Save Search

Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 7 December 2000
Page: 23775


Mr MARTYN EVANS (2:51 AM) —The Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2000 is almost ancillary to the principal bill, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000, and it has the essential constitutional features of imposing the rate and charge of the penalty, which effectively makes the principal bill workable. Without the compulsory penalty charge, there would be no reason for people to purchase more expensive, renewable energy.

What the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage omitted to indicate is the incredible delay which has taken place in producing this bill. The government has been considering this matter for a very long time now. It was produced initially in response to the Kyoto discussions and it has been on the table for a great deal of time since. It was rushed through this House under almost identical circumstances at the conclusion of the last session, which is when the parliamentary secretary and I last discussed this measure in the chamber. Very little occurred subsequent to that, despite the many months which were available for discussion and negotiation. Let us hope that the experience of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage at The Hague is what has prompted him to finally move this measure forward and to ensure that it receives parliamentary attention at this hour of the last day.

The opposition will continue to support the view that the indexation measure is desirable—indeed, essential—to maintain the real value of the charge. Although it is true that the bill will now be reviewed in accordance with the opposition's view about the review mechanisms, the reality is that even in the meantime there is no reason not to index the charge since indexation, by definition, only maintains the status quo, and that was our intent. However, I understand we can debate that in more detail if required during the consideration in detail stage of the bill, so I am happy to give in principle and opposition support to the bill as it stands.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.