space between the Greens and the two older parties. The amendment reviews the target and it effectively increases the target to 30 per cent of renewable energy to be delivered by 2020.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell interjecting—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear Senator Boswell laughing about that. I do not know why. I did see one figure of 28,000 jobs being created by the 20 per cent figure—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What nonsense!

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell says ‘nonsense’ to that. That is his attitude and the National Party’s attitude to the creation of jobs—mostly in rural and regional Australia, I might add. By adopting this amendment, you could guarantee another 10,000-plus jobs being created in Australia and the internal competition between the different renewable energy options being somewhat relieved.

The minister has added to her 20 per cent target the advantageous gases coming from coalmining to be used to produce energy. But a much wiser proposition here is to have Australia catch up a little bit with the rest of the world. Our targets are way behind those for renewable energy in countries like Austria, Denmark, Norway and a whole range of other European countries, and New Zealand. This is simply going some way towards giving the renewable energy industry the boost that it deserves to get.

The opposition to that is the coal based industries. I used that figure of 28,000 as a potential outcome from the renewable energy industry coming from this legislation, but it can be much bigger. Using 2007 figures, that is the equivalent of the jobs held by the whole of the coalmining industry in Australia. But we are not talking about replacing them; we are giving them alternatives here—including to many of them in rural and regional Australia—to an industry which is going to see job shedding in the coming decades simply because the world is turning away from coal. It is a very important difference you see here between the Greens and the coalition and the Labor Party.

This amendment would set this country on the road to renewable energy much faster. This amendment of itself would stimulate research and development as well as stimulate the manufacturing, the deployment and the maintenance of renewable energies right across this country. There would be a multi-thousand-dollar spin-off from it. It would inevitably increase our export industries, because they go hand in hand with the domestic research, development and production of renewable energy in this country. We think it is still a very conservative target for a nation like ours. The whole driver of this is climate change.

I reiterate to the chamber the point of view of global economists like Sir Nicholas Stern that countries which take a lead in environmental technology will be those with the strongest economies in the coming decades. The target, as it is in this government’s legislation, leaves us way behind other countries. This amendment is the Greens modestly increasing that target to see that we go somewhere towards matching the rest of the world. It is basic.

Senator Wong has been talking about what the government took to the last election. The Greens took much stronger proposals for a green new deal, if you like, to the last election, and we will be going to the next election with updated proposals to put the Australian economy in the forefront of this new age of green technology—the greening of manufacturing and the greening of whole economies. We are lagging way behind that under this government, as we did under the last government. The Greens are a stimulus to achieving that and here is a legislative opportunity to help Australia move into an age of reaping the benefits of environmental technology, not least through small business. This is a gift to small Australian enterprises—putting money as well as clean energy into local communities and creating jobs in local communities. I commend the amendment to the chamber.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just briefly on behalf of the coalition, we oppose the amendment. As I indicated during my second reading contribution, the coalition has a proud record of having introduced the renewable energy electricity legislation into this country. We believe that renewable energy targets need to be set in a staged, safe and sustainable manner. We are now debating moving the renewable energy target to 20 per cent. We support that. The Greens are saying, ‘Let’s just increase it to 30 per cent.’ That would be a 50 per cent increase above and beyond that which would be proposed.

The reason that we say that we need to move on these things on a safe, steady and sustainable basis is that we do know that the cost of renewable energy is more expensive than that obtained from coal and other sources. Those other sources, unfortunately, do have more of an environmental impact. That is why we see the benefit in moving to renewable energy. But, in doing so, we have to make sure that our industries such as aluminium, cement, pulp and paper and food manufacturing do not move offshore because their capacity to compete is so dented by the cost of energy that they cannot compete anymore. So, whilst the Greens like to use the mantra that we support the big polluters, the Greens do have to wake up and realise that, if the price of power increases by dint of increasing the renewable energy targets to such an extent that industries can no longer compete on a global scale, they will remove themselves from Australia. They will then be in China, Brazil, Russia, India and all the other countries that do not have the environmental standards that we do.

There is the zinc industry, for example, in my home state of Tasmania. If my figures are correct, Nyrstar produces a tonne of zinc for about two tonnes of CO2 equivalent. In China, that same tonne of zinc is produced courtesy of six tonnes or three times as much CO2 equivalent pollution being produced. So, when the Greens say that we support the heavy polluters, what they are in fact saying is that they would not mind seeing the closure of these manufacturing plants in Australia and the pollution being put offshore into facilities that would pollute even more than they do in Australia. In those circumstances, the world environment would be worse off and our economy would be mud. That is why we have always said that these renewable energy targets need to be done on a staged basis. The Howard government has a proud record of having introduced the renewable energy target. We see that it is now time to move on to increase it on the basis of a staged evolution that is economically sustainable and, of course, will ensure that the world environment is not adversely damaged.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened very carefully to Senator Brown, and when I realised that he was prepared to move an amendment to increase the RET from 20 per cent to 30 per cent, it sent shivers down my spine. I think it is time that people actually understood how this system works: a megawatt hour of gas costs about $50 to produce; a megawatt hour from a photovoltaic cell costs $200; and a megawatt hour from wind costs $100. So, to make renewable power work, it has to have a huge subsidy, a subsidy of somewhere around $50, $60, $70. Who pays that? Not Senator Brown. Not the Greens. It will be the hospitals that will have to find another $2.7 million to cover their rent. It will be the industries that do not quite get to the break-even point with electricity. It will be the Murray Goulburn dairy companies. It will be the abattoirs in rural and regional Australia. This is not a gift; this is not just a windmill pumping wind that is cheap. It costs a lot of money. And when that money has to be paid by people who produce jobs, people who actually employ, people who have to compete against imported products—or even exported products, if they want to export—it kills their advantage. There is no such thing as free renewable power. It is very expensive. And it does not actually do anything, or much, to get rid of the CO2.

The Productivity Commission has never been a friend of the National Party. We call it ‘Dr No’. Australia’s leading research body, the Productivity Commission, says RET schemes would ‘not achieve any additional abatement but impose additional costs’ and would ‘most likely lead to higher electricity prices’. It also says they would encourage a new corrosion of politics by signalling ‘that lobbying for government support for certain technologies and industries over others could be successful’. That is the Productivity Commission. So, Senator Brown, don’t come in here and say you can create jobs by putting the cost of manufacturing up in Australia. Yes, you can create jobs—but, for every job you will create, you will lose jobs. Australia’s great advantage is cheap energy. That is why we employ people: because we have cheap energy. We have primary industries, we have cheap energy and we have mining. Those are three of our natural advantages. Putting the price of power up is going to take one of those advantages away. It is also going to impact on mining and it will certainly impact on primary industry. So, to all those people who think that green power is a wonderful thing, I say: yes, it gets rid of a bit of CO2—there is no question about that—but, by gee, it is an expensive way to do it. Any idea of putting this up to 30 per cent is quite bizarre. I am surprised that you would even go down that track.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must respond to that little piece of last century. The world is facing catastrophic climate change because of that thinking. In the last year, on the best estimates that are available—and, if Senator Boswell has better estimates, I would like to hear them—the impact of climate change on the globe was measured in many billions of dollars and 300,000 people losing their lives. I think that is a very modest estimate. I ask Senator Boswell: what is the cost of that? It seems to me that the National Party is stuck in this mindset that everything comes from the largesse of the coal industry and the logging industry.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell interjecting—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell calls the coal industry a primary industry. You see, the problem is that the National Party has lost its way. Once upon a time it was the agricultural industries that were primary industries—the food producers and the fibre producers, the people on the land who provided the food, sustenance and shelter for the people in the cities. That is the view the Greens still take. It is a view that is undermined by this persistent and full-on support of the coal industry and its subsidies, come what may.

Let me explain a little bit more about that to the chamber. Firstly, about 75 per cent of the coal industry’s profits flow overseas, because it is largely overseas owned. Some National Party—to be putting that up against the rural producers in this country. The second thing, as I said earlier, is that it employs some 28,000 people, but the rural industries employ hundreds of thousands of people. If you look at the Garnaut report, just on the Murray-Darling Basin, and the impact of climate change coming down the line, 128,000 jobs are at risk there. A report just a week ago pointed to the Great Barrier Reef, where there are 63,000 jobs at risk, and the potential, if we do not act on climate change, of some $38 billion being taken out of the wellbeing of the Queensland economic base. The National Party will put the coalmining industry—foreign owned, with its profits flowing out of this country, massively subsidised—in front of the industries based on the Great Barrier Reef and the rural industries. Here is the problem: you cannot have it both ways. I for one am not going to allow that double-handedness of a National Party that has lost its way trying to have it both ways. Senator Boswell has said, ‘Well, you will have to subsidise this renewable energy industry.’ The question is: what about the fossil fuel industry?

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell interjecting—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the National Party has alternative figures, put them before the Senate. But on best estimates there is $9,500,000,000 in subsidies in this country, from state and federal governments—largely Labor governments, but it has been built up under coalition governments in the past as well. That is money being drained out of the economy to put into the pockets of those who are promoting not just the burning of fossil fuel, in this day and age—and I know our economy has been based on that—but the expansion of that. That is what the National Party, and indeed the Labor Party, are in favour of, with billions of dollars more set aside. This is in direct subsidies through infrastructure spending coming up in the future. What for? For coal-loading facilities to expand and accelerate the digging up and export of coal from Australia to be burnt elsewhere on the planet, not least Japan and China, and to put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. For what purpose? To line the pockets of these big multinational corporations that are largely owned outside this country.

If Senator Boswell or any of his National Party colleagues want a debate on this, they can name the time, the place and the adjudicator and I will be there to debate it. We have last century thinking getting in the way of this century innovation. Other countries are way ahead of us with their renewable energy targets. The Greens say 35 per cent. Austria—and there is a big hydro component to this—is up over 80 per cent. Denmark is aiming for much more than half of its energy economy to be based on renewable energy. The argument has come from the National Party and its Liberal Party colleagues—and a lot of Labor Party members as well—that we cannot progress to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country before the rest of the world does it. This is the China syndrome: ‘Until China does it, we won’t.’ But other countries around the world, including China, are way ahead of us in moving to renewable energy.

Then we hear from Senator Boswell that we should stay behind because we will get the advantage of cheap, subsidised—and taxpayers pay for those subsidies—coal-burning industries in Australia. We have just had the debate about burning forests, which is highly subsidised by the taxpayer under the Rudd government as well. It is time that they were taken on about this. And we will take them on about this, and we will do it around this country. What is happening here is that we are supporting the fossil-fuel-burning industries to expand and supporting the logging industry to start burning native forests at Eden, in the Tamar Valley and elsewhere in this country. This will rip away the high job-creating potential of the clean, green economy of the future.

It is very sad indeed that the best that the Labor government could do today was to cave into the coalition to give these big polluters another windfall. That is effectively what has happened with the agreement made today between the coalition and the opposition. They have lined up again. Who is the beneficiary? Is it the Australian public? Not on your life. Is it small business? No, it is not. This arrangement made today will line the pockets of the big polluters. That is what the outcome will be. And Senator Boswell comes in here—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell interjecting—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I welcome him here, as he says, ‘How dare Senator Brown come in here.’ You are welcome in here as far as I am concerned, Senator Boswell. The more you want to debate this, the more that I will take you on, because you are wrong, outdated and backing the wrong horses. We back the Australian people, a new economy, a green new deal, jobs into the future and a much healthier economy instead of the old fossilised industries, which are largely overseas owned, that the National Party is backing.

Let me put this other statistic in as a challenge to The Nationals or indeed anybody else in this chamber: it is expected by global forecasters that we will increase our individual wealth by 200 to 300 per cent by mid century. If we were to tackle climate change as if it mattered and so that we were world’s best practice instead of mediocre or world’s worst practice, it would knock a per cent or two off that. If you take all the current parameters, it is not going to materially change the wellbeing of our economy by mid century. What does change is that you give security to the planet. What does change is that you give people the feeling that they are in an age in which we are not continually drawing on the limited capital of this planet, its atmosphere, its natural resources and its oceans—all of which are threatened by failure to act. What we will have here tonight if this amendment goes down will be a studied failure to act by people in the government and on the opposition benches in the Senate.

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

Obviously, I have to respond to that. The Greens always come up with this Calamity Jane type of politics: the world is going to end and therefore that becomes the excuse for everything else to be set aside. Australia would be in no position in the world to propose anything if we had our backside hanging out of our pants. If we were broke and if no-one had a job, there would not be much point standing on a pulpit then. That would quite obviously be a great recommendation that your position was without note.

Senator Brown talks about catastrophic global warming. There seems to be some sort of idea that there is a nexus here and that something we do here in this chamber is going to change that. First of all, I have to put on the record that I have serious doubt about our ability to change the climate. What we must do on the way through is nurse our economy so that it is still there at the end for us.

They always come up with the same hoary chestnuts. They talk about the National Party, the Liberal Party and the coalition running scare tactics. But the obvious one that gets dragged out is that the Great Barrier Reef is going to perish. I do not pretend to be an oceanographer, but I know people who are. I refer to Dr Peter Ridd, who is the oceanographer from James Cook University. He did the thesis on it, not me. He says that this is rubbish and that the Great Barrier Reef is far more robust than the Greens want to give it credit for. I think that he knows more than we do, sorry; I think that he does. That issue has to be taken on board.

Then we have the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. If carbon is pollution, then rainforests are rubbish. I do not think that carbon is pollution. Carbon is a substance. If carbon was pollution, then I have big problems. One of the interests that I have in common with Senator Brown is an interest in botany. I remember the Wollemi pine, Wollemia nobilis. One of the reasons that is given for the abundance of life that was apparent at the point in time when that pine was common was supersaturation of carbon—1,000 to 1,500 parts per million. Looking at the Antarctic, we had the development of animals with the capacity to deal with long nights and long days. The botany was of that form as well.

I am just premising this because the amendments and the propositions that Senator Brown puts forward work on the core argument that more carbon is bad. The world has been through times when there was vastly more carbon in the atmosphere than there is now and a short period of time when there has been less. We cannot just destroy the Australian manufacturing industry and believe that we will have anything to offer the world other than a great reason not to have more environmentally sensitive purposes.

I think one of the good things about renewable energy targets is that they start breeding efficiency. I wish that we had biofuels and other things like that involved in this. With forests, I think it is absolutely essential that we do not just take the logs and waste the rest of the trees. If we have the capacity to use what is lying around, that is good. Senator Brown draws this connection between the National Party and the coal industry. I do not think—and neither does anyone else in the National Party—that coal should be used in prime agricultural land, but I am not going to flush Australia’s major export down the toilet. That should not just be the position of the National Party. It should be the position of the National Party, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. It is Australian working families who are one of the greatest beneficiaries of the coal industry. For the life of me, I have never seen any constructive, economic presentation of facts that shows us how we are going to progress the Australian economy away from the coal industry. We get lots of hyperbole and statements about glowing horizons of wonderment of where Australia may end up. I know where we will end up if we completely disarticulate the main export earner and the main income earner for our nation. We will end up broke. That is not clever.

I suppose the National Party has to be cognisant of the economic reality we live in. We rely on the money that comes into this nation from export sources. Our main export source is the coal industry. It would stand to reason, therefore, that we would be supporting the coal industry, being one of the biggest employers in regional areas. We do not support it absolutely, unequivocally and in every corner of the countryside, and we have been leading the debate to make sure there is a protection of prime agricultural land that should not be exploited by coal. But the Greens have this all-or-nothing approach to politics. They occupy a very distinct part that never has to actually cough up the reality of the positions they put forward. Senator Boswell has stated the obvious: what the Greens are hoping to do is put a proposition forward that is once more going to start eating into the capacity of Australia to maintain a manufacturing base. It is a Labor Party Prime Minister who says, ‘We want to have a nation that makes things.’ You cannot make things if you are completely unviable on the international market. How do you actually sell something? I close by saying to Senator Brown: if it is really the be-all and end-all of carbon reduction, then you will have to look at taking on nuclear power. If you do not take on nuclear power, then you unfortunately are living in the 1950s.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wonder whether I could perhaps just indicate the government’s view on where the passage of this legislation is. The estimate from the Clean Energy Council on the investment forgone per week is around $2 million as a result of this bill not yet being passed. We are very keen to have this legislation passed, and we have worked hard. I acknowledge the approach of the crossbenchers and the opposition to seeking passage of this legislation and negotiating amendments. I appreciate we have very different views about what should be included. I respectfully submit to the chamber that those views have been well ventilated. The differences of opinion of individual parties and senators have been put on the record on a number of occasions.

Obviously, it is entirely a matter for the chamber how it wishes to proceed with this debate. I respectfully suggest that what we are now doing is not actually debating the amendments but debating a whole range of different issues around climate change. As the Minister for Climate Change and Water, I think the chamber would note that I am not averse to having that debate—I am quite up for that debate—but I am asking the chamber to consider whether we could expeditiously deal with the amendments in light of the fact that senators have put their parties’ positions and their personal positions on this issue very clearly, given the genuine public policy merit in the passage of this legislation. It is legislation that I think demonstrably, despite our differences of opinion about aspects of it, does have the support of a significant number of senators in the chamber.

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

I appreciate and acknowledge what the Minister for Climate Change and Water has just said and I have indicated to Senator Abetz and our whip that I will only be a couple of minutes in my contribution. I am absolutely sick and tired of the myths that continue to be propagated by the Greens political party. We just had another instance 10 minutes ago when Senator Brown was saying that the Great Barrier Reef, the 64,000 jobs it generates and all the money that comes from the Great Barrier Reef will be destroyed because we did not pass the CPRS Bill during the week. That is absolute myth. It is fantasy. It is absolutely ridiculous. What will save the Great Barrier Reef is if the United States stops emitting, if China stops emitting, if India stops emitting, if Russia stops emitting, if Indonesia stops emitting, if Colombia stops emitting, if South Africa stops emitting and if the rest of the world stops emitting. With less than 1.4 per cent of the world’s emissions, to suggest that by passing a bill last week that dealt with a small section of Australia’s less than 1.4 per cent of emissions Australia would cure all the ills that the Great Barrier Reef may or may not be facing is just fantasy.

The Greens continue to propagate those sorts of myths. Regrettably, they con some people. Some people go along with that, but as someone who lives up there, who understands and loves the reef and who is concerned to make sure that the reef is in the best possible state, I want to achieve an outcome that is real. But this parliament is simply passing a bill dealing with less than 1.4 per cent—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

You can laugh! The Greens, I suspect, almost believe their own conning of the Australian public, although they are clever enough to realise that it is a great con job on the Australian people. I will not sit by and let the Australian people be conned, particularly in relation to the Great Barrier Reef, by the sorts of drivel that comes out of the mouths of the Greens political party members.

I promised Senator Abetz that I would not take more than three minutes and I do understand the point that Senator Wong has made so I will cease there, but I could not, in all honesty, allow that sort of conning of the Australian public to go unchallenged.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you can see why Senator Macdonald, whom I think is now leaving the chamber, had one of the shortest tenures as minister for forests, in Australian history. That was an appointment made by Mr Howard, which he did not—

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

Four years!

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, I take you back to the amendment.

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

It was four years. I was one of the longest-serving forestry ministers.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was shorter!

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz is bidding and saying that his term was shorter, which shows that Prime Minister Howard did have some judgment!

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

I think I was probably the longest-serving forestry minister ever.

The Temporary Chairman:

Thank you, Senators.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did get confused between the longevity of the tenure and the ability. I was talking about the quality and the ability of the minister.

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

You might be right there but—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At least he says that I am right there. We have agreement that his quality and ability was a spectacle at the time. I want to get back to the amendment. Senator Joyce has indicated that nuclear power would be a better alternative. Again, here is a National Party point of view which the Greens do not agree with. I was at a meeting of chief executives of entities which have big investment potential for Australia today and I was asked a question about nuclear power. I will only take a minute or two here to ask: what is it with the Rudd government that follows up on the Howard government in exporting our uranium to China, which has rockets that can reach Sydney and Melbourne, and which is simply using uranium from Australia to displace uranium going into its nuclear power stations to allow it—if you believe there is a division capable here—to increase its nuclear weapons stockpile?

Through you, Temporary Chair, Senate Joyce is wrong. The nuclear industry, even if it did exhaust the high-potential uranium stocks on the planet, could not meet the need for the world to get away from burning fossil fuels. But what can do that is renewable energy and energy efficiency. That is why this amendment is so important—because we are saying, ‘Let’s catch up with world’s best practice here.’ Let’s not, as Senator Macdonald suggested, wait for Columbia—or Russia, China or any of the other countries he mentioned—to take the first move. That was quite a remarkable statement from a senior coalition member. I hope that schools will reach for Hansard to read that statement because it shows the mindset that we are working against here.

There is a lot of anger, no doubt, on the more conservative side of the opposition benches, but the point I was making is that the government and coalition have got together today to make an unsatisfactory piece of legislation much more of a polluters’ handout, against the interests of the renewable energy industry. This amendment would increase by 50 per cent the aliquot of energy that is required to come from renewable, and therefore non-climate-change-enhancing, sources in this country by the year 2020. That is way below the target of many comparable countries elsewhere in the world, and yet the combined wherewithal of the government and big opposition party in here is against that. That sells out the best of Australia’s national interest into the future, including rural and regional Australia, and it is just not good enough.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very briefly, can I indicate that what we are debating is what the renewable energy target ought be—20 per cent or 30 per cent. Senator Wong’s party went to the election with a promise of 20 per cent, as we did, and, as I understand the situation, about 90 per cent of the Australian people voted for the two majors in relation to that. To suggest that some deal has been struck today in relation to changing that target is simply wrong. It has been our policy position for quite some time, endorsed by about 90 per cent of the Australian people.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a complicated piece of legislation we are dealing with. Senator Abetz thinks that the deal that the opposition and the government struck today was about this target. That escaped me. Yes, they have agreed on a 20 per cent target, but the amendments that were made today, I will let him know—I thought he may have been informed about it by his coalition spokesperson—are simply to facilitate a bigger handout to the polluters. That is at the expense of the renewable energy industry, which is far more labour intensive, far more small business oriented and far more regional Australia oriented and which puts its money back into this country—unlike those big polluters who put the majority of the money into the pockets of people elsewhere on the planet. We lose out in every direction. I am surprised that Senator Abetz has confused the Greens amendment with the big deal made between his party and the opposition on a range of polluter oriented amendments today.

Question put:

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

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Australian Greens revised amendment (16) on sheet 5886:

(R16)       Schedule 1, item 9, page 11 (lines 1 to 16), omit section 162, substitute:

162  Biennial review of operation of renewable energy legislation

        (1)    The Minister must cause an independent review of the following to be undertaken as soon as practicable after 30 June 2012 and every 2 years after that date:

             (a)    the operation this Act and the scheme constituted by this Act;

             (b)    the adequacy of the renewable energy target set by this Act;

             (c)    the operation of the regulations;

             (d)    the operation of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Act 2000;

             (e)    the diversity of renewable energy access to the scheme constituted by this Act;

              (f)    a cost benefit analysis of the environmental impact of that access.

        (2)    A review must be undertaken by a person who, in the Minister’s opinion, possesses appropriate qualifications to undertake the review.

        (3)    The person undertaking a review must give the Minister a written report of the review before 31 December in that year.

        (4)    The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the report is given to the Minister.

        (5)    The report is not a legislative instrument.

This amendment provides for biennial reviews of the functioning of the legislation and to provide information from those reviews to the parliament so that we can get an assessment of how it is going. It is inevitable in this fast-changing field of energy legislation that there is going to be a need for informed parliaments all the way down the line able to review what is happening and improve upon legislation, no matter what we might think of this. I thank Senator Xenophon, on behalf of Senator Milne, who came to the same conclusion on the value of these reviews.

There may be some anxiety about the debating of this amendment. This will not take long, and there are a couple of other amendments to come, which means we are unlikely to get through this tonight. But it will pass on the morning. The indications are that it will, and the Greens have every intention to see this legislation through this place before we rise tomorrow. That said, I commend this amendment to the chamber.

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

I briefly indicate that I support this review. It is similar to an amendment that I was going to move. The Greens have incorporated my concerns and I am very pleased to support this amendment.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting this amendment. Given that we are not going to get this through tonight, I thought I might respond to a couple of the barbs from Senator Bob Brown, including his comments about climate change et cetera. I just want to say this: even with the passage of this legislation, Australia’s contribution to climate change will continue to worsen. So for Senator Brown to come in here and say that, after he has chosen to vote down the first piece of legislation to put a legislated limit on Australia’s contribution to climate change—the first legislated limit on Australia’s carbon pollution—is really extraordinary. If he really were about delivering policy to reduce our contribution to climate change—to put in place the price incentives, the system that will drive innovation in clean technologies and drive the development of the new economy that he talks about—he would not have sat with Senators Boswell, Joyce and Fielding to vote against the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Because even if the legislation that is before the chamber now passes this Senate—which I hope it will, given the contributions which have been made—we know that Australia’s carbon pollution will continue to rise to 120 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020. So there is an enormous amount of posturing in this debate today and previously. I hope that we can, as a Senate, debate the issue of policy on climate change in a more sensible way than we have seen thus far in this debate and certainly in the debate last week.

The senator asked about our attitude on a feed-in tariff. I again remind the good senator that the government did not go to the election with a commitment to implement a feed-in tariff; we went to the election with a commitment to implement what is before the chamber: a 20 per cent increase in Australia’s renewable energy target, a fourfold increase in Australia’s renewable energy by the end of the decade.

In relation to the response on the off-grid issue, the senator talked about COAG and the never-never. I did not respond, because I had previously responded to the question. I had said that the COAG review was anticipated to report by the end of the year. I trust that we are able tomorrow to get through some of the amendments. I am very happy to have a debate on climate change. I would remind those in this chamber that everyone other than Labor senators voted against having a debate in committee and simply voted to oppose that legislation. They may want to move on from that, but the reality is that the Greens and the opposition voted to ensure Australia’s carbon pollution continued to rise. I understand that the senator is sensitive about this, but that is the reality, Senator Brown.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown on a point of order? You have five seconds, Senator Brown.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is the deal covering the coalition the senator has with the Nationals and the Liberal Party tonight. That is what it is all about.

Progress reported.