Page 1131 - Week 03 - Thursday, 26 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
clause 10A, is to ensure that any costs incurred by electricity consumers as a result of the feed-in tariff scheme are distributed proportionally across electricity account holders—that is, it is done in a fair manner. We believe the recovery of costs for the feed-in tariff should be spread across electricity account holders, and this must occur on the basis of per unit of energy used—that is, the price per kilowatt hour. If that is not the case, as I flagged in my earlier comments, you would then have a situation where the burden of the cost recovery could fall disproportionately on residential account holders.
As I noted earlier, there is an understanding that the Australian Energy Regulator will regulate the cost recovery, and it is intended that that be done in a proportionate manner, but it does seem prudent to put that in the legislation so that it is explicit and so there is no potential for misunderstanding down the line that that was not the intention of the legislature. I appreciate the support from the government and the Liberal Party on this amendment in recognition of the fact that this is simply a prudent step.
Proposed new clause 10B gives a time line for the minister to determine the premium rates. I have had some discussions with the minister about this, and I think that was a useful discussion. We are simply seeking that the minister give notice about establishing the premium rate three months in advance of the financial year. This is designed to ensure that those who are considering investing in the sector have some indication of the price. As the minister is able to make a determination each year, we are simply creating a window here so that people who may invest very late in the financial year do not suddenly find that the price might change the next week.
I do not think that this would be a regular occurrence, but, again, this is about creating a scheme where the minister makes the determination in time so that people who feel the scheme does not suit them anymore or it is not economic have an opportunity to change their decision. It also reminds people that the rate may change, and I think that that is a wise thing to do. We do not want to create a situation where installers may feel that they have been badly done by, even though the opportunity was always there for the minister to make a determination.
With regard to proposed new clause 10C, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that those people who do invest in renewable energy infrastructure are either able to maintain the contract with the retailer if they move house or sell the contract to a new occupier of the premises should the original occupier move house. This is an amendment that was inspired by constituents that I have chatted to in the street. No-one sent me their name and address, I assure you of that. They expressed concern about the ability to transfer the scheme should they move house. This is a practical consideration. Again, I appreciate the discussions with both the department and the minister as well as the Liberal Party where we sat down and said, “Look, this is a sensible thing to do.” We would probably all assume what would happen, but it is worth being explicit in the legislation that if someone were to move house, this is how it will work.
The decision to make the investment of installing quite significant infrastructure on your house is a considerable one. Given that Australians do seem to move house
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .