Senator PARRY (6:41 PM) —I will be brief because a lot of this has been canvassed, but there are a couple of important issues to note. I too was on the inquiry with Senator Macdonald and our colleague Senator Birmingham. The strange part about all this is that every witness basically indicated to us under questioning that they expected that, whoever won the election campaign in November 2007, either side would have supported and enhanced solar energy and, in particular, retained this particular rebate—and there was no indication of means-testing, as my colleague Senator Macdonald has said. That was disappointing, and I think it was bordering on fraudulent for the Labor Party not to declare it and even to stage events indicating that they had a great passion for solar energy. Through the campaign—and this came out time and time again through evidence, and I think all would bear testimony to it—everyone thought that solar panels would be retained and enhanced and that there would be no reduction and certainly not a means test, which was just a bolt out of the blue.

Secondly, evidence in Melbourne was given by the Electrical Trades Union, a Labor Party based organisation. This particular organisation was represented by its senior people, who gave evidence. I asked what they thought the outcome should be and they said, ‘Abolish the means test.’ They were very concerned, so I said, ‘Have you written to the Prime Minister and the minister about this?’—and this will be all borne out in Hansard—and they said, ‘Yes, we have.’ I said, ‘What’s the response?’ The response was, after a couple of months, not a single word, letter or phone call. That was atrocious to hear. So the Prime Minister has even dudded his own union on this particular issue. When you do not have that sort of support out there in the community I think there are some issues.

The third thing I want to talk about, and I will conclude on these remarks, is that the implication of what has been transacted with the means test is that it is now reducing the size of the unit that is going onto the roofs of houses, because the rebate is only applicable to people on incomes under $100,000. They cannot afford to buy a bigger unit because most one-kilowatt units already cost between $8,000 and $10,000. You can buy bigger units at about $15,000 or $16,000, but these people do not have that disposable income to spend. So they are buying smaller units and the taxpayer dollar is not really being effective. That is another shame about all this—it is not an effective use of the rebate. It would have been great if the rebate was going to bigger units on houses, which would actually pick up a lot of the electricity needs of a family home. One-kilowatt units cannot meet all the requirements of a family home. Also, because of the technology and infrastructure of a one-kilowatt unit, there is nothing being fed back into the grid. That is a shame, and I think it is a very foolhardy policy. Like Senator Macdonald, I hope we get support for the save our solar bill. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.