Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012. This bill is actually quite a simple one. All it does is compel the government to spend the full $63.5 million in funding allocated to the Solar Hot Water Rebate under its Renewable Energy Bonus Scheme in 2011-12. The important point about it is that the Senate is not seeking to appropriate money; it is merely seeking to force the government to live up to its word. It is merely seeking to allow the people of Australia and the businesses involved to have a degree of confidence that a government program cannot be shut down on five minutes notice. Just as occurred in 2009 with Minister Garrett and the solar panel rebates, we have here a Labor Party that has pulled the pin mid-stream.

The parliamentary secretary, Mr Mark Dreyfus, the member for Isaacs, gave the solar hot water industry just five minutes notice on a Tuesday night that there would be no more applications accepted. While the government is allowing applications to be lodged up to 30 June this year, to be eligible for the scheme the systems had to have been installed, ordered or purchased on or before 28 February, the day the scheme's closure was announced. The problem with this is, again, the complete lack of predictability and the capriciousness of government action. I have little doubt that it is due to their desperate need to shuffle money around to confect and contrive a fake surplus, at least on paper, to be announced in May. We will see the proper result when the final budget outcome is released towards the end of next year. But this desperate need by the government to try and shuffle money around in order to create that false surplus has again left a particular industry in the lurch. The government did this with solar panels; they have done it with roof batts; they have done it with the live cattle trade; and now they have done it with solar hot water. It is reckless decisions like this that change the goalposts for business decisions and, indeed, consumer decisions. That these decisions are made on a completely unpredictable basis does a great deal of damage to business and consumer confidence.

We are seeing in survey after survey consumer and business confidence falling. They are two of the most important yardsticks by which we can see the direction in which the economy is going. Without confidence to invest and without confidence to spend, the problem that we will see is people hoarding cash, not because they are trying to save but merely because they do not have a degree of confidence in what the government may or may not do.

The words of a small solar business owner, Jeff Knowles of Pure Solar, last week summed this up:

I guess what Helen and I would like to say is very simple. It’s been tough in the solar industry—we all know that, but the timing of the hot water rebate closing couldn’t have been worse. We had the Royal Canberra Show here—we had 60 or so leads. We were following them up. People have just said listen, we can afford a top system like behind me; we can go the extra, you know, $100, $200 maybe $500 to $4,500, but we can’t go to $5,500. So, that $1,000 means a lot to the people I knock on the doors of and it’s just really unfortunate timing for us again in the solar business.

The challenge is again simply one of certainty; it is simply one of predictability. What we have here is a business owner who is basing his activity and the activities of his business on a program. He tells consumers, 'Here's a particular program available to you to support the purchase of a product.' When that is capriciously changed, when the rug is pulled out from underneath them at such short notice, it does enormous damage to the business.

Rheem, a major manufacturer in Australia, said they have $10 million worth of stock on hand and the jobs of workers at the Rydalmere facility now hang in the wind, precisely because they have all this stock on hand. Their government relations manager, Gareth Jennings, said, 'This is the worst possible time to take away support.'

On news of the program cut, the Clean Energy Council said:

The clean energy industry says the unexpected cut of a key government solar hot-water program late yesterday will put jobs under threat …

The key point there is the unexpected nature of it. This program was expected to expire. People were planning for that. There was no shortage of funds in the program. There were no allegations of the program being rorted. What happened here was a government unilaterally, capriciously and unpredictably pulling the rug out from underneath businesses and people that were making plans.

As I said earlier, this is merely an attempt to contrive a budget surplus. We do not know how the government are going to be shuffling money around, but when we look at the expenses that have been put off budget over the last few years—with the money being spent on electricity industry support, for example, there is not so much next financial year but more this financial year and the financial year after the next budget year—we know they are desperate to contrive a budget surplus.

I point out here that, while some expected the solar hot-water rebate program to end on 30 June this year, the government's own program guidelines did not specifically mention a closure date. The coalition believes that this withdrawal of the program at such short notice is reckless and damages consumer and business confidence. It is a sign of a government in chaos and it is further confirmation of its incompetence in managing basic programs. All we have asked for with this piece of legislation is for the government to live up to what was in last year's budget papers. No new funding is required to deliver this solar hot-water rebate as was committed by the government and the parliament. This bill will need to be passed this week if it is to come into effect and reinstate the rebate before the end of the financial year. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012, another private member's bill from the opposition that is nothing more than opportunistic grand­standing. While this side of parliament has provided more support to renewable energy than any government in Australian history, the opposition put forward a bill that will do nothing to help Australia make the transition to a clean energy future. It merely continues the attitude of those opposite of all show and no delivery—no regard for fiscal responsi­bility, no regard for the guidelines of a scheme that has been in place for many years and is merely ending at the time that those guidelines prescribed. It is grandstanding at its absolute worst and it is why those opposite face their big black hole of $70 billion of unfunded commitments—and just this week the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Minister Wong, has done the numbers, and the coalition would deliver a $9 billion deficit. This bill is another irresponsible measure in a long line of irresponsible measures. On and on they go with their one goal of wrecking every responsible measure this government implements—on and on, promising, promising, promising but never with a plan for Australia's future.

The Renewable Energy Bonus Scheme was not closed early. The scheme from the beginning was not designed to be an ongoing program. The scheme offered a rebate of $1,000 for the installation of a solar hot-water system and $600 on a heat pump system. It was for households to install a new hot-water system when replacing an electric storage hot-water system in an existing home. The scheme did not apply to the new-building market. When the program was announced on 17 July 2007, under the Howard government, the scheme was funded until 30 June 2012. This is the date that the scheme will end. It is obvious that those opposite do not even understand a program that they implemented.

Because people have four months to apply for the rebate, in order for the scheme to finish on 30 June 2012 it was necessary to announce the closure of the scheme on 28 February 2012. That is what this government did. This meant that everyone that bought an eligible system had an equal amount of time to apply for the rebate. I repeat: in order for the scheme to end on the date that was prescribed when the scheme was announced by the Howard government, it was responsible and prudent to announce its closure on 28 February 2012. The Gillard Labor government has stuck with this time frame because we are committed to being fiscally responsible and acting in the long-term interests of industry as we move to a clean energy future. Announcing the scheme's closure any later would not have given people the full four months to apply for their rebate, potentially disadvantaging those people that purchased a solar hot-water system after this time. It would have been misleading to delay announcing the scheme's closure.

Further, announcing closure of the scheme any earlier would have exposed the program budget to serious risk of overspend due to unanticipated demand. It is common practice that, if someone calls last drinks, people will rush up to grab what they can. It was therefore fiscally responsible of this govern­ment to announce the end of the scheme on 28 February 2012, four months before the scheme ends. I imagine that, had we delayed the announcement of the closure, those opposite would be up in arms calling us fiscally irresponsible. On this, the last sitting day before Easter, it is a matter of having your chocolate cake and eating it too.

We on this side take the budget very seriously. We understand that you have to cost policies and you have to fund them. That is what we have certainly done in our budget. That is what we have done in the mid-year review. The alternative approach is to do what the opposition is doing, which is to try and hide your $70 billion black hole, not tell anybody what your budget position is, not tell anybody what you are going to cut, not tell anybody how you are going to fund anything and certainly not do any proper costings. What we continue to see from the opposition is a game of hide-and-seek—trying to hide from the Australian people the true position of their budget because the opposition know that, every day, they wave goodbye to the $70 billion black hole as they keep making more and more promises that they cannot fund. Luckily for them, the finance minister, Minister Wong, this week announced that an Abbott coalition government would deliver a $9 billion deficit. Yes, with all their huff and bluster about fiscal responsibility, they have promised so much to so many that, even after the global financial crisis, as Australia's economy begins to improve, they would be unable to deliver a budget surplus. It is lucky for the country that they are not in government.

Not only do those opposite make promises they cannot fund and therefore cannot keep; they do not bother to read the program guidelines. Program guidelines released in 2009 reaffirmed the closure date of 30 June 2012. Industry was aware of the closing date. Rheem, a large player in the industry, had advertised an earlier end date of March 2012, rather than the June 2012 end date. There are hardly grounds here to claim that the government caught everybody napping.

There are two bills before this parliament on this topic: one introduced in the other place by the member for Flinders, Mr Hunt, and the other that we are debating here today from Senator Birmingham. It is quite a nice little stunt bill because it contains just three substantive lines:

3 Amount appropriated for Solar Hot Water Rebate Scheme to be spent

(1) This section applies to the amount specified in the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2011-2012 for Outcome 1 for the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

(2) The amount, to the extent that it was appropriated for the purposes of the Renewable Energy Bonus Scheme—Solar Hot Water Rebate, must be applied for expenditure for that purpose.

Mr Hunt and Senator Birmingham have put forward similar bills, which effectively require the government to restart the Solar Hot Water Rebate Scheme by requiring that money allocated in the budget is expended on the rebate program. They require that exactly the sum which has been appropriated for this purpose be expended for this purpose, even though it is a demand-driven program and it is standard practice for a department to slightly overestimate demand, and therefore the budget allocation, as any shortfall has to be met within the department's budget allocation.

The Australian public are worried by the fiscal irresponsibility of those opposite. The Australian people are worried about what vital government service those opposite will attack to try to pay for their unfunded, irresponsible promises. I wonder if Mr Hunt and Senator Birmingham have run their numbers by Mr Robb and Mr Hockey. I wonder if Senator Cormann was locked out of the room again, this time, like he was on their superannuation backflip that the coalition has not figured out how to pay for.

We on this side understand that the Solar Hot Water Rebate Scheme was a demand-driven program. As such, any extension to the program would have substantial budget implications. It would result in a substantial and unquantifiable impact on the budget. For instance, when the solar photovoltaic rebate was closed, and a day's notice was given, around $384 million in applications were received on or immediately after the closing date—$384 million in one day. The decision made by the government to not give notice, to not call last drinks in this instance, is evidence of a Labor government committed to fiscal responsibility. It would be fiscally irresponsible to re-open the program. It would confuse households, increase uncertainty for business and expose the administering department to significant budget risk. That is because an administering department manages demand-driven programs by slightly overestimating demand, as any shortfall has to be met within the department's budget allocation. It is therefore vital to ensure that there are not any last-drink runs, like that which the opposition proposes. It is vital that this scheme be ended as planned and that these bills be voted down.

The Gillard Labor government is taking the responsible steps to manage the budget and to move our economy to a clean energy future. Since coming to office in 2007, we have boosted funding for the Renewable Energy Buyback Scheme to enable 25,000 more installations than promised by the coalition government. In total, this scheme cost taxpayers over $320 million and delivered around 250,000 installations. After the program ends on 30 June 2012, the government will continue providing ongoing incentives for installing solar hot-water systems. These incentives are numerous and include: the introduction of a carbon price from 1 July 2012, which will provide a long-term incentive for households and businesses to install cleaner hot-water systems; the Renewable Energy Target, which will continue to provide support until 2020, with consumers offered a discount of up to $1,000 for installing a solar hot-water system in a new or existing home; and support worth over $330 million under the Low Carbon Communities program for the installation of solar hot-water heaters.

Also, manufacturers can seek assistance under the Clean Technology Innovation Program, with $800 million available to support further innovation and product improvement. This will give the solar hot-water industry an incentive to retool and modernise the manufacture of these units, providing practical assistance to manufacturing businesses while supporting the incentives created by the carbon price to improve energy efficiency for use of energy from cleaner sources.

I also note that in most jurisdictions electric storage hot-water systems cannot be installed in new homes, meaning that households must install a solar heat pump or gas system. Most jurisdictions are also progressively banning electric storage hot-water systems in existing homes when an existing system fails and cannot be repaired. Furthermore, government is also considering a national energy savings initiative which, if adopted, will provide an incentive to solar hot water. Also, I understand that federal, state and territory governments are working on mandatory disclosure methods for energy performance information for homes when offered for sale or for rent. These reforms will provide information about the value of solar hot water to prospective buyers and renters.

This government has measures to assist the hot-water industry now and has plans for measures in the future. This government has provided more support for renewable energy than any government in Australian history. Our current policy settings are designed to transition to a clean energy future and that future includes solar hot water. We are interested in real solutions—funded solutions—while the opposition through this bill once again demonstrates that it is more interested in opportunistic grandstanding, more interested in irresponsibly throwing cash around whenever it sees fit, and unfortunately not interested at all in how Australia can make the transition to a clean energy future.

What Senator Birmingham and Mr Hunt are suggesting, would require us to reopen the scheme but they know we cannot do this with a demand-driven scheme as it would cause a spike in demand. It is the sort of stunt that you would expect from a party that is trapped in a $70 billion budget black hole and whose only way out is to spend, spend, spend.

The government is ending the scheme on time, as it was always destined to do—not scrapped, not early, and in total accordance with the guidelines. This was a bridging program that was always meant to finish upon the introduction of a carbon price. Do those opposite remember that when this program commenced it was coalition policy to introduce a carbon price—although not without confusion from their former leader? To remind them, this is what happened during 2007. One day in question time, Prime Minister Howard seemed to tell the parliament he believed the jury was still out on the connection between human activity and climate change. Remarkably, after such a statement, he was actually back in the House of Representatives within hours. He had to return because he needed to clarify that he had apparently misheard the question. Prime Minister Howard then went on to state that he believed the science was clear and he went to the 2007 election backing the Sherrod report and committing to an emissions trading scheme. That is right—everyone knows those opposite took to the 2007 election their established scheme of five years of subsidies for solar hot-water systems, their commitment that climate change is real and that an emissions trading scheme was the best way forward. Now this government is taking the responsible steps to wind up a program which those opposite started, set the end date for and put in place to be a lead-in to a carbon price, but all those opposite can do is to sink deeper into their $70 billion black hole.

At least we on this side of the chamber have our priorities right. We are getting on with the job of governing for all Australians, especially the most disadvantaged and at risk in our community. Just this week we passed the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011, a reform which will spread the wealth of the mining boom to all Australians and streng­then our economy for the future. We are using the mining tax to boost the superannu­ation savings of low-income Australians by up to $500 per year and by removing the tax on super for people earning up to $37,000. This will assist 3.6 million low-income earners, including 2.1 million women, to save for a decent retirement. And while we are at it we are giving small businesses a tax cut and investing in much needed infrastruct­ure in regional Australia. Labor understands that, for a stronger Australia, we need to bring all Australians along. Also this week we passed the Road Safety Remuneration Bill 2011, the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2012 and the Fair Work Amendment (Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry) Bill 2011.

The Road Safety Remuneration Bill will promote safety and fairness in the road transport industry. The Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill will replace the ABCC with a new body to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations in the building and construction industry. The Fair Work Amendment (Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry) Bill will provide enhanced workplace protection for Australia's most vulnerable workers, in particular outworkers.

This Labor government is delivering for hardworking Australians. This Labor govern­ment is demonstrating responsible fiscal governance. This Labor government has a 40-year plan to combat dangerous climate change in a way that transitions our economy in the cheapest, most efficient way possible.

Labor's plan sets out a strategy to cut Australia's emissions by 80 per cent on 2000 levels by 2050. Simple examination of the opposition's plan reveals a massive problem. They have a costly plan to cut emissions by the bipartisan target of five per cent of 2000 levels by 2020. Labor's plan is centred on the introduction of a carbon price from 1 July 2012. Beginning with a fixed price of $23 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted, this price will be a price signal for industry and will rise at 2½ per cent a year in real terms for three years. On 1 July 2015 we move to a floating price, with a floor price of $15 and a ceiling price $20 above the expected international price to minimise volatility. Reducing carbon pollution is good for our environment and important for our future. With this plan we will reduce pollution and create new jobs while supporting house­holds. It is time to act and to act decisively.

Those opposite pretend that they care for the long-term good of this great nation, yet they forget one simple fact: the sooner we act, the cheaper it will be. Acting now will cost money; no-one is arguing that it will not. We are seeking to make the 500 biggest polluters pay and assist households and industry through the transition. Those opposite are seeking to make every Australian pay through using general government revenue to give subsidies to polluters. But they do not think it is necessary to have a policy to cut emissions beyond that level and that date, as though miraculously in 2020—after having repealed our efficient, effective abatement scheme and having wasted taxpayers' dollars on picking currently unproven winners—the problem of climate change will be solved. Somehow they dream that Australia's obligations will be met, that Australia's economy will have transitioned and that they will move on to the things they enjoy best, like stripping workers' entitlements and giving tax cuts to those who need them least.

This bill is a stunt. It will do nothing to support the solar hot water industry nor will it assist the environment. I repeat that Labor has provided more support to renewable energy than any government in Australia's history. All the while the opposition grandstand on this issue, putting forward a bill that will do nothing to help Australia make the transition to a clean energy future. I urge senators to vote down this bill.

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

In responding to the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012, I remind the Senate we are facing accelerating global warming. The recent 2012 State of the Climate report produced by the Bureau of Meteorology together with the CSIRO confirms everything we have been saying for a considerable time—that is, we are facing a global catastrophe unless we respond to climate change by reducing our emissions as quickly as possible. That is confirmed even more by a report which came out yesterday from the Stockholm Environment Institute—I was listening to Senator Carr's first speech yesterday talking about the oceans—called Valuing the oceans, which points out that, with oceans warming at an incredible rate, they will be reduced in their capacity to absorb carbon dioxide, so they will slow as a sink. We are also seeing high levels of acidification, which has massive impacts for ocean food chains. We have to do everything we can as quickly as we can to reduce our emissions. That means we need a system-wide approach, a whole-of-economy approach, a whole-of-society approach. That is why the Greens entered into an arrangement with the Prime Minister at the change of government in 2010, to deliver a carbon price in Australia—a clean energy package. That package is now a system-wide approach to energy efficiency, renewable energy and to emissions trading and carbon pricing to start this process of the transformation of the Australian economy.

In that context we have a technology: solar hot water. Solar hot water is a fantastic technology not only to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but to assist households to reduce their costs for electricity. So it is an excellent technology. And what is better than that about it is that we have, in Australia, three manufacturers of solar hot-water systems. We have the Rheem Manufacturing Co. (Australia) Pty Ltd, Dux Hot Water and Siddons Solarstream. They make hot-water cylinders in Australia and they are beginning to export these systems. So the one thing that we would want to do in transitioning to a low-carbon economy is actually to support local manufacturing.

The whole debate here is taking place in the bigger context of the current situation that the Australian economy finds itself in. That is that we have a very high Australian dollar and we also have, in the case of solar hot water, a coming together of a number of circumstances which are quite overwhelming for the industry. Not only do we have the high dollar making imports cheaper but there is also an agreement through the COAG process that there will be the phase-out of electric hot-water cylinders. I will be interested to hear from the government where that is up to, because my under­standing and the industry's understanding is that that is to be on 30 June this year.

After that, the states have agreed, you will not be able to replace electric hot water cylinders with electric cylinders. The result of that is that as people's cylinders are now malfunctioning, blowing up or whatever, the plumber will come and tell people that they are not going to be able to replace it with another electric system, and that they are suggesting instantaneous gas. That is because the installation of instantaneous gas and the heater itself, which is likely to be imported from Japan, will be considerably cheaper than a solar hot-water system.

The result is that householders are looking at the immediate capital cost. Often, a hot-water cylinder blows up when you least expect it, and it is an expense that you suddenly have to meet because you have no option. Therefore, you take the advice of the plumber who comes and says, 'Well, look, you can't replace it like with like. These are your options: you've got solar hot water or you've got instantaneous gas, and instantan­eous gas is going to be a lot cheaper.' And so people tend to buy a cheaper system, not being aware that they are actually buying a much more expensive system over time because the cost of gas is going to increase, whereas once you buy your solar hot-water system you are not paying for the cost of the sun and over time you will end up with a system that costs you far less. But often people in that circumstance are faced with the immediate cash outlay and so they make those decisions. At the moment that is the situation we have. Because of that the industry is under enormous pressure at the moment, and I am sure it is in the interests of everybody in this Senate to support local manufacturers like Rheem, Dux and Siddons Solarstream to stay in business.

The issue here is: how do you keep the community's access to solar hot water, make their own power bills more manageable, bring down emissions and keep Australian manufacturers in business? It was in this context that on 28 February Parliamentary Secretary Dreyfus came out and said that the Renewable Energy Bonus Scheme would close for further applications at five o'clock that evening, and the announcement was at about five minutes to five. So it was an instant end to the scheme, meaning that you would have until 30 June to put in your rebate claim for anything you had bought up to that point but after 28 February you would not be able to order a new system under the scheme.

At the time, the Parliamentary Secretary said that this was good budget practice. That certainly sent alarm bells through my office and my thoughts about this and, clearly, that is the context in which the coalition have moved this piece of legislation. Everybody knows that the government is trying to get back to a budget black bottom line and I certainly feared that what we were seeing here was a red line through solar hot water in order to deliver a black line in the budget. The reason I had that view was that I had been watching this scheme fairly closely. We had a situation where, in response to the global financial crisis, the government changed the date for the end of this scheme to be 30 June 2012 and their website said that the date applicable for the changes was 5 September 2009 until 30 June 2012 or until the date when program funds have been fully allocated, whichever occurred first.

That was actually up on the website for a long time, saying that that was what they would do. When in 2010 the scheme changed to the Renewable Energy Bonus Scheme there was a less specific piece on the website saying:

This booklet provides guidelines for the Renewable Energy Bonus Scheme – solar hot water rebate, from 20 February 2010 until a date to be notified on the Program’s website.

And that is effectively where the trail goes cold.

There are plenty of dealers and people working in the industry who believe that the date of 30 June 2012 was put up on the website, but anyway, at the end of last year, the date was taken away. So that is where we ended up, and that is why the industry itself thought the date was 30 June 2012. The government is now saying, 'Yes, it is still 30 June 2012,' and that the reason it announced the ending in February was to stop this—as Senator Urquhart described it—'last-drinks call' to have a rush on the scheme. However, if you look at the rationale here—'until the date when program funds have been fully allocated'—the issue for me is that the government took $160 million out of this fund to meet the flood levy requirements. The government believed it was essential to put money into Queensland and the eastern states at the height of the horrendous flooding, and this was one of the programs that lost $160 million, but what was allocated for the 2011-12 financial year was based on what was left in the program after the money came out for the flood levy, and it was based on the projected flow of solar hot water being put on people's roofs thereafter.

The upshot of that is to say that we knew that there was an underspend because the industry had been telling us that, with this competition from instantaneous gas, they had been selling fewer and fewer solar hot-water systems; therefore there was an underspend. So, when the parliamentary secretary came out and said this was good budget practice, for me it was code for recognising that there is an underspend in this financial year, bringing forward the allocation from next financial year into this year and then being able to put the $24½ million for the 2012-13 financial year into the budget black line. That is how it appeared to me.

However, I have been in constructive negotiations with the government since that time, and the parliamentary secretary has reassured me at length that there is to be no underspend in this financial year and, indeed, that the budget forecast is in place. In fact, he has provided me with a letter that says, 'The government never intended to make any savings from the closure of this program and remains committed to support the transition to a clean energy future, which includes the solar hot water industry,' and that the funding allocated for this program remains in the forward estimates. All this bill does is require that the current appropriation be spent. Then I have an undertaking not only that that appropriation will be spent but that the money allocated in the forward estimates is also there to meet the program. The parliamentary secretary continues to say, 'I am happy to work closely with you to look at potential ways the available funding continues to support the Australian solar and heat pump hot water industry, maintain jobs and competitiveness in the short term and particularly this year ahead of the strong support that will flow from the carbon price and other measures identified above.' So I am satisfied now that the money that was allocated in this financial year will be spent and, indeed, that the money is there in the forward estimates, and I will be working with the government to make sure that is the case.

I appreciate the manner in which the parliamentary secretary, Mr Dreyfus, has been prepared to talk about this, and I think he recognises that the statement that he made about good budget practice actually made people consider this in the context of the budget, whereas what he was referring to was practice in relation to stopping and changing schemes, which this government has a very bad reputation for over a long period of time. Certainty is what the industry needs, and unfortunately this episode has left it with uncertainty, and this has been one of the major problems. However, we must proceed with certainty.

The one thing I will absolutely say here is that we have delivered a carbon price. There is the Low Carbon Communities program, and that is one way in which we will be helping low-income communities—through local councils—and low-income families to improve energy efficiency in homes and buildings by installing energy-efficient appliances, including solar and heat pump hot-water systems. I have to say that we are also, as part of the clean energy package, pushing for the national energy efficiency scheme. The renewable energy target, of course, is still in place, and there is the Clean Technology Innovation Program, which will allow local manufacturers to invest in upgrading their plant so that they can become more efficient operators. So the issue for me here is that I wanted to make sure not only that the money was spent but that there is transition and support for the industry in the light of the current circumstances in which it finds itself. I am working with the government to do that and to roll out the carbon price.

The real question here for the coalition is: how are you going to be supporting all of these technologies in the low-carbon economy—the whole raft of energy efficien­cy and renewable energy technologies—without carbon pricing? You simply cannot do it unless you develop a systemic way of going about it. I know that you have a 'one million roofs' program. I am assuming that is predominantly for photovoltaics. There is no clarity, for anybody talking of certainty, as to when the coalition says it would actually budget for that program. There is an assumption out there that that program, in the event that the coalition won government, would be in its first budget, but nobody has actually confirmed that. The industry is now beginning to wonder whether in fact this would be something that was delayed, under any change of government, until one of the last years of a budget forecast period. Of course, there is a need to clarify whether the 'one million roofs' is just for photovoltaics and where solar hot water ends up in that particular mix.

I am confident that the only way we are going to get the transformation in the Australian economy that we need is to go with the kind of integrated, whole-of-government approach that the Greens have been able to work with the Labor Party to deliver in Australia. This is going to be a major transformation, because people are going to sit at home and say to themselves, 'How can I reduce my emissions and reduce my prices?' People will be looking at everything from simply draught-proofing their houses through to things like installing solar hot water, looking at the design of their homes or extensions, considering ways in which they move to more efficient vehicles and, in their workplaces, building much more efficient and better workplaces.

I have to say that the building in which the new Commonwealth offices in Sydney, in Bligh Street, are going to be located is a fantastic example of a green building. The driver for investment in green buildings is carbon pricing. It is a recognition that, if you are going to be competitive, you will have to give tenants in the city buildings that are wonderful to work in in terms of the amenity of the environment. Those buildings will also be cheaper in the long term because they are highly efficient, not only in electricity but in water. That office in Sydney is a very good example of it.

The way you drive this, through green buildings, through changes to city design, through changes to manufacturing processes and through new technologies, is to price fossil fuels and to actually charge the real cost of climate change on the emitters of fossil fuels. By doing so you bring on the competitiveness of these technologies in the low-carbon economy. That is the real key here. That is why I am so keen to see the change that is going to come about on 1 July this year.

The coalition cannot have it both ways. You cannot sit there and oppose carbon pricing and then say, 'We are interested in supporting low-carbon technologies.' How are you going to do that in the absence of a systemic rollout of market based mechanisms? The coalition's bill simply says that the appropriation for the 2011-12 financial year is to be spent effectively. That is exactly what they are doing. My view is that we have to ensure not only that that money is spent but that the forward estimates are still there—the $24.5 million into next financial year—and work out ways of assisting the industry. As I said, I am currently working with Mr Dreyfus to work out ways of doing that.

I am particularly proud of the Low Carbon Communities Program in the clean energy package because it is one way we can assist low-income earners around the country to reduce their power bills, enabling them to take part in reducing emissions and be part of this new economy, this new society, where everybody needs to play their part in reducing emissions. I am delighted that we already have some quarter of a million Australian households assisted through this program to reduce their emissions. I want to make sure that we do everything we can to continue that happening, particularly for low-income earners, and that we continue to support Australian manufacturing in the low-carbon economy.

We have money going to car manufacturers. That should be going to electric vehicles and should be tied to green design. If we have money to protect the steel industry and the car industry in the face of the high dollar, then in my view we need to be supporting Australian manufacturing. I am going to be working with Mr Dreyfus to make sure that we get a good outcome.

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

The advantage of following the Greens Deputy Leader, Senator Milne, in this debate is that it enables me, again, to point out the absolute policy hypocrisy of the Greens political party. Anyone listening to Senator Milne, for the majority of her speech, would have been convinced that you should vote for this bill. She went through all the reasons why this bill was appropriate, but in the end she changed her mind, which is the political hypocrisy that we have come to expect of the Greens by following her leader's approach to attitudes in this parliament. Her leader is driven by one thing, which is an absolute hatred of the Liberal Party and anything that the Liberal Party might do. In following his hatred of the Liberal Party—

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

Madam Acting Deputy President Boyce, I rise on a point of order. It is against the standing orders to reflect on the motivation of other senators in this parliament. I would ask that the senator withdraw.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne, there is no point of order. Senator Macdonald, you may like to consider your comments and the courtesy thereof.

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

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. You can see with the Greens political party that when the truth is put out there they do everything possible to stop free speech and to stop senators in this chamber expressing their views on why different political parties take the approach that they do. During this session the Greens have joined with the Labor Party in stopping free speech on a wide range of bills. That debate is supposed to be the purview of this parliament. We are meant to talk about policy issues, to talk about legislation and to suggest improve­ments, even if we agree with the bill in the ultimate vote. Debate is essential if you are going to have a democracy. You can understand from the Greens and the Labor Party that they are not terribly keen about parliamentary democracy. They just want to ram through secret deals that the Greens political party and the Labor Party have got together and done behind closed doors, usually without consultation.

The Greens leader, Senator Brown, is not an environmentalist. I think that is becoming more and more obvious. He is, as is increasingly obvious, just an old left-wing socialist of the Eastern European style of old, and he will do everything to support the Labor Party—particularly the left wing of the Labor Party—to destroy this country. I do not say that about all members of the Greens political party. I happen to know that there are a couple in the party—for example, Senator Siewert; I do not want to embarrass her—who are genuine environmentalists, who believe in what the Greens originally stood for. I know that Senator Siewert, from her body language, is as embarrassed as I am at times by the way that her leader carries on with an approach to his policy considerations that is based on an absolute hatred of the Liberal Party.

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

I rise on a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. I do not think the senator should be interpreting body language in the chamber, and I certainly put on the record that he has misinterpreted any body language he thinks I may have displayed.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, I would think it is clear that you cannot know Senator Siewert's motives.

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

I hardly think that is a point of order, mind you, Madam Acting Deputy President Boyce, but I accept what Senator Siewert says. It is hardly a point of order but I accept it as a debating point. Perhaps it is not the body language that has led me to the view I have; perhaps it is other things. Never mind, I accept what Senator Siewert has said. However—and I hate to embarrass her—I accept that she is a genuine environmentalist, and I cannot say that about too many others in the political party that she represents. This bill, and the approach Senator Milne has taken to it, demonstrates that clearly. I repeat: if you had heard the first 15 minutes of Senator Milne's speech, you would have said that, yes, she understood the bill and was going to vote for it. But in the end she had to find some way of opposing the bill that the Liberal Party has put up. She said she has had some secret discussions with the minister and he has convinced her that they are going to spend the right amount on solar panels.

I cannot argue the case better than Senator Milne did in the first part of her speech. How could she, at the end, do a complete backflip and indicate that she was not going to support the bill? She rightly says that $160 million was taken out of this fund for the flood levy. I am surprised that Senator Milne raised that. She might remember that her party agreed with the Labor Party to introduce a flood levy. That is unprecedented in the history of this parliament. There are natural calamities around Australia all the time, and every time that has happened the Commonwealth has put in a certain amount of money and the states have put in their share of money. Never before has this parliament had to raise a special levy to help a state, which they had to do in this case because Queensland was broke, through the financial mismanagement of Ms Anna Bligh, the Premier of Queensland, and her government. Queensland did not have the money in the Treasury to do the sorts of things that every state does following a series of natural calamities.

So a special levy was introduced just for Queensland, because the Queensland government was broke and could not pay its way. Ms Bligh, the Queensland Premier, had to come up with something. She had spent all last year running around disaster areas in Queensland, appearing before TV cameras and taking charge as the field marshal of the rescue efforts. I know that a lot of the people involved in the rescue efforts wished she had not been there, because they wanted to get on with the job of helping people and not doing photo opportunities for a Premier who, prior to that, was so low in the opinion polls that she would not have led the Labor Party to the state election. Fortuitously, I guess, for those of us of a different political persuasion, Ms Bligh is still there and, politically, we should be grateful for that.

Madam Acting Deputy President Boyce, this flood levy was brought in, you might remember, by the Greens political party and the Labor Party. But was it a taxation that affected all Australians, particularly the wealthy Australians, in the same way? No, of course it was not. It was a flood levy on individuals. Companies like Rio Tinto, BHP and Xstrata minerals, the very wealthy multinational mineral companies that the Greens always rail about, were excused from the flood levy. Talk about looking after the top end of town! And Mr Graeme Wood, with all of his companies—that is, Mr Graeme Wood, the significant donor of $1.6 million to the Greens political party—did not pay the levy on his company income either, because the Greens conspired with the Labor Party to excuse the top end of town from that flood levy that Senator Milne mentioned.

I would like to point out that we always have the Greens railing against Coles and Woolworth and suggesting they look after small business, but that flood levy is a classic example: Coles and Woolworths, with all of their profits, were let off entirely; they did not have to pay a cent of the flood levy. But the butcher and the baker in the complex that compete with Woolworths and Coles had to pay the flood levy. Talk about looking after the top end of town, which the Greens have, equally as well as their political hypocrisy, become recognised for. Senator Milne rightly said that the $160 billion was taken out of this program to meet the flood levy pool that was being put together by the government to help Ms Bligh in her campaign to remain Queensland Premier. As I say, Senator Milne argued the case beautifully except that at the end she had to find some way in which she could not join in voting for something sensible that the Liberals had produced. She has a secret letter—I assume; I doubt that any of the rest of us will ever see it—from the minister saying, 'Trust me; we will look after you.'

Can you believe anything, at any time, that the leader of a Labor Party government ever says? You cannot believe Ms Bligh, because we have seen that most of the promises she made before the last election were junked immediately afterwards. We saw Mr Keating, leader of a former federal Labor government promising l-a-w law tax cuts. He had already legislated for them, but after the election he reneged on the legislation; he withdrew and cancelled it. Of course, the current Labor leader, Ms Gillard, promised, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead', and Senator Milne is congratulating Ms Gillard for breaking her solemn promise to the Australian people by introducing that carbon tax. You have Ms Gillard giving an ironclad guarantee they would not reduce the subsidy on private health insurance, and what do you have? We have just passed the bill, with the Greens and the Labor Party joining forces to get the numbers to do exactly what she promised they would not do.

Senator Milne is relying on this letter she got from a junior minister. Can I say to Senator Milne, have a look at what happe­ned. You cannot believe any promise made by any leader or junior minister of an Austra­lian Labor Party government, be it state or federal. Again in this instance the Labor Party promised that this scheme would run through to 30 June this year, applications would be taken and the money spent—Senator Milne said all this—but suddenly and typically of Labor Party governments that promise was junked; it meant absolutely nothing.

By contrast, the coalition has put up this bill in good faith, expecting—perhaps foolishly—that the Greens would support this. We heard the comments by the Greens in the media immediately after the government broke its promise and brought this forward to the end of February. Senator Bob Brown was as usual in front of the TV cameras railing against the government but, when there is the opportunity to do something more than get a photo opportunity out the front, what does Senator Brown do? He rolls over and supports his leftie mates in the Australian Labor Party; whereas we introduce this bill to comply with the government's promises, promises which we supported. This bill requires no new funding to reinstate the full solar hot water rebate. All funding is within the government's own budget allocation. It is very important that this bill be passed this sitting, because if the rebate is to be reinstated by the end of the financial year then it must be done in this last sitting session before the budget.

One thing that Senator Milne was quite correct about was when she said, 'Certainty is what the industry needs.' Certainty is what the industry needs, but does this Labor Party government give the industry any certainty whatsoever? We know what industry turmoil there was when the pink batts program was put forward and then taken away. We know the uncertainty that has been created throughout this industry from day one by the Labor Party. Senator Milne is quite right to say the industry needs certainty; that is what she and her leader insist their party does on this bill, and yet they will oppose it. They will ensure that industry does not have the certainty that the Greens so hypocritically call for, yet when they have the opportunity to vote for it they roll over again to the Australian Labor Party.

I hope that my words in this chamber have at last struck a chord with Senator Bob Brown. I see he has just come into the chamber for one of his rare appearances and that he is talking to his deputy leader, Senator Milne. Perhaps as a result of the arguments of coalition members, the Greens will change their view and they might be intending to support this bill. I certainly hope that is the case. If they do, I will withdraw some of the comments I have made about the Greens' hypocrisy. I do not think I will have to, because the leader of the Greens' attitude is not based upon good environmental policy; it is based on other aspects of his life in this chamber. Time and time again, this week even in this chamber, Senator Brown has demonstrated what his purpose in the Senate is. I was going to suggest someone who could lead the Greens better, but I will not do that. I know there are a lot of rumblings within the Greens about their current leadership. I have a view that something will happen. I was going to put in my two bob's worth on who should be the new leader of the Greens, but that would be the kiss of death, so I will not do so.

But I go back to this bill, which is an important bill. It should be supported. I hope the Greens will follow the letter of the first part of Senator Milne's speech for all of the reasons she mentioned and will support what is a very sensible bill. It is a bill that would be very significant for the industry and would help, in a genuine way, reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As senators would be aware, late last month the government announced it would wind up the solar hot water rebate scheme on 30 June this year. The Renewable Energy Bonus Scheme, which everyone seems to call REBS, the assistance for solar hot water systems, was introduced in 2007 under the Howard government. It was introduced by the then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, as an interim or bridging program that would wind up at the introduction of a comprehensive carbon pricing scheme. It was never intended to be an ongoing program. The Labor government expanded the program in 2009 and indicated that it intended to close the scheme on 30 June 2012.

The Renewable Energy Bonus Scheme guidelines since early 2011 have clearly indicated that customers have a four-month period in which they can make a claim for a rebate. The final four-month period to claim a rebate was from 28 February to 30 June and, of course, that period is now underway. People are eligible for the rebate through to 30 June for a system that has been installed, ordered or purchased before 28 February. It is expected that some claims lodged in this final four-month period will be processed after 30 June this year. The government, of course, will honour those rebates. Accusations that the scheme was being scrapped, ended abruptly or ended prematur­ely are simply not correct. These accusations are typical of the sort of overblown rhetoric and inaccurate claims that have become a hallmark of the current opposition.

A suite of support programs begin on 1 July this year under the government's Clean Energy Future plan, replacing interim measures such as REBS. These are more cost-effective and properly integrated programs designed around the carbon price. When the carbon price scheme starts on 1 July, the solar hot water industry will be receiving support in four ways. First, the carbon price itself will create a stable, long-term market for solar hot water. Second, the Low Carbon Communities program will provide $330 million to councils, communities and low-income families to improve energy efficiency in homes and buildings. Third, the $800 million Clean Technology Investment Program will give the solar hot water industry an incentive to retool and modernise the manufacture of these units. Fourth is the support the industry will receive through the renewable energy target. Essentially, consumers can be offered up to a $1,000 discount via the STC scheme. I do note in this area that there seems to be nearly as many acronyms as there are in Defence. I have just talked about the renewable energy target. That is very old fashioned; you call that RET these days. The old-fashioned way of describing the STC scheme might be the small technologies certificate scheme. Be that as it may, the scheme has been in place since 2009 and will continue to provide support to the industry.

The solar hot water industry has received substantial assistance from the government and will continue to be well supported in recognition of the important role it is playing in creating a cleaner, more energy efficient economy. Support for solar and heat pump systems will continue through state and territory programs and under the government's renewable energy target and Low Carbon Communities program. Manufacturers can also seek assistance under the Clean Technology Innovation Program that supports further innovation and product improvement. The government has provided over $320 million under the Renewable Energy Bonus Scheme since its introduction to help more than a quarter of a million Australian households replace older, more carbon-polluting hot water systems with renewable, climate-friendly alternatives. I think it has been a real success; this is genuinely a real credit to the government. We have heard quite a lot of unnecessary bluster from the opposition on this issue, which of course is their normal modus operandi on such matters. But I have got to say that I find it a bit rich for the coalition to lecture the government or the Senate or, frankly, anybody on its response to climate change—a lecture from a party whose leader believes that climate change is 'absolute crap'. Even more concerning is the knowledge that Mr Abbott's very backward and recalcitrant and negative view about climate change is quite mild in comparison to the views of some of his coalition colleagues in this chamber.

In conclusion to my contribution in the second reading debate on the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012, I would say that really the opposition has been very reckless when it comes to economic considerations around this issue. The Solar Hot Water Rebate scheme is a demand-driven program. Any extension to the program would have very significant budget implications, leading to a substantial—and I would believe—unquantifiable impact on the budget bottom line. So, apart from anything else, we have fiscally irresponsible and opportunistic grandstanding on this matter from the opposition—and of course this is the opposition that senators know have been authors of a $70 billion budget black hole. I really do think that when it comes to the economy and when it comes to the environment, the best the opposition can do is leave it to the experts on this side of the chamber.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to speak in relation to the government-scrapped Solar Hot Water Rebate program and to support the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 presented to the Senate today by Senator Birmingham, which we are considering. The bill itself is very succinct and very simple. If I could sum it up in four words, it is simply about sticking to the plan. The bill seeks the government to continue the program till the end of the financial year and that the remainder of the budgeted amount for the solar hot water rebate for the 2011-12 financial year be available to Australians for them to put solar hot water in their homes.

Right across the nation, small businesses, farmers, communities and families are concerned about the uncertainty generated by the government's policy backflips. Why? Once again, it indicates to us so clearly just how out of touch this government is. In the real world people plan. In the real world businesses plan. We look ahead, we assess our risks, we plan a course of action and then we resource it and deliver on it. This process is the same for businesses assessing where they are going to place their scarce resources, where they are going to invest. Families ask questions: where are we going to send our kids to school? How do we need to spend our hard-earned dollars? This government has again failed to provide an environment where both these pillars of our society—small business and families—can proceed with confidence to plan and invest and to move forward. The basic tenet of any government is to do no harm to your citizenry, but the scrapping of this rebate, whatever you think about renewable energy, creates a climate of uncertainty and it absolutely does harm.

Today I want to commend those drafting the bill in finding a policy outcome that not only provides certainty for the businesses producing the solar panels and those installing them but also assists the govern­ment to honour its budgetary commitments for 2011 and 2012 and assists Australians prepare for the coming rise of electricity costs under the carbon tax.

What a debacle! But, again, it is not a surprise. I heard a senator mention last week that this government reeks of systemic mismanagement, and I would have to agree. It seems inherently contradictory behaviour that on one hand we would be implementing a carbon tax that is going to see families' electricity costs rise, and on the other hand we are actually stripping away families' capacity and, indeed, our skills and training capacity in the workforce, in the manufact­uring sector, to assist people to deal with the cost of electricity.

I think the essence of my issue goes to the uncertainty it creates. Certainty is exactly what is required. Certainty is needed by business. I need only to use the example of the pink batts scheme and how the govern­ment handled that to see the implications for small business. Certainty is needed by individuals, particularly job certainty around our manufacturing sector significantly at this present time, and it is also needed by our communities. This government is intent on creating a climate of uncertainty—and I mention the Murray-Darling Basin commu­nities that are, right now, dealing with the uncertainty created by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

But why would this program and the scrapping of it be any different?

This government is uncertain: it is uncertain about its leadership; it is uncertain about its direction and its own agenda; it is sending mixed messages. The Australian people have woken up and they are on to it. And Queenslanders—the lucky ones—will have their say about Labor governments this weekend.

But let us look at the issue at hand. In Victoria, around 20 per cent of household greenhouse gas emissions come from conventional hot water systems. Right across Victoria and the nation, households are making efforts to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. A switch to solar hot water can actually assist households in reducing their energy use. I again say that, come 1 July, there will not be a household in Australia that is not seeking to reduce carbon emiss­ions. And, of course, installation of solar hot water also helps the hip pocket by ultimately resulting in lower water heating costs, which can drop by as much as 75 per cent.

On 28 February 2012 the government announced the immediate closure of their solar hot water rebate. They may try and make out that the closure is to take place only from 30 June, but this is misleading. Senator Milne in her contribution to this debate outlined some of the confusion around the lodging of documents and the announcement relating to 30 June. The fact is that all of the purchasing and the commit­ments by households to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions must have been made prior to the government's announce­ment, otherwise they cannot access this rebate.

Communicating with the public unless it is by 'media release, project announcement, photo op, let's move on' is nothing new for this government. There is no better example than the bike path—or, might I say, up the garden path—debacle that is on the front page of the Australian today. As the ANAO report released this week attests, this government cannot manage the simplest of projects through to outcomes, let alone the budget. There was $40 million wasted in that bike path program alone.

To return to the discussion at hand, families want to do their best to help the environment but miss out on the opportunity to get some support for their endeavours from this government. Families of the workers who manufacture the solar hot water systems are affected, as are the families of those who own the small businesses that supply and install the solar hot water systems who have lost a core chunk of their business and now face an uncertain future. I would like to note Senator Faulkner's comment that it is 'all okay because, come 1 July, we've got this whole suite of programs that are going to be there for solar rebates and the businesses will have certainty and the families will have certainty'. That shows a complete misunder­standing of how small businesses operate. At the end of the day, those small businesses have to keep their workers in work; they have to pay the wages of those workers until those programs come online. It is a significant impact and a risk for those small businesses.

All week we have heard about this government's commitment to small business, and here is a perfect example to demonstrate the strength of that commitment. The Clean Energy Council, on notice of the government's announcement, claimed that 1,200 manufacturing jobs are at risk as well as 6,000 installation, sales and administration jobs. If you are in this industry at this point of time I would imagine your livelihood could certainly be starting to look a little shaky, a little uncertain. Has the minister responsible visited the Rheem factory, spoken to the workers, assured them that this government's policy will not directly impact the certainty of their jobs? I back up these comments by a reference to the industry itself. Simon Terry, the General Manager of Dux, was quoted in the Age on 1 March:

This government makes investment decisions very risky.

He continued:

The ones I am worried about are the small mums and dads, the little guys … who are going to have to sell their factories and close down.

Those are telling words, I think, from the industry itself. I have heard that the worst part about this decision is that it comes so close to the implementation of the carbon tax.

Ahead of the carbon tax, many households across the nation are looking to find ways they can cut their energy use, ways they can achieve the twin aims to reduce carbon emissions and their energy bills at the same time. The rebate would have been thought to be a policy solution for them, but its cancellation reeks of this government's previ­ous mistakes—policy areas where Prime Minister Gillard and her colleagues have consistently overpromised and underperfor­med. It has the same whiff about it as the scrapped 'cash for clunkers' and the pink batts debacle and I do not want to discuss here the issues of fires and the dodgy installations but simply to mention the toll of that particular program on the small businesses and the installation people who were left in the lurch and had to lay off workers and still have installation batts in sheds. There are numerous other programs scrapped by Labor without warning, policy decisions made on the run and about-faces in the blink of an eye impacting the lives of ordinary Australians without thought by Labor as to what it would mean to them—not that in many instances the policy change was not the right move but that the rapid pace was astounding.

I would like to touch on Senator Urquhart's contribution to this debate today with her critique of John Howard, of climate change policy and of black holes when what should be being debated is why the ALP is not supporting working families in Australia's manufacturing sector, and that is simply because they have to fix their own black holes, their big budgetary blow-out. Over the last four years they have taken us from a nation with no debt and $70 billion in net assets to one where we are now on track to rack up a record debt of over $136 billion in the middle of the mining boom. We have been dealing in this fortnight with their scrambled attempts to fix this, but the increasing uncertainty in this present climate for families and small businesses is not the way to fix it. It is not the solution.

The ALP does not have the economic credibility that government senators have been crowing about during this debate, and I find it particularly offensive. I want to mention the argument provided earlier around the issue of this bill in the context of it being a demand driven program. It was argued that, in order to be a fiscally responsible government, around demand driven programs when you are setting the budget figure you need to slightly overestimate demand. I think this is the direct quote: 'You need to slightly overestimate the demand when you are setting the budgetary figure.' Well, this must be a new insight from this government on constructing a budget because it does not seem to be a whole-of-government approach. Let us look at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the example of the government's farm exit grants. Many farmers in western Victoria were left in the lurch, teetering on the edge of financial ruin, when the government, in a demand driven program, clearly did not assess first what the demand would be, let alone build in a bit of a buffer, and the program was then cut incred­ibly short only two or three months after its instigation. How is this an example of appropriate planning and budgeting by this government? What confidence can we have?

But let me return again to the bill at hand. The axing of the solar hot water rebate program with no consultation is reminiscent of so much of ALP policy development: it's a problem, let's panic about it, let's have a press release, let's move on to the next problem. Senator Faulkner's reason for scrapping it early was that the new programs were coming on. But what about the workers? What about those businesses that are having to pay wages so that their workers can pay their mortgages and contribute to the economy? This government assume Austra­lian businesses and families have the same approach to financial management that they do—that is, that they do not plan and that they do not have an idea because the government have no plan and no idea. As I said earlier, Australian families are very conscientious in their planning. Australian small businesses are very diligent in the way they invest their money and plan for the future so that they can continue to innovate and provide employment for so many Australian workers.

Labor are panicked about their budget black hole and they cannot be trusted with money. Each day we learn more about government waste, tax increases, more pain from the carbon tax, and a manufacturing sector under pressure. The government's decision to scrap this rebate does nothing to assist that. With this in mind, I am fully supportive of Senator Birmingham's private member's bill and for three reasons: governments should stick to the plan, they should be financially responsible and they should be looking out for manufacturing jobs.

I call on the Greens to support this bill. The Greens have long been advocates for alternative energy sources, with Senator Brown even at one stage proposing large-scale solar power plants. Their overall support for solar power is clear and well established. I wonder why they are not running to support Senator Birmingham's bill when they have a chance to show their very real and tangible support for small businesses in this area. They should be supporting this bill and calling upon the government to not rest on their laurels, to not just move onto the next policy mistake, but to support people whose livelihoods rely on the increasing popularity of solar energy and households set to benefit from reduced energy bills in the face of the cost of the new carbon tax. I encourage the Greens to support Senator Birmingham's bill and to provide certainty for Australian families, workers and small business. I commend the bill to the Senate.

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

It is wonderful to see people talking about the issues around solar energy in any debate, and I am really keen to discuss moving forward with this process today.

When this Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 was introduced, the Renewable Energy Bonus Scheme was clearly defined as an interim scheme, one that was being introduced to encourage people to look at changing their practices and to making decisions around how they could best have solar energy in their homes. There was a clear understanding that it was going through until June 2012. There is no doubt that it was not going to have an end date. There now seems to be this amazing focus in this debate that the only way that people in Australia were going to look at changing the way they had solar hot water was if this bill was in place. That was never the intent. The intent was as an incentive, as a bonus to get people to change their ways of thinking, and that has worked. I applaud the way that this bill has been operating in that time frame.

We can see by the figures that have already been mentioned in the debate today that far more people than the original proponents of the bill in 2007 had expected—many more than had originally been planned for—made the decision and looked at using solar power, worked with producers in the field and made the change. That is a great thing. No-one can deny that. But if this debate hinges on the fact that the only way that Australians will look at taking up solar energy will be if they get an immediate rebate then that undersells the population. In many ways this interim bill has succeeded in its intent to make people think about the need for change. In fact, we know that in many areas of construction in new homes the only option is looking at alternate forms of energy for internal heating. We were trying to tell people the costs of old forms of heating, which were the focus of this bill, and to look at different arrangements and encourage them to ask questions, and to encourage businesses to introduce a range of options in their marketing that were not available up until the early 2000s. There was only the one product available and that was what we were locked into because we were comfortable with that process of energy and that was what our market was producing.

In the early 2000s, people across the community began to say, 'Hey, we can do better than this', and a number of companies grabbed hold of that incentive and thought they could get more profit through a market they could serve. We can see that it did work. The Renewable Energy Bonus Scheme had its purpose and its time has passed. We are now moving into the formal period of the carbon pricing process, with the range of initiatives that are linked with that. Senator Faulkner went through some of those in his contribution and I share his view about the acronyms habit into which we are falling. We have had much discussion in this place around the various programs and schemes that are coming through from 1 July this year. The Clean Technology Investment Program is focused on the very industries about which Senator McKenzie was speaking, working with those industries to look at their innovation and good business practice and to have them involved in working with the Australian market to ensure that we, as a whole community, address and embrace issues around renewable energy.

That process, which is a large expenditure of $800 million, will be working to ensure that things like solar hot water systems—but not only solar hot water systems—will continue to be developed. They will bring down the cost of those because we all know that the market-driven forces ensure that, the larger the market, the cheaper the product will be and the greater the incentive for research and development. Australia has a good record in that area. We expect that when the processes around this Clean Technology Investment Program get going, we will, as always, have clever Australian industries working in this area to make sure that they are the best that they can be and to bring with them the market that can be created around that, a market which in some way has been educated and developed through the Renewable Energy Bonus Scheme. But that scheme is not the only driver of change. To hear some of the contributions from the other side, you would think that the only way we will be able to move effectively to clean energy in the future is to retain such a narrowly-based scheme for one single purpose. That is just not true. In looking around at the wider debate about how we can appropriately engage in looking at alternative energy, it seems to me to be an over-exaggerated excuse for not taking further action.

One of the other programs coming through with the price on carbon will be the renewable energy target—the RET scheme. This again is looking at a means of incentive for people in the community, and again they will be able to have a choice. People wishing to use the RET scheme can use it in a number of ways to look at different forms of energy in their home. It is not so narrowly prescribed around just heating; it is looking at other things. We believe very strongly that the debate has moved on, that an interim program from 2007 was there for a purpose, and I think it has worked. I think that more people are looking at alternative forms of energy and that producers are looking at offering a greater choice. But we need to go further than that. We have had the extensive debate in the parliament about the whole area of the price on carbon and moving into a clean energy future. That program has been agreed and the processes will be in place from 1 July.

Certainly the debate has been wide ranging, and I will not have to keep saying 'and we return to the point', because I think the focus of this debate is actually the Renewable Energy Bonus scheme process. I note that there are two bills—one in the lower house and the one we have before us here—but they are both trying to take the debate away from the real purpose. I think they are trying to focus on this particular issue and not the wider areas around what we have to have in this country, which is a complete acceptance that we are moving into an area of carbon pricing, which will involve every citizen. The opposition continue with their opposition to that, and one aspect of their opposition will be focusing on such a narrow bill as the Renewable Energy Bonus Scheme.

I do think that one of the things that does need to happen is continuing work with the industry, and I take Senator McKenzie's point that there has got to be continuing information, sharing and working with industry. That is occurring. There is no doubt there will and must be discussion between government and industry. I think that, as always, when industry is fearful—which people were when this announcement was made—they tend to overstate the issue, go to the media and call for support. That is a natural reaction. I know that there is continuing discussion with ministers about moving into the future. That is exactly how government works with the community.

I do not think that there is major uncertainty, as has been stated by some of the opposition in this debate. I think that this particular scheme, the subject of this debate, is understood. What we need is greater engagement and clarity from all parties who are moving into such schemes as the clean energy investment program and the renewable energy target. We need industry to understand exactly what their role is going to be and to do the kind of research and development work that I have mentioned which will make them very effective players into the future.

We are also working with the Low Carbon Communities Program, which is taking the discussion to councils and communities so that people can work at the community level to see how they can change the amount of carbon used, how they can support, particularly, low-income families in their community to minimise their energy costs, and look at the kinds of support that the government is providing and also make that very important community decision about how they are going to operate in a clean energy future. That is a great opportunity for people to look at the use of alternative energies at the local level.

The kinds of programs that will be available through the RET and the develop­ment processes will be best understood and taken up by people working together and sharing knowledge. Already there are examples across Australia of communities that are doing that. They have looked at sharing energy costs and at what works best for them. That is the way Australia will be able to achieve the kinds of targets we must achieve and how we will be able to learn from our own experiences and get people involved. Through that process, the informa­tion that has been available for the last few years through the Renewable Energy Bonus scheme has been valuable. So many thous­ands of people in Australia have taken up the scheme and are working with it and will have clear evidence about what their costs of heating have been as opposed to what they would have been if they were still reliant on the old technology and the old models.

In this environment we have the opportunity to be positive and to engage, or we have—as has been seen in the debate today—the ongoing opportunity to keep on opposing and to keep on saying no. In that process I do not think there is any real choice. I think that there will be the under­standing from the Australian community that there have been changes. The process will operate differently from 1 July. People will have the chance to make their own decisions around what they are going to do and how they are going to own and control their own involvement with energy costs—with their transport and with the way that they are going to operate their own businesses. That will be, I think, a process where there will be support by government.

Today's bill is, I think, a diversion. Whilst we will go through with the debate, we will hear some common ground. I think that people will actually applaud how good the Renewable Energy Bonus scheme has been and understand why it has been so successful. As I have said, I agree with many of those comments. What I do not agree with is some pretence that it is the only mechanism for which people will take any opportunity to make their own choices around how they are going to take part in a clean energy future. I do not think incentive bonuses are the only way to reward people or to have people engaged. I think that industry have done a great job over the last few years in marketing in their own way the advantages of the products they have. From my own experience—and from both the newspaper ads and the TV ads—I have seen that people have celebrated the economic value on an ongoing basis of changing to an alternate form of energy rather than sticking with the old forms of energy. People have been able to work out that they will have over time great personal incentive to actually make the changes. They do not need to rely on a scheme—that was developed in 2007 to be an interim scheme—to make them make the choice as to what is going to be best for them, for their families and for their homes.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is so wrong with business and the Australian people expecting certainty? What is so wrong with expecting certainty from a government? What is so wrong about expecting certainty at the moment is that we have a Gillard Labor government—a Gillard Labor government hand in hand with the Greens which, despite their protestations, would seem to be more intent on touting its green credentials but destroying as many green jobs as they can?

What is so wrong with business expecting certainty from its government? Unfortunately, the only certainty that business and the Australian community can now expect from this Labor government is that whatever they touch in terms of programs they will stuff up. We have had botched, bungled and mismanaged program after program after program. This govern­ment can change their ministers as many times as they like but they cannot change their stuff-ups.

In terms of this stuff-up, on 28 February this year Minister Dreyfus prematurely announced—despite what members opposite try to say, there is no way around it, he prematurely announced—the cessation of the $1,000 solar hot water rebate. And he said at the time: 'It's good practice. It's good practice to close this kind of program this way.' Really? What is good practice about in February announcing the closure of a scheme which business and stakeholders rightly had expectations around—because of the govern­ment's own announcements and because of what was on government websites. Senator Milne went through some of the website details that industry are entitled to rely upon—if they actually go to the bother of looking at—which clearly showed that, until Minister Dreyfus made his announcement on 28 February, the govern­ment and the government's departments expected that this scheme would continue until the end of June. But, oh, no, Minister Dreyfus says, 'It's good practice to close this kind of program in this kind of way'—just before 5 pm; just before the solar shops close on a Tuesday night. It was deliberately announced that way to make sure that the shops were closed and could not do anything about the announcement by the time they heard about it.

This government has caused as many as 60,000 homeowners to miss out on significant savings if they install a hot water system. Senator Moore can talk about what she thinks was supposed to be the intent of a scheme such as this but, irrespective of whether it was the intent of a scheme such as this to help change community attitudes rather than rely upon, as suggested by Senator Moore, the mentality of the community that, 'I will only do this because I can get a rebate for it,' the fact remains that the community, stakeholders and business should be able to rely upon the policy underpinnings and the program predictions of this government. But they simply cannot—and there is example after example after example of those spectacular failures.

In terms of this one, again, irrespective of whether solar hot water companies, including Rheem—who has said that it has $10 million worth of stock left to move—and consumers were going to be doing this anyway, a program like this is like a beacon to which moths will gather, and the moths in terms of the stakeholders and industry probably stocked up or manufactured, as in the case of Rheem and a couple of our local manufacturers. They are the very sorts of producers and jobs that this government would have us believe that they are trying to protect. But the government are far more intent, it would appear, on corporate welfare with our car companies rather than sticking to their promises to businesses that are trying their best to hold their own and, for example, manufacture products in this country. Rheem is one of those left with some $10 million worth of stock on hand as a result of the overnight premature cessation of this program—by the stroke of a ministerial pen. Why wouldn't the industry operate on the basis that this scheme would continue until at least 30 June?

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They should have known; it was a Labor government.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, Senator Boyce; the only certainty with this Labor government is that they can rely on nought other than stuff-up after stuff-up after stuff-up. The Clean Energy Council says that there are about 1,200 manufacturing jobs and 6,000 installation, administration and sales jobs that are now at risk since Minister Dreyfus's axing of the program prematurely.

The government's own budget shows that some $63 million worth of funding was allocated to this program in 2011-12 and $24½ million was set aside for it in 2012-13, which makes a complete mockery of Minister Dreyfus's words when he announced the axing on 28 February, saying: 'It's good practice to close this kind program in this way.' Really? Who is he trying to kid? He cannot even kid himself, it would seem, because, if it is such good practice, the government should have planned it in advance, and they clearly had not because they provided $24½ million for the program in 2012-13. That can only be to pay for applications in the door before 30 June, because at the time they formulated the budget they clearly intended to keep the thing running, as they had promised, until 30 June. They knew they would have some overhang for which to cater. Unless of course they learnt from earlier stuff-ups; unless of course they thought, 'We'll probably stuff this up, so we should provide some $24½ million to mop up our mess.' That is a thought, but I think it is the former rather than the latter, because this government does not seem to have learnt from its stuff-ups of earlier programs.

Remember—because the Australian community does—that there was the sudden closure of the solar panel rebate scheme, under the Solar Homes Plan, by then Minister Garrett in 2009, and the botched, bungled and then axed Green Loans program. That left hundreds of people thousands of dollars out of pocket. There was the cash-for-clunkers program. What about that? What a clunker. It did not even make a start before it clunked. Minister Kim Carr stopped it before it started.

Senator Siewert interjecting—

There was another supposedly fantastic and spectacular program, with not a lot of dollars attached to it, Senator Siewert, so one might suggest: 'What does it matter?' There was not a lot of attention attracted to it either, but there was this thing announced by then Minister Garrett in 2008 called the Renewable Energy Atlas. He announced this thing with much fanfare—it was a website based thing—and said it 'would be a fantastic and invaluable tool for industry, governments and the community as Australia explored solutions to climate change.' He went on to say:

It is an important step in making renewable energy a more viable and practical choice for the future.

So it was launched with much fanfare and much fantastic promise by the then minister in 2008 and then, under the darkness of the night, not even two years later, in October 2010, from memory, all of a sudden the Renewable Energy Atlas totally vanished off the face of the earth. Instead, what was left on the website was a link to some other place, saying:

The data on which the Renewable Energy Atlas was based is now available directly from the originating organisations ...

Big deal. If this Renewable Energy Atlas was such a fantastic thing when it was launched by the minister fewer than two years earlier, what had changed in the intervening fewer than two years to make it 'unfantastic'? What about the taxpayers' money that was wasted in the intervening period?

When we tried to ask the various departments about this at estimates, we started off unhappily with the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, which said, 'It's nothing to do with us. In fact, it never was anything to do with us. You'll have to ask the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities instead.' So, later that day, when the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities got in front of us, I asked them, 'What about the Renewable Energy Atlas?' They replied, 'It's nothing to do with us, and it doesn't exist anymore.' The only certainty there seems to be with this government is that they reckon that they can somehow change ministers and that might change their stuff-ups or they can somehow change departments and that will somehow change the history of stuff-ups. We wait to hear the fate of the Renewable Energy Atlas.

There was the Home Insulation Program. That has many millions of dollars attached to it—many more zeros. Then Minister Peter Garrett axed the Home Insulation Program in February 2010. There must be something about February as the month to axe prematurely. Minister Dreyfus axed the solar rebate in February. Two years prior to that, Minister Garrett axed the Home Insulation Program in February—again, overnight, by the stroke of a ministerial pen. That was a program which attracted companies to supply, companies to install, and workers to the industry, because of a government program. There is no denying it. Whether it was right or wrong, that is what happened and, overnight, this government, with the stroke of a pen, destroyed not only the jobs of many workers in the home insulation industry but also the reputation of many decent and long-standing businesses who had been operating in the installation sector. They found their reputations trashed overnight by the fly-by-nighters who had been attracted to the industry by the government's 'Come hither; this is a program which will help save the environment. It'll save us from climate change. It'll create jobs and it'll stimulate the economy.' Instead, you had botches, bungles and an axed program which cost jobs and cost the environment, because that which was put in then had to be checked for safety. There are plenty of carbon miles in going back up to the roof; plenty of carbon miles in flying inspectors from one city to another to inspect a roof in another state when, apparently, there are not enough accredited people to do it in the state in which the home requiring the inspection is situated; plenty of carbon miles in the disposing of home insulation which is taken out and put somewhere for disposal; and plenty of carbon miles and plenty of cost to the environment with installation products that will not degrade. That program did not create jobs; it cost jobs. That program did not do one thing for the environment; it cost the environment. How can a program which has cost taxpayers at the end of the day—because we are still cleaning up that mess—ever stimulate the economy?

Kevin Rudd, of course, was Prime Minister at the time—ho, ho!—and again, with much fanfare, rolled himself down the lawns of Parliament House to meet with insulation installers protesting Minister Garrett's sudden and overnight closure of the scheme. Then Prime Minister Rudd said to the industry—there are plenty of visuals of him saying it—'I get it, I get it, I get it.'

What did he get? He said, 'I get it,' and he said, 'We will create a replacement program to be in operation by June.' Well, what happened then? Another change of minister, and Minister Combet stopped that scheme before it even got off the ground! He said that the replacement scheme in June 2010 would not happen. So what did Prime Minister Rudd get? What did he mean when he said to the home insulators on the lawns, 'I get it'?

It is very clear now from subsequent events that the only thing then Prime Minister Rudd was focused on was keeping his prime ministerial job. That is all he ever 'got'. He never 'got' the fate facing the home insulation industry, and he never 'got' what was being faced by the workers in the industry whose jobs had been trashed overnight. But he certainly would have got a message during the leadership spat when rolls and rolls of home insulation were left outside his door, apparently by someone who lost around $300,000 in home insulation stock.

These people have not forgotten. They have not recovered and, sadly, some of them probably never will. And yet this government continues to slug families. They are slugging families with a carbon tax from 1 July and they are sacrificing this solar program in the scramble to get back to budget surplus. In my home state of South Australia they are doing so to a program that supposedly helps save on electricity at the end of the day.

In my home state of South Australia we learned this week not only that our electricity prices have risen and not only that they are kind of expensive but that South Australians are paying the third-highest electricity prices in the world—the third-highest electricity prices in the world! There is no way that this rebate cut does anything other than disadvantage South Australian families who otherwise might have qualified for it. It is simply not good news for families in Adelaide.

Yet, just last April, the member for Adelaide, Kate Ellis, was extolling the virtues of green energy and lauding what she called the 'Adelaide Central Market iconic solar installation,' saying:

South Australians understand we need to protect our environment and move the nation to a clean energy future, …

With or without this government, South Australians may well understand that. But they are now learning that they cannot have any confidence in this government and that they cannot have any certainty that this government will help them move to that clean energy future of which the member for Adelaide so vacuously spoke. I just do not get how axing this solar program rebate moves us to the member for Adelaide's clean energy future.

The bill before us seeks to reinstate the rebate for the period this Labor government promised it would be in place. It is pretty simple; it does not need any more money. The money has already been allocated by the government in the budget, because this very government expected that this program would continue until 30 June. It does not matter what members opposite say, despite Parliamentary Secretary Dreyfus saying that this is the right way to axe the scheme and that this is good practice to close this program in this way. It would be good practice, Parliamentary Secretary Dreyfus and Prime Minister Gillard, to give the Australian people some certainty. Thank you.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot say it has been educative but it has been interesting to listen to the speeches from the members opposite today, and I include amongst the members opposite the Greens and the interesting contribution from Senator Milne.

I would like first to examine Senator Faulkner's comments in relation to this. He very happily sat there and told us that this rebate scheme had first been introduced by then Minister Turnbull in 2007 and that the Labor government expanded the scheme in 2009, intending to close it on 30 June 2012. It was then that his speech and reality separated. He said that it took four months or so to process rebates, so close it on 28 February and most of the rebates will be paid out by 30 June—as though this were actually the intention.

Of course, perhaps the very beleaguered small business people and manufacturers of Australia should have learned by now not to trust this government when it provides rebates. But to suggest that there is nothing wrong with closing a scheme that was due to run out on 30 June on 28 February is the most ridiculous garbage I have ever heard. It is, I think, not worthy of Senator Faulkner. I thought he had some vague idea of how the business community in Australia worked. I know most of his colleagues do not, and I know that the Greens certainly do not, but I did think that Senator Faulkner had some vague idea about how business in Australia operates. On 28 February, when the announcement was made by Parliamentary Secretary Dreyfus—as Senator Fisher points out, once the shops had closed—did Senator Faulkner genuinely think that there would be no solar hot water installers or solar hot water manufacturers caught by this decision? Did he genuinely think that he would not harm Australian businesses with that decision? 'Of course they'd know that if we said 30 June we really meant 28 February!' It is beyond belief that this could even be put up as some sort of vaguely reasonable suggestion by the other side.

Of course, as Senator Macdonald pointed out earlier today, the first 15 minutes of Senator Milne's contribution would have had you believe that the Greens would support our bill to reinstate the solar hot water rebate scheme, because this is one of the ways to reduce emissions and clean up the Australian environment. But she finished by saying, 'I think it's all a good thing, but I had a little talk to Parliamentary Secretary Dreyfus and he tells me he'll sort it out later.' Whether this scheme is reinstated next year or not—which perhaps is what Parliamentary Secretary Dreyfus has told Senator Milne that he will do—is completely beside the point. There is, as Senator Fisher pointed out, $24½ million in the 2012-13 budget for this program. Perhaps once they have finished playing ducks and drakes with the budget they will use that money to reinstate the program, but we have a four-month hiatus and, as has been pointed out here, during that four-month hiatus sales in this area are going to drop significantly. There will be virtually no movement for the next four months or so.

There are up to 1,800 jobs likely to be lost because of the government's action here. There are 60,000 homeowners who will not have the opportunities they would otherwise have had to have this rebate. Of course, it just goes onto the list of the many, many issues that this government has caused with its untruths and its lies to Australian business in relation to the insulation batts scheme, rainwater tanks, solar panels and green loans. The whole lot have been a serious issue, and I am ashamed that the Greens are not going to be supporting this legislation.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I most certainly support the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012, and I move:

That the question be now put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to cancel the division.

Leave granted.

Question agreed to.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

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

Mr President, I seek leave to table a letter pertaining to the debate that we have just had. It is the letter from Mr Dreyfus to me regarding solar hot water. I have discussed the matter with Senator Birmingham and Senator McEwen.

Leave granted.