By Tristan Edis
Just yesterday afternoon I put questions to Ministers Hunt and Macfarlane’s offices asking whether Hunt’s statement that “we remain committed to the Renewable Energy Target" meant that the government could rule out closing the RET to new entrants, and whether this meant they were ruling out making material reductions to the level of the legislated target.
According to Greg Hunt, he and Grimes spoke a week ago at which time Hunt says, “I was absolutely crystal clear that we remain committed to the Renewable Energy Target. He knows that”.
Given one of Australia’s major newspapers had just run a story on the front page headlined, Abbott’s plan to axe the RET, if you wanted to be crystal clear about your commitment to the Renewable Energy Target and say the same thing in public as in private, wouldn’t you instead respond with something like, ‘the report in that newspaper is wrong and we have no intention whatsoever of abolishing the RET or closing it to new entrants’?
So when Greg Hunt says he made it crystal clear to John Grimes that the government remains committed to the Renewable Energy Target, you have to ask - exactly what kind of renewable energy target?
To understand this we first need to ask what does Greg Hunt mean when he says that his government “remain committed to the Renewable Energy Target”.
Is the Coalition committed to a renewable energy target that maintains at least the same amount of gigawatt-hours worth of demand for renewable energy from 2013 to 2030 as contained in the current legislation? We are committed to the 20% RET and have no plans to change the current arrangements.
Does that strike you as the kind of response you’d give if it was crystal clear that the government was committed to the Renewable Energy Target?
Read more here: Business Spectator