HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-02-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ELECTRICITY (FEED-IN SCHEME—RESIDENTIAL SOLAR SYSTEMS) AMENDMENT BILL

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the House of Assembly’s message.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: So that this matter can be returned to the House of Assembly, I will be as brief as possible. When the bill left this chamber there were 16 amendments. Amendment Nos 1 to 15 had the effect of expanding the eligible customer definition from domestic customers only to include small businesses which employ fewer than 20 FTEs.

In relation to those matters, on 13 February the House of Assembly passed amendments to the amendments made by the Legislative Council, which had the effect of:

Rejecting the 'small business' definition contained in the Legislative Council's amendments on the grounds of high administration costs and inconsistency with definitions currently applied in the electricity market.

Rephrasing the definition of 'qualifying customer' to refer to a 'small customer' to accommodate the spirit of the amendment.

'Small customer' has an existing definition in the act and regulations based on this being below an annual electricity consumption threshold of 160 megawatts. This would cover approximately 90,000 more small customers, including small businesses and other 'non-residential' customers, such as schools and community buildings. That matter has been the subject of some discussion.

The first amendments I move will be in relation to that, and I trust they will get speedy passage through the committee.

In relation to amendment No. 16, it was the second issue, because in 14 of the 16 amendments moved by this chamber there were really only two separate issues—14 were consequential—and I have dealt with 15 of those. The final amendment is to extend the scheme's duration from five to 20 years.

The government has opposed this extension on what we believe are very good public grounds, and I will briefly summarise the points made by the Minister for Energy in another place, as follows. The government will review the effectiveness of the scheme after 2½ years or when the installed capacity reaches 10 megawatts, over three times the current capacity of just over three megawatts.

At this time, we will evaluate uptake from the scheme, the impact of emissions trading and the expanded national mandatory renewable energy target, whether the price of solar panels has risen or fallen and, of course, what will be the most effective approach after that review time, which is 2013.

I also remind members of the committee who are considering this matter that their amendment does not require the amount paid to be reviewed at any point. So, I ask them what they will be able to buy for 44¢ in 2028. Nevertheless, given the importance of this matter, I do not propose that the government will divide on that particular issue.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I would have a bet with anyone opposite, except that it is illegal. However, if it was legal, I would be quite happy to have a bet with anybody opposite that within the next 20 years this matter will be revisited, and it could well be by a Liberal government at some stage in the future—probably closer to 20 years—but, almost certainly, it will have to do it.

Just to briefly illustrate the point, because I think it is important that we get this matter through as quickly as we can, the change of commonwealth government has brought with it a vastly extended mandatory renewable energy target and a commitment to pursue a consistent approach to feed-in tariffs across jurisdictions. These items are already being progressed through COAG, and its Working Group on Climate Change and Water, chaired by South Australian Senator Penny Wong and the head of our Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Mr Warren McCann.

The Rudd government has also committed to providing access to very low interest loans of up to $10,000 for household energy actions. Photovoltaic will be eligible and the commonwealth's $8,000 capital grant for PV will remain. So, it is clear that the situation is improving all the time, even in the time that this bill has been in the parliament.

As I have said, I am certain that we will revisit this matter but, given the wishes of the committee, I will not insist on a division. What I think is more important is that we get this scheme established as quickly as possible. If there are any particular questions on the amendments, I am happy to speak to them. I seek the committee's cooperation in getting these amendments carried as quickly as possible. In order to facilitate the debate, I move:

That, in line with the schedule, the House of Assembly's amendment to amendment No. 2 of the Legislative Council, together with a consequential amendment, be agreed to.

That is the first matter. As I have said, I have commented on all the amendments, and I indicate that I will not seek a division on amendment No. 16.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will be brief, given that we have the opportunity to get this back into the lower house tonight. I thank the government for accepting the spirit in which the first 15 of my amendments were delivered; in fact, I think the government has improved them with this amendment.

We are now going to find that a range of small consumers will be able to benefit from this preferential feed-in tariff for solar panels. I am pleased about that because, after having introduced an amendment to open this scheme up to small business, I started to get correspondence from groups such as churches, saying, 'We would like to put some solar panels on our church roof.' I think this amendment is sensible.

In relation to amendment No. 16, I will be supporting a move that we insist on our amendment, that is, to give this scheme a life of 20 years. I thank the government for not dividing on this motion; I think the government appreciates where the numbers lie in this chamber. My thanks to the government for not pursuing to the last degree its opposition to the period of 20 years.

Thanks also comes from the solar energy industry which, in correspondence and a number of phone calls received today, thinks that a 20 year scheme in the lead jurisdiction (we are the first state to do this) is absolutely sending the right message. So, the makers of solar panels, the distributors, the sellers, the alternative energy industry association, are all very pleased that we look like getting a 20 year scheme in South Australia. That now sets the bar for the rest of this country to follow and, when the other states legislate for their feed-in schemes, they will be looking up to and following South Australia.

In relation to the minister's comment about whether this legislation will be reviewed, of course it will be; everything will have changed in 20 years. However, today we are sending a strong message to say that the government of South Australia will stand behind those who make the decision to reduce their carbon footprint and put solar panels on their roof—'We will stand behind you. The commonwealth government is standing behind you with rebates; South Australia will stand behind you with a preferential feed-in tariff.' I urge all honourable members to insist on our amendment No. 16, which is for a 20 year time frame for this scheme.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I will be voting to insist on these amendments, but I also note the magnanimity of the Hon. Paul Holloway in saying that the government will not divide on this. In a sense the government has had to back down. I think this is a very positive outcome; in fact, when the Solar City Congress starts next week it means that the Premier will be able to go to that congress and wave around a new act before all the delegates—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: —and say, 'South Australia not only has a feed-in tariff but it is going to operate for 20 years.' That will be something of which we can all be proud.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: The opposition will also insist on these amendments. I will briefly quote from one of the pieces of correspondence that we received yesterday, which reads:

The clean energy industry is completely behind both amendments to extend eligibility to small business and to extend the life of the scheme from five to 20 years.

They go on and thank those of us who have insisted on working for that. Yesterday the shadow minister, Mitch Williams, issued a press release in which he said, in part, that he supported green amendments in the upper house 'to ensure that people who purchased solar panels, photovoltaic electricity generators, would receive an enhanced feed-in tariff for 20 years rather than the measly five years, as proposed by the government'.

He added that potential purchasers would fail to be encouraged by an enhanced feed-in tariff which only lasts until 2013. He then said that leaders in the solar industry, both manufacturing and retailing, supported the 20-year time frame and agreed that a five-year sunset clause would send the wrong message to potential purchasers of photovoltaic systems. I think that sums up our attitude. I believe that five years is nothing more than a stunt, and we will support the green amendments, as we did previously.

Motion carried.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

That the Legislative Council do not further insist on its amendment No. 4 to which the House of Assembly has further insisted on its disagreement.

Motion carried.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

That the Legislative Council do not further insist on its amendment No. 16 to which the House of Assembly has further insisted on its disagreement.

I will not divide on this.

Motion negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT