Page 3028 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Feed-in tariffs, as I said in my earlier remarks on this bill, are designed to work in a way that winds the tariff down in order to adjust the incentive to the market and create a sustained industry. That is the way it has been done in other jurisdictions, and what we are trying to do with this bill today is some attempt to do that.
We have had considerable discussion with the industry players in preparing this bill and in seeking to think about what solutions we might put in place for the crisis that has been created. In that context, the industry has been reasonable. I have not had a strong perception of rent seeking, which you do see in many debates around government. We are certainly seeing it in a very different form at the moment with the fossil fuel industries around a carbon price in the federal sphere. But what the industry have sought is an orderly transition. They have sought the creation of a sustainable industry, and they have sought the protection of the investments that have already been made as well as the skills that have been developed. That is an important point to stress here, and one which Mr Seselja has picked up to some extent.
Operators in Canberra have set up a business on the understanding that this scheme was one the government was committed to, one that had a longevity about it. The cold-hearted reality is that people have gone out and have bought stocks of solar panels, they have spent time training their staff, and they have taken out leases on warehouses for periods of several years. These are all investments that people have made in good faith, and we have then seen a situation where the environment has been drastically altered around them.
I do not think that that is good policy and I do not think it is a good way to encourage industry in the ACT. It is something that this Assembly needs to look to ameliorate. That is what this Greens bill seeks to do. It has been clear to me in discussions with the industry that they have been very realistic about the sort of tariff that is necessary. They have not come and said, “Oh, we need this enormous price.” They have been very clear in saying that they have really developed skills in the last couple of years. The cost of panels has come down for a range of reasons. The efficacy with which they install the panels has improved dramatically. The skills of the staff have improved. In that context, those in the industry have been very realistic about what is needed to provide that softer landing.
All those members who witnessed the gathering outside the Assembly today—I am reluctant to call it a protest because it was perhaps the politest protest I have ever seen, if one was to call it that, and perhaps even the quietest—would have seen, simply from the placards—
Dr Bourke: Not like a Greenpeace protest.
MR RATTENBURY: Exactly. You could see from the placards that they were very realistic. They were saying, “We are happy to take a degression approach to this scheme. That is how they are meant to work. We are happy to acknowledge that we are making advances in our own efficiency. We are simply looking for a step-through approach.” The feed-in tariff scheme was designed to give the industry the launch pad and then set them on their way as a successful small business sector in the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video