Page 1133 - Week 03 - Thursday, 26 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
constructive discussions we had in relation to the amendments and for his willingness to take into account some of the issues the government raised in dealing with them.
Just to talk through them quickly, his proposed new clause 10A to insert a new section 8A deals with the issue of the pass through or recovery of costs by the supplier of electricity services. The pass through was deemed to almost certainly be allocated on a proportional basis, on a volume-of-use basis, so that people who use more electricity will proportionally pay more of the cost of the feed-in tariff and people who use less electricity will pay less of the total cost. That will ultimately be determined by the Australian Energy Regulator, which will, in effect, have the final say on these matters. It is, nevertheless, important to restate the fact that that is also the government’s intention, and the fact that the matter is addressed in this amendment is welcome.
In relation to proposed new clause 10B, which deals with the determination of the premium rate, I know Mr Rattenbury previously favoured a longer lead time or more notice of the determination of the premium rate for the forthcoming financial year, but I thank him for having regard to the fact that it does take a period of months before data becomes available on trends in terms of installation, costs and so on. If that period was too short, then the ability of the minister to make a reasonable determination would be constrained by not having the time to see all of the relevant or sufficient data. The proposal for not later than three months before the financial year is a reasonable compromise, and the government is willing to support that.
In relation to proposed new clause 10C, it is worth noting that the provision regarding temporary interruption to the connection for repair or maintenance work is already provided for under the Utilities Act. Nevertheless, this is a belt-and-braces approach, and the government does not object to that. If the generator is transferred with the premises to another occupier, I think it is worthwhile clarifying that matter, as it is if the generator is transferred to other premises which the occupier occupies.
On the whole, these are belt-and-braces amendments, but, nevertheless, they are ones the government is willing to support. I thank Mr Rattenbury for having regard to some of the issues that the government raised in our discussions with him.
Amendments agreed to.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.17 pm), by leave: I move amendments Nos 1 to 3 circulated in my name together on the yellow paper [see schedule 3 at page1147]. These amendments essentially ensure that the minister consults with the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission prior to determining the premium rate. The minister must seek advice from the ICRC on any rate determinations, and, in fact, the minister is to table the ICRC’s advice in the Assembly before making the determination.
I have spoken to the minister, and he says he would intend to consult with the ICRC anyway, but I think it is important that we hold the government to account on this and ensure that it is a public process so that the ICRC’s advice can be tabled so that we in the Assembly can have the opportunity to consider that and the community can have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .