I rise to contribute to the debate with respect to the Electricity Price Reform Amendment Bill. This bill was introduced in June of this year by the Minister for Energy and Water Utilities. The title of the bill speaks for itself.
The purpose of the bill is to replace the methodology for determining notified electricity prices and allow for the introduction of a new price setting methodology which is to commence on 1 July 2012. The single greatest policy matter likely to ever affect electricity prices in Queensland, and for that matter Australia, is Labor’s carbon tax.
The minister, the Premier, the Treasurer and the rest of those opposite know it. This bill before the House is part of a process, as is this debate. Later I am going to go into some detail regarding ministerial letters, direction notices, the QCA electricity review and its reports. Contained within all these documents are many references to terms like ‘carbon’, ‘carbon pricing’, ‘emissions’ and ‘carbon pollution reduction schemes’. I want to make it very clear—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Member for Buderim, make it very clear in terms of the bill that is before the House. It is a very, very restricted bill and you are aware of the requirements.
Mr DICKSON: With respect, the title of the bill is very, very clear. It is the Electricity Price Reform Amendment Bill 2011 and one of the biggest impacts on that bill will be the implementation of the carbon tax.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Proceed.
Mr DICKSON:The debate on this bill is directly related to accommodating the impacts of a carbon tax on electricity prices and the costs here in Queensland. Those matters are the reason we are here today, debating this bill. During budget estimates this year the CEO of CS Energy, Mr David Brown, confirmed that the carbon tax will be the single biggest cost item for electricity generators. The average household electricity bill will bear the brunt of the job-destroying carbon tax. The carbon tax will account for around 50 per cent of electricity generating operating costs. On 12 July during the estimates hearing, in responding to a question from a colleague, the member for Clayfield, the Treasurer stated—
...there is now work being undertaken to analyse not only the information that has been provided by the federal Treasury in terms of their own work and assessments but looking in particular towards the assumptions around that, undertaking an independent analysis of that through our own Treasury and beyond the likely undertakings with external advice where appropriate. I expect that such an assessment would take in the order of six weeks and certainly I give an undertaking to provide the results of that assessment to the parliament and into the public arena in due course.
Indeed, it did take close to six weeks for the Treasurer to release the modelling. We know that it hit the table during the last sitting. Throughout the 54-page document there are many references to the Australian government’s modelling.
Last month in Canberra, at the COAG meeting, the Prime Minister was asked by the New South Wales Premier to release the state-by-state modelling on the impacts of the carbon tax. Guess what? The Prime Minister refused to release the modelling. I suspect that this is simply code for ‘certain states are not going to cop it in the neck’, particularly resource states such as Queensland.
Mr ROBERTSON: I rise to a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you have already mentioned to the honourable member that he needs to restrict his comments to the provisions of the bill. No clause in this bill mentions the carbon price that has been announced by the Commonwealth government. Indeed, it cannot mention that because the legislation for the announcement of a carbon price has not even been introduced into the Commonwealth parliament, let alone passed by it. Therefore, it does not refer to carbon price whatsoever in terms of this bill. I ask you to rule accordingly.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I would caution the member for Buderim that, as I originally said, it is a very limited bill so be very careful where you stray.
Ms Male interjected.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Pine Rivers, I do not need any assistance, thank you.
Mr DICKSON: The Treasury modelling is a cynical attempt to somehow hide the truth about the carbon tax and its impact on Queensland, thus offering the Premier some misguided protection from this Labor policy. However, that is not good enough and it will not work.
I note also that there is at least a five per cent discrepancy between the New South Wales and Queensland Treasury modelling on the impacts on electricity prices. The Queensland Treasury modelling document makes references to the Australian government’s modelling. However, all Queenslanders, my colleagues and I want to see the nitty-gritty of the government’s modelling from the federal government on a state-by-state basis. We on this side of the House know that the Queensland government is terrified of what the state-by-state federal Treasury modelling would reveal and how it would impact on Queenslanders.
The state Treasury modelling reveals three small paragraphs on the impacts of Labor’s carbon tax on household power prices. The Treasury modelling document states—
Using the Australian Government’s estimated 10 per cent increase in retail electricity prices due to carbon pricing, the average Queensland electricity bill would increase by $190 next year as a result of carbon pricing.
The document continues—
In addition, the Government announced the intention to implement an inclining block tariff (IBT) for residential customers on Tariff 11. With this work underway, the Queensland Competition Authority is due to provide a draft report including estimated prices for 2012-13 by the end of March 2012, and a final report by the end of May 2012.
So there we have it: the government is all over the shop in relation to electricity prices in Queensland. It has had one review that produced three reports. It has called for another review, with the final report due in May next year. Now we have the state Treasury modelling utilising half-baked nationwide federal Treasury modelling as to the impacts of the carbon tax on electricity prices in Queensland.
The bill amends the Electricity Act and the Electricity Regulation in an effort to replace the benchmark retail cost index, which is used to determine and notify electricity prices in Queensland. The bill also amends the Electricity Act following changes to the conditions of eligibility for connection to the Queensland Solar Bonus Scheme, which commenced retrospectively from 8 June 2011. I will provide some background that is important to the matters contained within the bill.
On 24 June 2009, the current Minister for Energy and Water Utilities wrote to the chair of the Queensland Competition Authority. The minister made reference to a direction notice signed by the Premier and the Treasurer to the Queensland Competition Authority, requiring it to undertake a two stage review of electricity pricing and tariff structures.
The minister’s letter makes very interesting reading. Paragraph 4 of the letter gives us the vibe of what the letter and the accompanying direction notice was really all about. Within the direction notice there are four mentions of then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Within the minister’s letter there are six mentions of the CPRS—yes, six. Therefore, this direction to the Queensland Competition Authority was all about paving the way for Labor’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. As we know now, since the Prime Minister’s office has come under new management Kevin Rudd’s CPRS has been rebadged by Julia Gillard as the carbon tax. The minister’s letter to the Queensland Competition Authority states—
It is the Australian Government’s intention to introduce a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on 1 July 2011. The CPRS will be Australia’s primary policy tool to deliver low emissions outcomes and put a price on carbon in a systematic way throughout the economy. Central to the effective implementation of the CPRS, and promotion of energy efficiency initiatives, is an electricity pricing regime that leads to changes in consumer behaviour that support a carbon constrained economy.
Noting the intent of the CPRS is to internalise costs of carbon emissions in consumption decisions, COAG agreed on 30 April 2009 to amend the Australian Energy Market Agreement to specify that, where retail prices were regulated, energy cost increases associated with the CPRS shall be passed through to the end use consumers.
There we have it. The ultimate goal direction given to the Queensland Competition Authority was to find a way to have electricity consumers pay more for electricity, with a view to satisfying proponents of the carbon tax. In fact, contained within the final report of stage 1 by the Queensland Competition Authority we find the following: among the matters considered in stage 1 of the Queensland Competition Authority review, the authority was asked to consider how to pass through to consumers the costs associated with a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, an expanded renewable energy target scheme and/or any other environmental obligations introduced by the Commonwealth or Queensland government.
On 31 May this year, the Minister for Energy and Water Utilities issued a ministerial media statement heralding the introduction of this legislation. The media statement was titled ‘Minister disappointed at QCA electricity pricing decision’. Within that very media statement, the minister admitted that—
... the impact of the Commonwealth Government’s revised Renewable Energy Target (RET) also contributed significantly to the QCA price increase.
We must not forget that this renewable energy target scheme is Labor’s initiative. It is important for Queenslanders to keep that in mind when they go to the ballot box. The minister’s media statement further states—
The RET contributed 3.19 percent to the QCA pricing decision of 6.6 per cent. Without it, Queenslanders would only be facing a price rise slightly lower than the current consumer price index of 3.6 per cent.
The minister cannot have it both ways. In 2009 he directed the QCA to consider how to pass through to consumers the costs associated with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and expanded renewable energy target scheme. Now, in 2011, he is trying to hide behind Labor’s renewable energy target, blaming it for the size of the increase. How is that for hypocrisy?
Even back in 2009 this state Labor government was investigating how to punish the public with increased power prices to satisfy the ideologies embraced by the Greens and the left-wing lunatics. It is interesting that, since Julia Gillard backflipped on her intention to not introduce a carbon tax, our Premier and various ministers have been pressed as to whether they support the Prime Minister’s decision.
What have we heard from the Premier and other government members? Up until recently all we have heard were weasel words. Now there is a squabble between the Premier and the Prime Minister over the carbon tax.
It was reported in the Courier-Mail on 27 July that the Premier had ridiculed suggestions by Julia Gillard that losses to the state’s coal fired power stations from the carbon tax would be offset by an increase in the value of green energy sources. That highlighted precisely what the Premier thinks about Labor’s green energy future. Prime Minister Julia Gillard has said that the Queensland government would benefit from an increase in the value of green energy assets, but the Premier hit back saying that this benefit would be tiny compared to the losses to be suffered by the coal fired power stations. Here is the kicker: the Premier said—
While we have put very significant investment into it, it is largely owned in the private sector. So the suggestion that the loss of value to our state-owned generators will be in any way compensated by what will be an increase in the value of renewable generation is a very, very, very long way away.
The Premier is confirming what we all suspect: Labor’s carbon tax policy and associated green energy future is all smoke and mirrors. These Labor policies will hurt Queenslanders. We just have to look at what was reported in the Australian last Friday: Labor’s renewable energy plan could see consumers belted with $1.5 billion extra in electricity costs in 2012.
Because of the high Australian dollar, there is an absolute tsunami of cheap solar panels coming into Australia from Asian countries. Australia’s biggest energy retailer, Origin, has warned that Julia Gillard’s plan to create a $10 billion green energy fund to provide new subsidies to solar industries will force power costs even higher. The flood of solar components from overseas is only set to get bigger.
We also learned last month that Australia’s last remaining manufacturer of solar cells will close down its plant in Sydney. So much for Labor’s supposed green jobs bonanza! There are 30 workers who are employed in the green energy industry who have just been shown the door. Labor’s green energy jobs policy is in shambles. Its policy is not in any way helping to develop a green economy with green jobs. It is presiding over a policy that is going to push jobs offshore.
Previously, when pressed by the media and the LNP, the Premier talked about wanting to see the finer details before supporting Labor’s carbon tax, but the intention is clear. I will highlight the government’s intentions very soon. I can clearly see from the stage 1 report that all the government was concerned about was having the QCA investigate how Labor’s state government could pass on the cost of such a tax to poor old Joe Public, the electricity consumer. In fact—and I alluded to this earlier—references to ‘carbon’, ‘Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme’ and ‘carbon price’ are made no fewer than 58 times in the QCA’s report.
Accommodating a carbon tax is—and always has been—the very building block for this entire process. On 11 May this year the Minister for Energy and Water Utilities also issued a media release. In that release on the question of power prices the minister stated—
And we are still waiting on what impact the Federal Government’s Carbon Tax will have as well.
Even the minister was foreshadowing that Labor’s carbon tax is going to add to the hurt. If truth be known, all of those opposite know that a carbon tax will significantly increase energy prices and this government and the Minister for Energy and Water Utilities are determined that Queensland will pay the price for Labor’s carbon tax. In fact, during the second reading of this bill—
Mr SCHWARTEN: I rise to a point of order. I have looked at the explanatory notes and I can find no mention of carbon tax. For 15 minutes now the honourable member continues to talk about carbon tax. I wonder when we will get to the bill.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! There is no point of order. If the member reads the explanatory notes he will find a mention of carbon.
Mr DICKSON: In fact, during the second reading of this bill on 15 June this year the minister stated his and his government’s position. The minister said—
The amendments will also provide sufficient flexibility to deal with any unidentified policy changes or market upheavals.
The minister continued—
In particular, this approach will ensure the regulatory framework is flexible enough to allow any future carbon costs or additional costs associated with environmental obligations to be captured and passed through to customers.
That is absolutely rock solid proof that this bill is all about making Queenslanders pay Labor’s carbon tax. Remembering that the QCA review formed the basis of this bill, the stage 1 report
continues—
In this regard, the Authority notes that state and territory governments, including Queensland, have agreed ... that, where retail price regulation is retained at the commencement of the CPRS, carbon costs will be passed through to consumers. As a result, any price setting methodology will have to meet this requirement.
The stage 2 final report from the QCA released in November 2009 has some very interesting reading as well. Within the report we read the following—
Undoubtedly, there will be winners and losers from the proposed changes. Those who are currently paying prices above their true cost of supply or who are able to adjust their use of electricity to take advantage of new tariff options should benefit from the proposals suggested by the Authority. Correspondingly, those who currently benefit from lower prices or are unable to modify their use are likely to be worse off.
At the end of the review the QCA concluded that an overhaul of the current price setting framework was warranted and proposed that an alternative price setting methodology based on the network plus retail cost build-up approach and a new set of retail tariffs be introduced.
With respect to a delegation to the QCA under the bill, clause 8 states—
(3) The terms of reference may specify the following—
(a) the period for which the price determination is to apply;
(b) the time frame within which QCA is to make and publish reports on the price determination;
(c) the particular policies or principles QCA is to consider when making the price determination;
This bill is taking into account the imminent introduction of Labor’s carbon tax. I also wish to speak about proposed section 90AB of the bill which sets out rules for the publication of the notified prices. Subsection (2) states that the pricing entity must at least one month before the start of each tariff year announce its final price path determination and publish notified prices by gazette notice. Here is the interesting bit. A failure to comply with subsection (1) does not invalidate or otherwise affect the price determination. Why is that the case? Why the get-out clause for the Queensland Competition Authority? Rules are rules, are they not? I would like the minister to clarify this section of the bill when he gets the opportunity.
We on this side of the House will not support Labor’s new, vague laws without knowing how the new electricity prices will be determined. We support abolishing the current electricity price structure but, until the Bligh government gets the definitive state-by-state modelling from Julia Gillard and tells Queenslanders how much electricity prices will go up due to the carbon tax, we cannot have any faith in the state government’s figures.
Its track record is too poor. It cannot be relied upon to get it right, whether it is asset sales, fuel subsidies, council deamalgamation, water restructure, government fees and charges or, indeed, Labor’s power industry restructuring. Let us not forget the infamous claims that no-one would pay more for electricity under Labor’s electricity reform.
This bill also amends the Electricity Act to allow for changes to the conditions of eligibility for connection to the Queensland Solar Bonus Scheme as from 8 June 2011 retrospectively. I note that no public consultation has been undertaken on the changes to the Solar Bonus Scheme. The reasons for that will become very obvious.
There is a clear objective within the bill to introduce an individual system cap of five kilowatts and a limit of one small photovoltaic generator system per premises for customers to be eligible for a feed-in tariff of 44c per kilowatt hour. The schedule 5 definition of ‘small photovoltaic generator’ means a photovoltaic system with a total rated inverter capacity up to the amount prescribed under a regulation or, if no amount is prescribed, five kilowatts.
Within the bill under section 44A and schedule 5 the definition of a small photovoltaic generator as in force immediately before the commencement continues to apply to the qualifying generator after 8 June 2011. We are told that customers with existing connections to the scheme that are above five kilowatts in size will continue to be eligible for the solar bonus tariff. The explanatory notes accompanying the bill state—
Recent advice from Queensland electricity distribution entities indicates a growing number of customers applying to install multiple large solar PV systems, each up to 30 kilowatts in size, on a single premises in order to secure a guaranteed return on investment.
The explanatory notes continue—
The connection of multiple large installations for investment purposes is not a policy objective of the Scheme.
My question is: what did the government think was going to happen? It introduced this scheme encouraging consumers to jump on board and, as a sweetener, introduced rebates for people to install the system. I can recall the propaganda from the government telling people how they would be able to sell excess power back into the grid and what a benefit it would be for everybody. In fact, during the estimates hearing on 14 July 2009 the Premier, in answering a question about ‘bright ideas’ from the member for Mount Isa, was regaling the committee of the virtues of the feed-in tariff scheme and its benefits. The Premier stated—
From 1 July 2008 to 30 April this year, 4,200 customers across the state connected to the feed-in tariff. We have exported 725,000 kilowatt hours to solar energy at a value of over $320,000. So from an industry that was barely existent, in less than 12 months we have seen some 4,200 customers take up the opportunity. We are looking, obviously ... at exporting that to the world.
During question time on 13 April 2010, the Premier stated—
When we initiated the Solar Bonus Scheme, which is a net feed-in tariff of 44c a kilowatt hour, we had just 1,200 solar PVs on Queensland homes. We introduced that program in July 2008. Since then, in less than two years, we now have almost 23,000. Queensland householders signed up and reaping the benefits. What are the benefits? First of all, they are reaping the benefits of generating their own power and seeing a cut to their electricity bills, but for those who have generated surplus power and have put it into the grid they have received money back.
The Premier continued—
We have seen 6½ thousand new customers sign up this year alone ... I am happy to advise the House that in just nine months we are now generating 36 megawatts of power ... That is a testament, I think, to the enthusiasm with which Queenslanders are embracing solar power.
So I would like to think it would naturally flow that obviously the larger the system the larger the feed-in. So am I missing something, or is it not the case that the government had no issue with the number and size of the systems being installed originally? The Premier, as I have outlined, was over the moon about the amount of power being fed back into the grid by consumers. But now the government wants to limit the number and size of systems eligible for the feed-in tariff. If it initially had a problem with the number and size of the PV systems that could be a part of the scheme, why did it not introduce a cap in the first instance?
I think it has come down to a question of money. The government is broke and now it is backpedalling on the scheme. But I also think there is another reason for the size limit of the PV systems. I will go into that in a minute. It has to do with the current infrastructure’s ability to be able to accept above a certain level of solar penetration into the network. And there is a surprise there for the customers too.
I note that the advice being relied upon by the minister for this amendment to the bill is coming from the energy distributors. Obviously, the energy distributors are also losing out on profits to the larger PV solar systems. So they are pressuring the government into this course of action. And there are a group of people out there in the community who do not qualify for the feed-in tariff scheme at all—
residents of manufactured home parks.
I have received very lengthy correspondence from a number of residents in manufactured home parks. They have installed PV systems on their roofs in order to lower their power bills and at the same time feed back into the power grid in an effort to make some small amount of money from ‘doing the bright thing’. However, they have been advised—and I have it in writing from the minister—that they do not qualify.
It is the case that if the homeowner does not have a direct contractual agreement with a power provider—in other words, if they do not get a bill from the power company with their name on it— they do not qualify for the tariff. In a lot of manufactured home parks this is the case. The parks are bulk metered and the residents get a bill from the park owner.
My colleague the member for Coomera highlighted this flaw in the legislation during the debate here in June. He noted—
People in manufactured home parks miss out on ongoing rebates for installing solar panels. An individual living in a house next door to a manufactured home park could get the rebate, but if they decided to sell their house and move into the park they would suddenly miss out on the rebate on an ongoing basis.
On 14 April 2011 the Minister for Energy and Water Utilities signed a letter to a resident of a manufactured home park at Eagleby. The minister’s letter stated—
The Scheme’s main objectives are to make solar power more affordable for Queenslanders, stimulate the solar power industry and encourage energy efficiency. To be eligible for the scheme, customers must have an agreement in place with their electricity distributor, in your case Energex and have the appropriate metering installed. In the situation you describe, the residents of the resort have no direct relationship with an electricity retailer or distributor, and will be ineligible to participate in the scheme.
Whilst we are talking about solar systems and feeding power back into the grid, I bet the punters out there will be very surprised to learn that, as things stand now, there is a limit to how much energy captured in their PV systems can be fed back into the grid—yes, a limit. It is a pretty low limit. Back in May—well before the 8 June deadline for installations of the smaller PV system—a gentleman from
Mudgeeraba applied to Energex to have a 10-kilowatt solar PV system installed at his home.
To his surprise his application was knocked back. Why was it knocked back? His application was knocked back because the penetration of energy from solar into the grid in his area had reached 30 per cent—yes, only 30 per cent. The gentleman contacted me and, in turn, I wrote to the Minister for Energy and Water Utilities.
I was thinking to myself that Labor is forcing the carbon tax upon us supposedly to facilitate renewable energy markets. This cannot be right. You know the mantra, Mr Deputy Speaker: the more renewable energy the better. So the minister replied to me, and I will quote directly from the minister’s letter. He stated—
... Energex engaged consultants to review the appropriate penetration levels of solar PV systems to avoid customers experiencing quality of supply problems, especially during times of light load on the electricity distribution network and when there are high levels of solar penetration for example during the middle of the day ...
The minister’s letter continues—
As a result Energex informs me it has been rejecting new applications for connection ... where the penetration of solar PV systems had reached thirty per cent in certain areas ... his application was rejected on those grounds.
Since, however, Energex has agreed to allow the gentleman’s application as a trial to see whether the network can operate above the 30 per cent solar penetration limit. Labor at both a federal and a state level have fallen over themselves telling us we must do this but it may be somewhat more prudent to first have infrastructure in place to cope with higher levels of solar penetration than 30 per cent.
As I have already said, this bill is all about making Queenslanders pay for the cost of Labor’s carbon tax implications for the power industry. These are measures aimed at appeasing the whims of the extreme left.
We are constantly told about the top 500 polluters. It started off as the top 1,000 polluters but that was going to expose too many companies for the government’s liking. Too many companies would have no doubt passed on the cost of the carbon tax to voters so they scaled it back to the top 500 polluters. When discussing this bill, I think it is important to note exactly who are the top 500 polluters?
On the question of electricity, which we are discussing in this bill, I have seen a list of the alleged top 50 polluters. Remember we are talking about electricity. The alleged top seven polluters are electricity companies. There are 13 electricity companies in the alleged top 16 polluters. Indeed, 17 electricity companies are in the top 50. There are also a few gas companies in there as well. That is just the top 50. We all, except those opposite, want to know who the top 500 are. We do not know, the community is not being told and even the entities do not know if they are captured by Julia’s top 500.
As a case in point, during my recent travels I asked the CEO and chief financial officer of one of the largest councils a question. My question was: what impact would the $23 per tonne carbon tax on methane emissions from their landfill tips have on the ratepayers’ household rates? The answer was that they have no idea because they have not been told whether they have made the run-on side for the top 500 polluters.
Again, it is a question of electricity pricing that we are debating presently. I am informed that just one of this Labor state government’s water bodies, Unitywater, uses $8 million worth of electricity per annum priced on today’s tariff system. The Queensland Treasury modelling reports only 2½ lines on electricity costs as they relate to water. It states—
Electricity costs represent less than 2 per cent of the overall costs of operating the South East Queensland Water Grid. These costs are not material to overall operation of the Grid within the announced price path.
But, as we know, Unitywater is a distributor-retailer to the consumers so what will the carbon tax do to water prices for end use consumers when Unitywater passes on the carbon tax inflated electricity cost to them? As I have said, there is no mention in the Treasury modelling of the impacts on retail water costs even though we know that Unitywater uses $8 million worth of electricity per annum. It only talks about the insignificant costs of bulk water supplies to the grid.
The political deals done by both federal and state Labor have let the greenie out of the bottle. The bottle for the rest of us is how we get the greenie back into the bottle.
I am going to move that all words after ‘Bill’ be omitted and that the following words be inserted—
Be now referred to the Environment, Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee for consideration and report in accordance with chapter 23 of the standing orders.
I will speak to the logic of referring this bill to a committee. I believe this parliament needs to be open and transparent to the people of Queensland. That is why the new committee system was set up.
I believe it is time for the Queensland parliament to be absolutely open and transparent with the people of Queensland. The committee system has been set up to do that. I see this as an opportunity for every member of this House to put forward their ideas and suggestions and to give the people of Queensland the opportunity to come before us and let us know their opinions.
As I have stated through my speech, nobody understands totally the impacts of the carbon tax. There is a discrepancy between the New South Wales and Queensland Treasury figures of five per cent. If there is a five per cent increase above the 10 per cent increase that Queensland predicts—and we are being told it could be as high as 20 per cent—what cost-of-living impacts will that have on electricity consumers? How will they be able to cope?
I believe there is bipartisan support for most of the bills that will go before the committees. More than anything else, I see this as an opportunity to do what this parliament was meant to do when it was set up by our forefathers—that is, to represent the people of Queensland and to give them a say in this House. It is not only the impacts of the carbon tax that are at issue, it is also the cost increases for gas.
This legislation will come into play in June 2012. The cost of gas is due to go up substantially within the next 12 months to two years. We are hearing from some that it could go up by nearly 200 per cent within the next two to three years. It is very cheap at the moment. That is all well and good but what happens when the price of gas goes through the roof? Who is going to take responsibility for that? Do
we just let this go through to the keeper and the poor old punter on the street cops it in neck with their electricity bill? We have the opportunity through the new committee system, which we went to so much trouble to set up and which we all supported, to look at this bill.
This opportunity does not come very often. It is like a train going through a station. We have an opportunity to jump on the train not knowing where it is going, not knowing if there is a rail line ahead, not knowing if there is a bridge down. By sending this bill to the committee we would be able to look at all the implications and understand the impacts of the carbon tax and what the new structure will be.
Will it charge people from 2.30 in the afternoon until 10.30 at night 40c a unit? Will it charge from 10.30 at night until 2.30 in the morning 10c a unit? I do not know? I do not know whether the minister knows what the electricity retailers and electricity providers are going to put forward. Who knows what the QCA is going to come back with as its determination. Are we just going to sit on our hands and when the time comes and this comes before parliament are we all going to say that it is fine, we will let it go through, the QCA can take recommendations from the electricity wholesalers and producers and we again hit the punter in neck?
I do not know whether everybody out there realises what is going on in the world at the moment, but the German market dropped by 5½ per cent last night and 25 per cent in the last month. That is one quarter of their wealth down the drain. That has happened right through Europe. The United States is not looking real flash at the moment either. Do not think that we are exempt in Australia. This is a cost of living issue that will go directly to the heart and soul of everyday mums and dads.
I will give an example from when I have done Meals on Wheels, which I do every now and then. I once went into the home of an old lady in the middle of winter. She was sitting in the dark watching her old TV and she was all rugged up with her ugg boots on and her doona over her trying to keep warm. I asked, ‘Why haven’t you got your heater turned on?’ and she replied, ‘I can’t afford it.’ What do government members think this will to do to that individual? And that was only one person I saw when I was delivering; there are a thousand out there whom I would not have seen.
I ask the parliament and both sides of the House to support this recommendation that I am putting forward. Let us be open. Let us be transparent. Let us let the people of Queensland see what we are up to.
Let us prove that the committee system can be efficient and effective and can deliver an outcome that we can all be unitedly proud of in this House. I cannot emphasise enough the cost-of-living impact on people. I think all members in this House, regardless of whether they are with the LNP or the ALP or are an Independent, know that the cost-of living issues are affecting people. It is very easy sometimes to sit back and let these things slide through, but today I beg and ask members to support the people of Queensland, to support this House and what it was established on for the people of Queensland and to support this amendment.
I will conclude my speech by asking members to please take on board what I have said about those cost-of-living issues. Take it in your mind, take it in your heart and really think about the mums and dads, the grandmas, everybody who is related to you. I am sure all members have a family member doing it a bit tough. I ask members to think of them before they move forward in what I believe will be the wrong direction. There is an opportunity to do the right thing by Queenslanders and I think forwarding the bill to the committee is the right thing to do. Give it a go.