Solar Feed-In Tariff for NSW

The announcement today by the Minister for Environment and Climate Change that NSW will introduce a feed-in tariff for solar photovoltaic (PV) systems up to 10 kilowatt is great news for the PV industry and particularly good news for residents and small business operators who have already, or are wanting to, invest in this form of renewable energy. The policy will take effect in January 2010.

While many people and groups have been calling for a gross feed-in tariff, this net feed-in tariff is certainly better than none, and returning a rate of 60 cents per kilowatt hour is very generous. A net feed-in tariff means that the installation will earn money for energy surplus to the household or business need, and sent to the grid. A gross feed-in tariff would have seen all power generated, including that used within the home or business, paid a tariff.

The Minister and Government has rejected that proposition for a number of reasons including the view that the net system will encourage greater energy efficiency from the premise, and that the feed-in tariff must be paid for by all power users by way of a small increase across the user base. That is true, though it is unclear to me just what the variation in cost might be. The Minister's statement also identified that many people would be financially unable to invest in PV systems and that the net feed-in tariff was more equitable for those people.

As well as the 60 cents per kilowatt tariff, which is some four times the retail energy rate, household or small businesses will still gain the benefit of power they generate and use, thus not having to purchase power at 15 cents per kilowatt.

Even though a typical installation will take an estimated 12 years to pay off, this new policy on a Feed-In Tariff is great news which will drive investment in PV systems creating jobs and further encouraging investment in improving the technology. Minister Tebutt and the Government need to be congratulated on this one!

Favours for Old Ute - Fair Shake of the Sauce Bottle!

With calls for Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan to resign over the "Ute Affair" you would hope that there was something truly significant to the issue - not so that we can see a Prime Minister or senior Minister brought down; but so as the Opposition can remain credible.  

To most Australians this would seem like a huge waste of time.  The ute in itself seems to me to be a modest contribution to a local member and I imagine that someone has been trolling and cross checking every declaration the Kevin Rudd has made.

The issue to be fair isn't now about the ute as such; it is about whether or not Kevin Rudd mislead Parliament in denying assisting his friend and car dealer, John Grant, in seeking assistance through the Federal OzCar Scheme.  I imagine that it would be very easy for Kevin Rudd to ask questions or make comments that could be used against him by political enemies. He would speak with so many people on so many issues unless he knowingly set out to do something wrong I doubt that he would even remember such detail.

Perhaps my views on this one are a bit soft - but really, does Malcolm Turnbull really think that anyone other than "rabid right" anti Ruddites would want to bring down a Government over an issue such as this?

Police to get more Tasers

The announcement that NSW Police will be getting an additional 1962 Tasers for front-line officers will clearly be controversial.  The news that $10M for this will be announced in the State Budget on Tuesday (funny how so many leaks get out - surely the Government wouldn't be manipulating the media?) will be welcomed by police and condemned by civil libertarians.  I agree that there needs to be caution about such changes but I also think that we need to keep a balance in the debate.  

Tasers at face-value provide an option for police where given limited options in a life threatening situation, might be placed in the unenviable position of needing to use their firearm. A Taser can defuse a situation just by its being drawn, and if fired, is highly likely to produce a non-lethal end to the situation.

The risk is, and the one that civil libertarians fear, is that some police may be inclined to deploy a Taser in situations that could have been handled with less force.  While this is a risk and one that will no doubt occur, I believe that we should defer to the good sense of most officers faced with this decision. It is all very well for sideline commentators to argue what is best but those commentators are not the ones who are too frequently exposed to risk of grievous harm including death whilst carrying out their responsibility to protect the community at large.

Police armed with Tasers will need to exercise appropriate restraint and exercise maturity in making a decision to use a weapon which while described as being non-lethal, can still cause serious injury including death.  Eight hours training and an 80 percent pass on a written test doesn't sound to be adequate training for such a weapon and I would predict that there will be changes to that in future.  Lets hope that the police don't follow the NSW Government and lose the ability to negotiate first.  But on balance, Tasers are a valid option for the men and women of the NSW Police who are frequently required to place themselves in positions of danger that most of us would not choose to do.

Sartor for Premier?

Interesting speculation again that Frank Sartor may be mounting a challenge to Nathan Rees as Premier though I'm not sure why Frank would want the job.  If he became Premier he would still have the palpable legacy of bitter factional divisions and lots of "pay backs" yet to come.  

While I think Frank would be a capable Premier, the reality is that he would need to do a lot to convince the public of that - it is unfortunate, and unfair in my opinion, but a reality, that the name Frank Sartor has been mired in the concern about how the NSW ALP has been doing business for some years. Nether the less, if it happens, and I believe it to be well founded speculation, Frank might just bring the blood letting and purge that even many rank and file Labor members are praying for.  

Part 3A Tested in Land & Environment Court by EDO

The way in which Part 3A of the EP&A Act was used to approve controversial residential developments in the Hunter, is being tested by The Environmental Defenders Office. Developments at Catherine Hill Bay (Lake Macquarie LGA) and nearby Gwandalan (Wyong LGA) , as well as the large Huntlee development straddling parts of Singleton and Cessnock LGAs near Branxton.

Reports are that there is merit in the argument against the development approval process and that they may be deemed illegal.  I understand that the basis for this is that agreements had been made between the Minister and the Developers as to certain outcomes prior to consideration of planning merit.

I have previously discussed this matter with Frank Sartor and indicated that I believed he had made the wrong call to sign an MOU at Catherine Hill Bay to give a certain number of lots (around 600) in exchange for land dedication to the State, prior to a proper assessment.  Surely the desire to have the land dedication fettered the ability to objectively consider other issues. This seems to be the argument being put forward by the EDO.  Let me say I can understand at face value why the former Planning Minister would have thought the outcome desirable.  In land area terms there is a substantially larger portion being transferred to the public at no cost than is going to be developed.  That however is not a consideration in planning merit terms.