Mr CONLAN - 2016-05-25
In relation to the budget reply speech by the Opposition Leader, he was certainly big on wind but short on gas. Can the Treasurer please outline to the House what that budget reply really means to Territorians, and what damage the Opposition Leader will inflict on Territorians and the Territory economy?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Greatorex for the very good question. I am still collating the costs in the budget reply speech by the Opposition Leader; I have Treasury working on them, although I have some initial thoughts.
The Chief Minister mentioned earlier that the Opposition Leader’s plan to increase renewable energy to a 50% target by 2030 will triple electricity costs, and no doubt it will. To give some clarity to that, members would know that the government is participating in an ARENA solar project to produce 10 MW of energy. The cost of that project is around $60m. We have total generation in the Territory of around 600 MW. The Opposition Leader wants 300 MW to be renewable power. Based on that calculation it would be an investment of around $1.8bn to install the solar equipment the Opposition Leader wants.
That all sounds fine. All right, we will spend $1.8bn, but you are then displacing gas that we have to pay for. The opposition knows that because they gave us this contract in the first place. The gas to be displaced is somewhere around $1.5bn to $2bn of gas that Territorians will still be paying for, irrespective of the Opposition Leader wanting a solar farm.
We are sitting close to around $3bn that the Opposition Leader has cost Territorians. You have to ask what that will do to prices. I think the Chief Minister has been extremely conservative in saying prices for electricity will triple under the Opposition Leader’s plan. There is no doubt that will occur.
There is a range of other things the Opposition Leader brought into the House. He said he wants to take the $100m out of the Infrastructure Development Fund and scatter it around the electorate as a stimulus package. That is a $200m decision, because currently the $100m sits on the assets side of the balance sheet and by moving it out into expenditure it then becomes a liability and a cost. Again, up goes the debt.
The Harvey Norman package of the Opposition Leader, education and health, $1.1bn for remote housing – you start to think, ‘Where’s the money coming from?’
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, your time has expired.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Greatorex for the very good question. I am still collating the costs in the budget reply speech by the Opposition Leader; I have Treasury working on them, although I have some initial thoughts.
The Chief Minister mentioned earlier that the Opposition Leader’s plan to increase renewable energy to a 50% target by 2030 will triple electricity costs, and no doubt it will. To give some clarity to that, members would know that the government is participating in an ARENA solar project to produce 10 MW of energy. The cost of that project is around $60m. We have total generation in the Territory of around 600 MW. The Opposition Leader wants 300 MW to be renewable power. Based on that calculation it would be an investment of around $1.8bn to install the solar equipment the Opposition Leader wants.
That all sounds fine. All right, we will spend $1.8bn, but you are then displacing gas that we have to pay for. The opposition knows that because they gave us this contract in the first place. The gas to be displaced is somewhere around $1.5bn to $2bn of gas that Territorians will still be paying for, irrespective of the Opposition Leader wanting a solar farm.
We are sitting close to around $3bn that the Opposition Leader has cost Territorians. You have to ask what that will do to prices. I think the Chief Minister has been extremely conservative in saying prices for electricity will triple under the Opposition Leader’s plan. There is no doubt that will occur.
There is a range of other things the Opposition Leader brought into the House. He said he wants to take the $100m out of the Infrastructure Development Fund and scatter it around the electorate as a stimulus package. That is a $200m decision, because currently the $100m sits on the assets side of the balance sheet and by moving it out into expenditure it then becomes a liability and a cost. Again, up goes the debt.
The Harvey Norman package of the Opposition Leader, education and health, $1.1bn for remote housing – you start to think, ‘Where’s the money coming from?’
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, your time has expired.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016