Page 1132 - Week 03 - Thursday, 26 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
frequently in the process of upgrading or expanding because they have had more kids or downsizing as the case may be for many families, it is important that we be able to do this. These amendments allow for an occupier of a house to sell the contract in an agreement with the retailer to a new owner of the premises or, if they decide they would like to be able to reinstall their technology at their new premises and can do so successfully, they can maintain the 20-year contract at the new premises.
This amendment does not allow for an occupier to move house and install new technology and keep the same contract. It would be unfair to reapply the contract to new solar panels, for example, given that the cost of new infrastructure is not related to the premium rate set at the time when the contract was initially established, and neither can the occupiers restart the 20-year period. That is not our intention either. It certainly is also not our intention that people should suddenly start trying to move their own panels. It is important to point out that the installation or removal of solar panels should be done by qualified professionals. A very high level of electricity is being generated by these panels, and that job should sit with professionals. It is important that people do not climb up on the roof and start trying to play with these things themselves. I want to be very clear that it is not the intention of the amendment that you would suddenly go and hire a van, climb on the roof, get your panels, chuck them in the back of the van and take them with you.
I believe the amendments will provide certainty to householders who are unsure what their future plans might hold but are keen to participate in the feed-in tariff scheme. I commend all three proposed new clauses as a group to the Assembly, and I thank members for their consideration of them.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.11): We will be supporting all three of these proposed new clauses. The first clarifies that the recovery of the feed-in tariff from consumers must be based on the actual electricity consumed and not on a flat rate. I think that is fairly straightforward and is a reasonable way of applying this across the community. The second one requires the minister to determine the premium rate at least three months prior to the financial year, and this will ensure some openness and transparency in pricing and give people some notice of what the premium rate will be.
Finally, the third proposed new clause links the 20-year contracts with the electricity generator equipment rather than the premises or the person. I think we are aware that, despite the exorbitant rates of stamp duty that are applied to people moving house in the territory, people do look to move a few times in their lives. In a perfect world, they would probably be able to move more often. We are aware that people do have differing needs; they do move as their families grow and then again as their families grow up and move out. It is reasonable that they can have some certainty in this being tied to the equipment. For those reasons, we will be supporting all three of these proposed new clauses.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (5.13): The government will also be supporting these three proposed new clauses, and I would like to thank Mr Rattenbury for the very
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .