Western Australian election: is Clive Palmer’s Party FOR or AGAINST the Renewable Energy Target?
RET And PUP – Confusion (Still) Reigns http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=4244 The Palmer United Party (PUP) still appears not to have a solid stance on the future of Australia’s Renewable Energy Target (RET).
PUP’s WA candidate, Zhenya ‘Dio’ Wang, recently expressed support for the Renewable Energy Target to be left as is and Clive Palmer appeared to indicate the same view. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Palmer clarified; stating it perhaps shouldn’t be a “mandatory thing”.
Nearly 2 weeks later and it seems there still isn’t a unified position at PUP.
According to the Guardian, a PUP spokesman told the publication on Monday “the policy is what Clive says; the target has to be voluntary”. However, when Mr. Wang was again asked about when asked about the RET policy on Monday; he told Guardian Australia, “We are still discussing our policy. We are working out what it is.”
With voters set to go to the polls in Western Australia this Saturday, the mixed signals from PUP wouldn’t be very encouraging for solar supporters considering the party – and the outcome of WA’s election could have major implications nationally for renewable energy.
According to the Australian Solar Council, 500,000 WA residents live in solar households and hundreds of thousands more will go solar if the RET is left as is; something that is in doubt due to the Federal Government’s RET review.
“By putting barriers up for 350,000 people in WA who want to install solar on their homes and slashing large-scale solar projects back from the current path of 700 MW, the Federal government looks set to break a key election promise,” says Australian Solar Council CEO John Grimes.
Mr. Grimes says Western Australian householders and small businesses will invest their own money to build 445 megawatts of generating capacity if the RET is retained for rooftop PV systems and hot water. With regard to large-scale solar, the existing RET could deliver more than 700 MW of projects in WA, employing an additional 7,000 people during the construction phase between now and 2020.
With solar so popular in the state; the parties that clearly support the RET in its current form may have a bit of an edge this Saturday.
20 Australia-wide organisations call for W.A. government inquiry into Wiluna uranium project
United call for uranium inquiry 31 March 14 Today twenty* different public health, union, Aboriginal and environment groups have called on the WA Environment Minister Albert Jacob and the WA EPA to hold a dedicated Public Inquiry into the states most advanced uranium proposal, Toro Energy’s Wiluna uranium project.
State Secretary of the AMWU Steve McCartney said “The nuclear industry is increasingly marginal and uneconomic. This industry is worth 0.02% of our national export revenue and holds just 0.015% of Australian jobs. The risks far outweigh any rewards. Uranium mining does not pass the asbestos test for us – it impacts on the workers extracting it, transporting it and the end users.”
Dr Peter Underwood, National Vice President Medical Association Prevention of War, said “We need to have a way to look at all the risks of a uranium project including a detailed look at the public health risks from this industry here and overseas. A public inquiry is the only way to address these issues. We know it was Australian uranium that fuelled Fukushima and that’s something we need to look at before we push forward with plans to mine uranium.”
Melanie Walker, Acting CEO of the Public Health Association of Australia commented “We have seen a number of accidents at uranium mine sites across Australia, most recently at Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory. There needs to be public and transparent process to look at the risks of this industry on workers and the public.”
Mia Pepper, Nuclear Free Campaigner with the Conservation Council of WA said “This small inexperienced company is now proposing a uranium precinct – including four mines across two lake systems and a proposal to store over 50 million tonnes of radioactive mine waste in a lake bed*.”
“This idea lacks credibility and the company lacks capacity, experience and financial backing,” concluded Dave Sweeney Nuclear Free Campaigner with the Australian Conservation Foundation.
Media Comment
- Dr Peter Underwood: (08) 9840 9626
National Vice President Medical Association for the Prevention of War
- Melanie Walker: 0438 430 963
Acting CEO, Public Health Association of Australia
- Mia Pepper: 0415 380 808
Nuclear Free Campaigner, Conservation Council WA
- Dave Sweeney: 0408 317 812
Nuclear Free Campaigner, Australian Conservation Foundation
* Australian Conservation Foundation, Public Health Association of Australia, Australian Manufactures Workers Union WA, Conservation Council of WA, Medical Association for the Prevention of War, Social Justice Board Uniting Church, Maritime Union Australia, UnionsWA, United Voice, Electrical Trade Union, The Wilderness Society, Greenpeace Sustainable Energy Now, Friends of the Earth Australia, Mineral Policy Institute, Anti-Nuclear Alliance WA, Australia Nuclear Free Alliance, WA Nuclear Free Alliance, Beyond Nuclear Initiative,
* Based on the assumption that mining 1 tonne of uranium oxide produces approximately 2,400 tonnes of low level radioactive waste. Total of 22,270 + tonnes of uranium at the four deposits = 53,448,000 + tonnes of tailings.
For solar power in Australia, the Western Australian Senate election is critically important
Western Australia’s Election Crucial In National Solar Battle http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=4241 As the people of Western Australia prepare to return to the polls, the Australian Solar Council says the outcome will play a major role in the battle solar is facing nationally.
“There are increasing indications that the Federal Government is planning to remove or scale back support for rooftop and large scale solar through its review of the Renewable Energy Target (RET),” says Australian Solar Council CEO John Grimes. Mr. Grimes says with Labor and the Greens supporting the position of not changing the RET, if numbers can be secured in the Senate, any changes the Abbot Government seeks to make that would negatively impact the RET can be blocked.
The Australian Solar Council has secured letters of support regarding the Renewable Energy Target from Labor and The Greens. Palmer United Party issending mixed signals. The Council’s Save Solar campaign is currently focusing the majority of its efforts in Western Australia and recently launched its first ever TV and print advertising campaign.
The response from the community is such that it says several political parties have asked the Council stop all of the emails being sent by solar supporters as they are receiving hundreds each day.
“Our clear message – anti-solar policies will only happen at great political cost, because the people are with us,” says Mr. Grimes.
“This campaign says to governments across Australia that solar is the future and the industry will not tolerate ad-hoc policy changes that damage our businesses and most of all restrict access to solar for the 3.5 million people who want solar over the next 5 years.”
Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water, Hon. Mark Butler MP will meet solar workers in Perth on Monday to discuss the importance of the Renewable Energy Target for the solar industry; which employs thousands of people in Western Australia.
Liberal policies make sense when you realise who funds them
The rise and rise of mining company donations. Crikey BERNARD KEANE | FEB 21, 2012 Labor’s mining tax and the resources boom may have permanently and significantly changed the balance of political donations, with millions of dollars flowing from mining companies to the Coalition, Australian Electoral Commission data shows.
Mining companies began increasing their stake in the political process before the financial crisis, favouring the Coalition but also contributing to Labor. However, the mining tax saw an extraordinary increase in donations to the Coalition that has opened up a huge funding resource for the Liberals.
Mining company donations to state and federal Labor parties and the Coalition since 2004 show the extent to which Coalition benefited from the surge in mining company largesse after the Rudd government infuriated them with its RSPT proposal in May 2010.
But the largesse is predominantly from Western Australia. In Queensland, the ongoing support of Clive Palmer has been the primary mining contribution to the conservative cause, including a monster donation of $500,000 to the LNP by his Queensland Nickel. Other than Palmer, the federal Liberal Party took $100,000 from controversial miner New Hope — the target yesterday of a protest led by Alan Jones and Bob Katter — maintaining the Queensland representation in 2010-11.
Last year the Queensland government capped donations at $5000 to parties and $2000 to candidates, but the cap only applies to donations relating to campaign purposes; general purpose donations to parties are not capped).
Santos and Beach Petroleum each gave big donations to the SA Liberals in 2010-11 as well……….
Federally, Labor’s take from miners slumped to a bare $50,000 worth of small donations and fund-raising dinner contributions, from $200,000 before the 2007 election.
The sheer scale of mining company generosity illustrates why Tony Abbott remains committed to repealing the carbon pricing package 
and the mining tax despite the difficulties he will face in securing Senate support. That should continue to lock in big mining company donations this year and next and establish the mining industry as a go-to source for big donations that Labor cannot access for years to come.
The donations are widespread across the WA industry, with 25 companies giving the party on average $95,000. The list doesn’t include Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton, who no longer donate or only provide small donations; given they can pick and choose prime ministers and dictate how much tax they pay, donations would appear to be of limited value for the big foreign miners………..http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/02/21/the-rise-and-rise-of-mining-company-donations/
Don’t invest in or work for BHP or Rio Tinto – Don Henry
Australian Conservation Foundation outgoing head Don Henry calls on people to monitor big business, The Age, March 29, 2014 Tom Arup The outgoing head of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Don Henry, has urged people not to invest in or work for big businesses – including mining giants BHP and Rio Tinto – he says are pushing to bring down Australia’s climate change laws.
On Monday Mr Henry will step down as the foundation’s chief executive after almost 16 years. In an interview with Fairfax Media this week he accused a section of big business, and their lobby groups, of driving the Abbott government’s repeal of the national carbon price and other policies, saying ”Australians shouldn’t have a bar of it”.
Mr Henry specifically pointed to mining giants BHP and Rio Tinto. He said they were large members of industry bodies, such as the Minerals Council of Australia, that are pushing repeal of what he said was the most cost-effective way to cut emissions – carbon pricing.
”Let’s not be stupid here, they are very influential on our politics. Governments in Australia, both Coalition and Labor, listen closely to business,” he said. ‘Don’t watch the Prime Minister here, you should follow the BHPs, the Rio Tintos and other major actors. And you should start having a discussion with them. If you are shareholder in Rio or BHP do you really want to give licence to actions that are clearly against Australia’s well-being?”
He decried their position as ”short-termism”, focused only on boosting quarterly profit results. They are ignoring the erosion in their public standing and social licence caused by their position on climate, he says……http://www.theage.com.au/environment/australian-conservation-foundation-outgoing-head-don-henry-calls-on-people-to-monitor-big-business-20140328-35o7n.html
Abbott would make it open slather for public racial bigotry
Locked in a war of words to define free speech, SMH, March 29, 2014 Gay Alcorn “………-At the centre of debate is section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which makes it unlawful to do an act publicly that is likely to ”offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” on the basis of race or ethnic origin. You can do all those things but still be protected if your action was done reasonably and in good faith, and if it’s an artistic, academic or scientific work, or part of a debate in the public interest. It’s a civil, not a criminal, provision – there are no convictions for breaching the act, and remedies are often apologies or small payments.
History repeated, as again a Liberal government sees our country as the world’s radioactive waste dump
Australia isn’t the world’s dumphttp://conspiracyoz.com/2014/03/27/australia-isnt-the-worlds-dump/ Some bad ideas don’t die, and making Australia the world’s nuclear waste dump is one of them. A new report should remind us that even the waste we store now is unsafe, writes Dave Sweeney
If you sit in the one place long enough the whole world passes by. So goes one Buddhist saying. The same could apply to the news, especially stories with a long shelf life. And few things on earth have a shelf life like nuclear waste. The notion of Australia hosting the world’s growing stockpile of radioactive waste has been revisited, this time in a report by Deloitte Access Economics.
It’s an idea that has had many promoters over the years. Bob Hawke, Alexander Downer, Warren Mundine and the secretive Dr John White, a former energy adviser to John Howard, have all made the case for Australia making a dump for nuclear waste.
The idea has also been actively advanced in desktop and field studies with a consortium called Pangea Resources, largely funded by the US, UK and Swiss nuclear industries, targeting two areas in regional WA in the 1990’s as possible sites for a global dump. Pangea’s plan was derailed when a leaked copy of their slick promotional video was obtained by Friends of the Earth and made available to politicians and journalists ahead of the company’s timeline.
The resulting publicity saw much ducking, dodging and denial and subsequent legislation banning international waste dumping in Australia.
Unfortunately, it’s impossible to legislate nuclear waste out of existence. Its management remains the nuclear industry’s Achilles heel. The Deloitte report acknowledges as much, stating “many proposals to make greater use of nuclear power ultimately flounder on the issue of how to deal with the resultant waste. That’s eminently understandable”.
All nuclear processes create radioactive wastes that pose a direct hazard and need to be isolated from people and the environment for extremely long periods of time. We are now in the seventh decade of the nuclear age and, despite industry assurances, political promises and spending multiple billions in research and development, not one country on Earth has a final disposal facility for high level radioactive waste.
Radioactive waste management remains a complex, costly and unresolved issue and one that Australia, as a major global provider of nuclear fuel, has a responsibility to consider and address. Australia is home to around 35 per cent of the world’s uranium and our exports out of Darwin and Adelaide are the start of an increasingly contaminating industrial process.
After use in a reactor, Australian uranium becomes high-level radioactive waste. That’s on a good day. On a bad day it becomes radioactive fallout; let’s never forget that Australian uranium was fuelling the failed Fukushima nuclear complex when it melted down.
Closer to home Australia’s approach to radioactive waste management has been a case study in how not to approach complex policy development. For seven years now a community at Muckaty, north of Tennant Creek in Central Australia, has been in the government’s sights as the nation’s radioactive waste dump site.
The majority of Traditional Aboriginal owners and custodians have never been asked, let alone given consent and the dump plan is in direct conflict with international industry best practice and Australia’s obligations under the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The dump plan remains secretive and hidden by “commercial in confidence” provisions. It’s far removed from Deloitte’s call for “a mature debate that weighs safety, cost, environmental impact, community sentiment and other dimensions of the issue”.
In June, the Federal Court will hear a case bought by Traditional Owners opposed to the dump plan who seek to get the Muckaty site nomination ruled invalid. That they would have to go to the courts is evidence of profound policy failure on the part of government. It is a failure that bodes poorly for any future moves or backroom agreements that seek to take Australia further down the nuclear road.
If we cannot get our own nuclear house in order it hardly inspires confidence in Australia as a solution to a global problem — a point again noted in Deloitte’s report, which acknowledges that domestic resistance and concern would make the idea unlikely to proceed.
Hopefully the Deloitte report might give a long overdue initiative some attention. Australia needs an independent, public and credible review of how best to manage our existing domestic radioactive waste — such as a national commission into responsible radioactive waste management.
We need to move away from short term political fixes based on legislative overrides and carrot and stick politics with disadvantaged communities and instead embrace and enact an approach based on transparency, credible community engagement, proper process and sound science.
Radioactive waste lasts longer than any economic advisor, community campaigner or federal politician. We have a shared responsibility to manage it maturely and securely.
Nuclear industry interests helped along by South Australian government
Dennis Matthews 27 March 14 Today’s (Adelaide) Advertiser contains an article about a new uranium mine in SA. Apparently the SA Government has given $50,000 of taxpayers money to the Ian Wark Institute at the University of SA for them to study a way of recovering the uranium from this proposed in-situ-leach uranium mine.
ANSTO is also involved. The Ian Wark Institute was set up by someone with a long history of involvement in the nuclear industry. I think he was involved in the early days of the Synroc project, another ANSTO project which seems to have fizzled out after spending umpteen million of taxpayer’s money.
Renewable Energy Target of great value to farmers
Farms rely on renewable energy target http://www.standard.net.au/story/2177788/farms-rely-on-renewable-energy-target/?cs=383 By SEAN McCOMISH March 27, 2014 WIND farm campaigners will launch a petition in the south-west next week calling on the federal government to preserve the country’s renewable energy target.
At least four major wind farm projects in Moyne Shire have been shelved until the government completes a review of the renewable energy target (RET) which sets a 20 per cent green energy goal by 2020.
Victorian Wind Alliance (VicWind) a coalition of manufacturers, energy groups and landholders will launch a petition next Tuesday in Yambuk and Portland. VicWind south-west organiser Angela McFeeters told The Standard the RET not only guaranteed income on farms but also supported jobs at Portland tower manufacturer Keppel Prince.
“In places like Yambuk people need to know if they’re going to have a future on the farm with the certainty of the guaranteed income,” Mr McFeeters said.
Campaigners will hand copies of the petition to politicians, including Wannon MP Dan Tehan who has previously expressed support for the green target.
Under the RET, turbines are subsidised thousands of dollars. A number of MPs, including Angus Taylor and Senator John Madigan, want to see the RET scrapped. In January Senator Madigan said the RET “means we are relying more on energy sources that are unreliable”.
According to Moyne Shire documents, construction has been suspended at the Hawkesdale, Ryans Corner, Woolsthorpe and Mortlake south wind farms until the government review is completed by September.
s.mccomih@fairfaxmedia.com.a
Queensland’s Premier Newman breaks promise to keep ban on uranium mining
No apology for dumping Uranium mining ban on 2nd anniversary of election of the Newman Government Mark Bailey Keep Queensland Nuclear Free 24 March 2014 http://www.mysunshinecoast.com.au/articles/article-display/no-apology-for-dumping-uranium-mining-ban-on-2nd-anniversary-of-election-of-the-newman-government,33604?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=MSC_Feed#.UzNVFahdV9U With the second anniversary of the Newman government this week, it is timely to note there has been no apology from Premier Newman for dumping his promise to Queenslanders before the last election to keep the ban on uranium mining in Queensland.
Premier Newman was explicit when he said;
“We have no plans and that’s as clear as I can be. The parliamentary team are very, very clear that we have no plans to develop any sort of uranium mines in Queensland.” ABC 16 Nov 2011
Yet, two years on there is less than 100 days left until dirty and dangerous uranium mines are made legal by the Newman government with approval power likely to be handed to them by the Abbott Federal Government.The safety record of uranium mining in Australia has been appalling with over 200 recorded safety incidents at Ranger mine, which is still shut down after a toxic spill last year of a million litres of radioactive slurry.
Not a single closed uranium mine in Australia has been successfully rehabilitated to this day with the last mine at Mary Kathleen a toxic mess to this day.
Queenslanders do not want the risk of radioactive contamination of their waterways, from truck accidents near their homes and schools and they certainly don’t want uranium being exported across the Great Barrier Reef.The Newman state government should suspend their dumping of the twenty-three year ban on uranium mining forthwith and conduct an independent enquiry into all implications of allowing uranium mining in our state so that communities, schools and existing industries can have their say in this far reaching decision.
Tony Abbott’s ‘Direct Action’ ineffective as a curb on carbon emissions
Direct Action subsidies: wrong way, Abbott, go back
Crikey, FRANK JOTZO AND PAUL BURKE | MAR 25, 2014 Nothing has happened since the election to challenge the view that the Coalition’s Direct Action plan for carbon reduction is vastly inferior to carbon pricing, write economists Frank Jotzoand Paul Burk at INSIDE STORY. Direct Action is often perceived as an exercise in keeping up appearances: a fig-leaf policy from a government that has expressed little enthusiasm for serious action on climate change. But with the possible neutering of the Renewable Energy Target, Direct Action subsidies are set to be the main pillar of Australia’s climate change mitigation effort as well as a new drain on our scarce fiscal resources.
The cornerstone of Direct Action is a system of subsidies for emissions-reducing projects, channelled through an Emissions Reduction Fund. In a nutshell, government will pay companies to implement specific projects that are thought to reduce emissions. It will “buy up the cost curve”, purchasing the lowest-cost emissions reductions first.
Not much more detail is available about the policy than was sketched before the election. The government’s December 2013 green paper leaves many of the most crucial questions open, including how baselines would be set, whether there would be a penalty for companies that exceed their baselines, and whether projects in all parts of the economy would compete directly or there would be separate pots of money for sectors such as agriculture, forestry and industrial energy efficiency.
The consultation process is under way and will no doubt reveal the competing interests of different groups. It is also no foregone conclusion that the Senate will vote in favour of the scheme.
When examined under a bright light — as we have done so inour submissions to the recent Senate inquiry on Direct Action — Direct Action doesn’t hold up at all well. Yes, it’s an attractive political phrase, the combination of two very positive-sounding words. Yes, the Coalition’s negative strategy surrounding carbon pricing has been politically successful. But as a piece of public policy for use in achieving either short- or long-term emissions reduction goals, Direct Action is fundamentally flawed.
From an economic point of view, the first weakness of Direct Action is that, unlike carbon pricing, it doesn’t offer the potential to pick all of the “lowest hanging” emissions reduction opportunities….. http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/03/25/direct-action-subsidies-wrong-way-abbott-go-back/
Australia’s regressive politics – rejected in South Australia?
De
nnis Matthews, 26 March 14, Is it possible that South Australians are smarter than the average voter? The results of the state election would seem to support this proposition.
Just when it seemed that there would be a change of government many voters decided that they would rather stay with the devil they know. Signals from Canberra that the former liberal party, which in recent decades has become the conservative party, was now becoming the regressive party did not go unnoticed.
It appears that regressive politics is being foisted on everyday life with the new political correctness being intolerance, rudeness, and downright bigotry. This may work in political circles but is it the way a civilized society should behave?
Should politicians take their lead from decent citizens or should we follow the example of those in the houses of parliament?
The answer to this question may well shape Australia’s future.
INDIGENOUS Land Corporation drafts Bill to protect its funding
Leaders issue $2bn challenge for Abbott PATRICIA KARVELAS
THE AUSTRALIAN MARCH 25, 2014 INDIGENOUS Land Corporation chairwoman Dawn Casey has enlisted the support of the most powerful Aboriginal leaders to seek an emergency meeting with Tony Abbott to protect the $2 billion indigenous “land account”.
In an escalation of tensions between the government and ILC, the taxpayer-funded body has taken the unprecedented step of drafting its own bill that if passed into law would protect its funding from political tampering………
The land account and corporation were established after the High Court’s recognition of native title.
“More than 20 years on from the High Court’s Mabo decision and the passage of the Native Title Act, we want to remind Australians — particularly young people — that the land account was established as part of a national settlement that provided land-title certainty for all Australians,” Dr Casey said.
“The issues at stake are not just administrative arrangements, to be changed at the whim of a minister regardless of what political party.
“They go to the heart of the sort of nation we wish to be.” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/leaders-issue-2bn-challenge-for-abbott/story-fn9hm1pm-1226863684812#
Australian Senate votes against repealing the carbon tax
Senate votes to block carbon tax repeal legislation ABC News By political correspondent Emma Griffiths 20 March 14, The Senate has voted down legislation to axe the carbon tax – a core election promise of Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
After months of debate Labor and the Greens combined to vote against the repeal laws 33 votes to 29 today.Labor, which introduced the carbon pricing scheme in 2012, says the Coalition’s alternative policy to tackle climate change, called Direct Action, will be ineffective and too expensive.
“Without a credible alternative, Labor cannot support the abolition of the existing clean energy policies,” Opposition climate change spokesman Mark Butler said.Greens leader Christine Milne has issued a statement saying the current law, maintaining a price on carbon, must stand.”The Senate has rejected Tony Abbott’s do-nothing approach on global warming and voted to maintain the price on pollution,” she said.
The carbon pricing scheme was brought in by the Gillard Labor government, after extensive negotiations with the Greens, and currently charges polluters about $25 per tonne of carbon emissions……..
Earlier today, the Government had already reintroduced carbon tax-related legislation that could set the stage for a double dissolution election on the issue.The Coalition wants to axe the multi-billion-dollar Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) but the Senate rejected the legislation in December…….
The laws were brought back before Parliament this morning, and if voted down again would give the Government a trigger to call an election of both houses of Parliament……….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-20/senate-votes-to-block-carbon-tax-repeal-legislation/5334020
Palmer United Party to the rescue of Australia’s Renewable Energy Target?
Renewable Energy Target – Even Clive Palmer Gets It http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=4227 Australia’s renewable energy sector has perhaps found an unexpected ally in Clive Palmer and the Palmer United Party (PUP). After PUP’s WA candidate, Zhenya ‘Dio’ Wang, expressed support for the Renewable Energy Target to be left as is and labelled the controversial RET review a ”waste of taxpayers’ money”, Mr. Palmer backed Mr. Wang’s views and told Fairfax Media he was a supporter of renewable energy.
Grassroots solar advocacy groups Solar Citizens applauded Mr. Wang’s public statement of support for the RET.
“Mr Wang’s media release of earlier today, which acknowledged the importance of the renewable energy target (RET) and the jobs it creates, is great news for all solar loving West Australians” said Lindsay Soutar, National Director of Solar Citizens.
“WA Senate candidates need to understand that West Australians want more renewable energy, and that’s why all parties should reveal their position on solar and the RET before Western Australians go to the polls.”
The Australian Solar Council also congratulated Palmer United Party (PUP) for pledging their support for the Renewable Energy Target to stay exactly as it is. “Politicians know Australians love solar because it cuts household power bills. They know that supporting the Renewable Energy Target at the Senate election will deliver them votes,” said Australian Solar Council Chief Executive John Grimes.
“Not supporting the Renewable Energy Target will cost them votes.”
The Council says it will be publishing a preliminary solar scorecard in The West Australian on March 22 to show where the various players stand on the issue of solar. It will also be engaging a substantial TV advertising campaign in the lead up to the WA Senate election.
“More than 12,000 Australians (1,200 West Australians) would lose their jobs if the Renewable Energy Target was axed”, said Mr Grimes.
Close to 150,000 households in Western Australia have installed solar panelsand many more have expressed and interest in doing so. Under the Renewable Energy Target, support is provided for the purchase of systems.
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 