Narrogin one of 39 shires pushing for Draft Guideline Community Benefits for Renewable Energy Projects lock-in
Shire of Narrogin chief executive Dale Stewart represents one of 39 shires involved in the Country Local Government's Renewable Alliance, which collectively lodged a submission to the State Government's
Draft Guideline on Community Benefits for Renewable Energy Projects
.
Published on June 12, the 15-page guideline details benefits such as legacy funding, community infrastructure, sponsorship and co-ownership that shires hosting the State's renewables projects are liable to reap.
Mr Stewart said though he was 'extremely grateful', he would like the benefits to be made compulsory, rather than only guidelines.
'The State Government can easily put a condition on that approval and make it legislative compulsory,' he said.
'Not discretionary, not optional, not for (developers) to change their mind when they sell the company in three or five years time, but to make it compulsory for the entire duration of the project.
'We perceive there to be huge, long-lasting legacy solutions and benefits for emergency management, whether it be Indigenous support, environmental, education, health and wellbeing, culture and the arts.'
Mr Stewart said the broad range of legacy funding figures — suggested at $150-$800 per megawatt per annum for solar projects and $500-$1500 for wind-powered projects — was a cause for concern.
'To put a discretionary band as wide as they have for renewables is fraught with risk,' he said.
'The renewable companies will always argue for the lower spectrum, typically. We believe that there should not be a range but a fixed contribution formula based on the megawatts nameplate capacity.'
Mr Stewart said he was 'disappointed' the guideline deemed Battery Energy Storage Solutions 'too difficult' to include given Narrogin's two upcoming BESS projects.
He argued developers of a similar project in Merredin, which successfully created a $20,000 annual community fund, had proved benefits were possible.
The draft document itself acknowledges that 'benefits are not always experienced in proportion to the impact these projects have on hosting communities', highlighting that projects may cause community disruption, objections and social and economic division.
Energy and Decarbonisation Minister Amber-Jade Sanderson said the guideline was made to ensure the benefits of the energy transition is spread throughout WA.
'Industry and communities have been clear, and this Government has listened and delivered,' she said.
'The draft guideline provides support for the community and renewable energy developers to achieve sensible arrangements that balance benefit for the local community with the affordability of energy.
Mr Stewart praised the guideline's suggestion that affected shires should determine and administer what benefits were invested in.
He noted that the social obligation policies should be similar to mining enterprises.
'Those mining companies are required to engage positively and contribute to the local community and economy with social licence obligations,' he said.
'Here we have no difference, renewables are the new mining companies.
'Those communities deserve social licence payments, that's all community benefits. It's an expected trade-off of landscape and amenity values being compromised by those communities accepting these large monoliths and entities reluctantly, to benefit the State.'
Feedback on the proposal is open until 5pm, August 18.
The alliance lodged its interim submission on July 25 to WALGA, outlining the above advice which WALGA will put forward alongside its own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
4 hours ago
- News.com.au
Jim Chalmers flags action on ‘nuisance tariffs' in thinly veiled shot at Trump
Jim Chalmers has blasted tariffs as a 'tax on the workers and families of the country that levies them' while flagging further action on 'nuisance tariffs'. Nuisance tariffs are import taxes that, while generating some government revenue, are considered inefficient and burdensome. The Treasurer last year removed some 500 duties on a range of everyday items, including toothbrushes, women's health products and fridges. In a thinly veiled shot at Donald Trump, he said on Sunday 'there are good reasons to swim against the tide a bit when it comes to tariffs'. 'Some of these nuisance tariffs in our economy risk doing more harm than good, and tariffs are essentially a tax on the workers and families of the country that levies them,' Mr Chalmers told Sky News. 'So we've made a heap of progress abolishing 500 nuisance tariffs, working closely with (Trade Minister) Don Farrell and other colleagues to do that.' He went on to say the Albanese government was 'very proud of that progress that we've been able to make unilaterally, because tariffs push up compliance costs on business'. 'They risk pushing up prices for workers and families as well,' Mr Chalmers said. 'If I can build consensus and momentum to go further on that, I would like to, but I'll do that in a way that works closely with Don Farrell, conscious of the negotiations that he has under way. 'But I think we've shown a willingness and enthusiasm to cut those nuisance tariffs. 'I would like to go further, if I can. They do often do more harm than good, and so we approach the challenge in that light.' His comments come as trade talks with the US drag on. While Australia managed to avoid an increase in US tariffs earlier this month, exports are still subject to blanket 10 per cent levies. Some sectors, such as steel and aluminium, have rates of up to 50 per cent. The US President has also threatened to slap imposts of 250 per cent on foreign pharmaceuticals – a move that would hit Australian producers hard. The Albanese government has repeatedly labelled tariffs 'economic self-harm'. Mr Chalmers did not specify which products he considered slumped with nuisance tariffs, but he did say 'there's hundreds'. 'In those first 500 that we abolished, there were a lot of instances where it costs more actually to levy the tariff than to the benefit that we get from it,' he said. 'So I'm not prepared to put a number on any additional steps that we might be prepared to take, but this has been a pretty constant interest of mine.'
ABC News
8 hours ago
- ABC News
What is productivity? It's one of the biggest topics at this week's round table
The Albanese government's "economic reform round table" will be held in Canberra this week, from Tuesday to Thursday. "Productivity" is on the agenda for the second day. What is productivity? Why is it important? Why are policymakers worried about it? It's a major topic that impacts everyone. When we hear the word "productivity," our eyes can glaze over, but we're talking about something profound. At its heart, productivity is about doing more with less effort to improve everybody's lives. For example, imagine someone hands you a shovel and asks you to dig a long trench from one end of a football field to the other, to lay some underground cables. How long would it take you to dig the trench? (And what would it do to your hands and back?) Now, instead of a shovel, let's say they give you an excavator. The difference in your "output" and the ease with which you could complete the task would be dramatic. It would see a huge improvement in your productivity, and it would be thanks to the investment in machinery and the improvement in the state of technology you had at your disposal (shovel vs excavator). Modern society has been built on constant productivity improvements. They make it much easier and faster to do things compared to the past. That has a deeply personal impact on everybody's lives — it's about our time, and improvements in our lifestyle and material prosperity. Over time, productivity growth can lead to lower prices for goods and services, higher profits for businesses, higher wages for workers, and stronger economic growth. A few years ago, the Productivity Commission explained things this way: "The number of hours a person needs to work in order to buy particular goods has fallen dramatically," it wrote. "In 1901, it would have required several months of work to afford a new bike, but today it requires less than a day of work for a basic model. "[And] these falling costs understate the increased quality of most goods available now compared to what was available at Federation — even the lowest-quality bicycles produced now are much safer and easier to use than their 1901 versions. "[And] more significant for many people are the goods that are cheaply available now that had not been invented at Federation. "Antibiotics, for example, have lowered the mortality from infectious disease from about 30 per 10,000 people in 1907 to 1 per 10,000 people in 2017, all at a fraction of the price." It published a table with more examples to illustrate its point: This is another area where our eyes can glaze over, so we don't want to get bogged down here. But there are two main ways to measure productivity. As the Reserve Bank explains: The RBA has produced this handy little graphic to help us visualise what they're talking about: Yes. There are quite a few challenges. But it depends on the nature of the "economic activity" you are trying to measure. For example, it's far easier to measure the productivity of a manufacturing facility than a childcare worker. How do you measure a childcare worker's "output" when their job is to care for babies and toddlers? What about teachers? Nurses? Police? In the terminology, "non-market" industries are notoriously difficult to measure when it comes to productivity. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) doesn't even provide estimates for multi-factor productivity (MFP) for our three non-market sector industries: public administration and safety, education and training, and healthcare and social assistance. The non-market sectors are characterised by providing goods and services that are either free of charge or heavily subsidised, and are not primarily driven by market forces. The ABS only provides MFP estimates for the 16 "market" industries in our economy that produce goods and services that are sold at market prices, because their output is much more easily measured. But even then, when you run your eye down the list of those 16 industries in the table below, you can see how it might be much easier to measure productivity in some market sectors than others. It's why the growth of the "care economy" in Australia is presenting unique problems for policymakers. As more and more workers enter the "non-market" industries of childcare, aged care, and healthcare, the area of the economy where "productivity" is much harder to measure is growing. But when the Productivity Commission recently tried to estimate non-market "labour productivity" for the three non-market sector industries, by using gross-value added and hours worked, its estimate showed a steep decline over recent years. It found that labour productivity for the "whole economy" has barely risen over the past decade, when averaging labour productivity in the market and non-market sectors combined. Why is productivity growth so slow in Australia at the moment? Why has business investment declined? Lots of people are trying to answer those questions, and there are probably many causes. Participants at the productivity round table will discuss them this week. But here's an interesting hypothesis. In early 2023, Ken Henry, a former treasury secretary (2001 to 2011), gave a speech to the Tax Institute titled "The need for ambitious tax reform." In that speech, Dr Henry said part of the answer to our productivity problems comes from the fact that Australian policymakers mishandled the mining boom of the early 2000s, and we're now living with the consequences. He said if we had properly taxed the super profits of the miners in the early 2000s, we could have used that revenue to re-invest in non-mining parts of Australia's economy to lift non-mining productivity, but we didn't. And now that the mining boom is over, we're left with a hollowed-out economy with woeful rates of productivity. Dr Henry said, historically, much of Australia's productivity growth had been driven by "capital-deepening" (that is, higher capital per worker), thanks to a strong rate of business investment. But two centuries of capital-deepening have stalled. He said Australia has unfortunately experienced "capital-shallowing" in the 21st century, with declining physical investment in the non-mining sectors and more and more non-mining capital heading overseas. He said the positive terms-of-trade shock, caused by soaring commodity prices linked to the China boom, had pushed Australia's dollar higher earlier this century. The strong appreciation that followed in our real exchange caused a "profound loss" of international competitiveness for Australia's trade-exposed industries. He said that pressure could have been released with a resources super profits tax or something similar, with the money reinvested in non-mining parts of the economy to boost productivity there, but it didn't happen. Instead, he said Australian governments just "let it rip." "The collapse in the non-mining investment rate is remarkable," he said in his speech two years ago. "The financial mirror image of declining physical investment and capital-shallowing is that, in recent years, we have recorded net capital exports on the balance of payments. "Many commentators appear to believe that we have become a net capital exporter merely because superannuation has boosted household saving. But I would argue that we are exporting capital because Australia has become an increasingly unattractive destination for doing business, in the eyes of foreign investors and Australian savers alike. "It is truly extraordinary that this country, which stood to gain the most, should be suffering capital-shallowing, and should be a net capital exporter, not withstanding a historic mining boom," he said. Also in 2023, the RBA's Jonathan Hambur and the e61 Institute's Dan Andrews released a paper suggesting another reason why productivity growth may have slowed in Australia. "We find evidence that increasing market power [of powerful companies] has played a role, muting incentives for better firms to invest and grow their capital stock," they wrote. "This finding complements earlier work that found declining competition had limited incumbent firms' incentives to reallocate labour to more productive firms and to innovate and adopt technologies. "It reinforces the need to understand why competitive pressures may be declining, and whether that reflects competition policy or other frictions that prevent new firms from growing and challenging incumbents." Last month, the Productivity Commission supported that thesis, warning that Australia's 21st-century economy is dominated by powerful firms that are extracting above-normal profits from the system, and their power is growing. It said those firms are extracting "economic rent" from our economy, which means they're charging higher prices and collecting higher profits from a lack of competition, and it's crippling investment (and undermining productivity growth) elsewhere in our economy. It said that if we wanted to reform our tax system, we should focus on that issue.
ABC News
9 hours ago
- ABC News
Rice nearly sank US tariff talks until Japan finally agreed to take more American grain
For decades, Japan's tight protection of its rice market — a symbol of cultural pride, postwar resilience and self-sufficiency — blocked broader trade deals. Last month, rice was once again a sticking point during negotiations over the US "reciprocal tariffs" with President Donald Trump calling Japan a "spoiled" country that "won't take our rice". However, this time Mr Trump forged what he framed as a tariffs breakthrough: Japan importing more US rice. Rice prices have nearly doubled since last year across Japan. A perfect storm of supply miscalculations and a bad harvest left supermarket shelves bare and sparked rare street protests, triggering the government to release emergency stockpiles. But still the question remains: Are the Japanese public able to stomach foreign rice? Rice is integral to history and political power in Japan. Rice planting festivals remain an important ritual in rural areas, alongside offerings to ancestors during ceremonies to gods or weddings. "It's a delicate tightrope between price and protecting our identity," said Yusuke Yokoyama, a Tokyo resident, who noticed many local restaurants had stopped offering free "refill" rice. "People in Japan are generally happy to have lower prices for rice, but they also don't want to import it," he said. In the late 19th century, as Japan faced geopolitical tensions while opening up to the West, rice was even woven into the military transformation. Mr Yokoyama explained that many Japanese were aware of the historical connection of rice as a symbol of Japanese identity and sovereignty. For example, a "rice wage" was an incentive to recruit soldiers, expanding from the previous exclusive samurai class. In a nation where rice farming has been politically protected since the 1970s, the crisis is exposing the structural fragility of its agricultural sector. Rice emerged as a top-three issue for voters in polling ahead of recent municipal elections, as customers and restaurants struggled with inflation and the far-right Sanseito party capitalised on the outrage. CoCo ICHIBANYA, Japan's largest curry rice restaurant chain, raised its menu prices and saw a 5.2 per cent drop in customers between September last year and this year. Retailers are resorting to marketing gimmicks. Convenience store chain Lawson began selling rice balls made from the older grain, labelling them as "2023 Vintage" onigiri. The attempt at humour — or damage control — was mocked online. For decades, Tokyo maintained one of the most rigid agricultural systems in the developed world. Under the now-defunct "gentan" policy, farmers were paid not to grow rice, and strict production targets were set to manage supply. "Japan previously paid farmers to leave their fields fallow," said Jeffrey Kingston, professor of History and Asian Studies at Temple University Japan. "The idea was to keep prices stable. But now we see how this entire system — combined with high tariffs and climate shocks — has become untenable." Instead, it has contributed to what he describes as a "Byzantine" distribution network and mindset. "The youngest farmer I know is 65," Mr Kingston said. "The aging population will have adverse effects on the sector whether Tokyo likes it or not." Nicole Freiner, author of Rice and Agricultural Policies in Japan, said the government's program to subsidise farmers to limit rice production because of declining demand was short-sighted. "Even if Japan utilised most of its usable land, it still would not be self-sufficient," she said. Instead, she encouraged the government to react more to consumers switching to wheat-based food. "This policy created a lack of incentive for rice-growing that left rice paddies abandoned, with no opportunities for young farmers," Ms Freiner said. Japan's protectionist stance has long frustrated international trade partners. The United States, in particular, has pushed for greater access to Japan's rice market and the Trump administration made it their mission during the recent tariff negotiations. Some netizens pushed back, sharing clips of an anime film where a Japanese character tells a pushy US politician that Japanese consumers prefer home-grown rice over California rice. Japan imports 770,000 tonnes of foreign rice annually — but much of it has traditionally been used for processing or animal feed, not table rice. Tokyo reached a deal with Washington in the latest tariff deal, increasing the proportion of US rice allocated for household consumption. Mr Trump claimed that Japan had "caved" to US demands. Japan's Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba pushed back. "We made absolutely no sacrifice in the agricultural sector," he told local media. Marcel Thieliant, Asia Pacific analyst at Capital Economics, said Japan had negotiated cautiously, keeping the overall import quota unchanged, but a larger share of that quota would now come from the US, rather than other countries. He rejected the narrative from Washington of a sweeping victory. "I'm not aware of any plans to actually liberalise the market by lifting the import quota," he told the ABC. Other analysts said the proportion change of staple rice imports — even within existing frameworks — may have signalled a gradual shift away from hardline protectionism. "The [US] side deal is significant in symbolic terms; it may be an indication that Tokyo is becoming more willing to open its rice market — at least, when it needs help," Ms Freigner said. "Whether or not these changes take hold and become more entrenched is not clear yet," she added. For ordinary citizens, many remain uneasy and some local broadcasters have directed the blame at the rise in foreign tourists — including Australians — as Japan records an all-time high for international tourism figures. "As the yen falls, locals have started to become angry," said Mr Kingston. "They watch foreigners swaggering about, buying up real estate and eating cheap, while local households feel the pinch of inflation — even in their daily meal of rice." The situation, he added, had created "a sense of malaise gripping people here". Japan is struggling with low wages and inflation. Since the July agreement, Japanese supermarket prices have fallen following the government's release of stockpiled rice. But prices are still nearly double the same time last year. Industry analysts note that the increase in imports of rice for human consumption has been modest so far relative to the scale of the domestic supply shortfall, and distribution has yet to catch up with rising consumer demand. Last year's harvest was devastated by record-breaking heat. And with meteorological extremes becoming more common, experts say Japan's model of matching production to slowly declining demand is no longer sufficient. "Climate is affecting harvesting rice and other products," said Mr Yokoyama. "The policy may have to change. Our food security is not high, and people are starting to understand that now." A sense of frustration has grown among farmers, angry at the regulations limiting how much rice they can grow, which spilled over into protests earlier this year. Japan's food self-sufficiency rate has languished around 30–40 per cent for decades. Despite pledges to raise it, little has changed. One approach could be to subsidise farmers' production of rice instead of paying them not to, and export the surplus. "What the government should do now is stop subsidising crop conversion," said Yusaku Yoshikawa, an agricultural aid consultant with Japanese Official Development Assistance Projects. Already, the government has dipped into emergency stockpiles to manage supply, but analysts warn that short-term fixes can't resolve long-term instability. They must also be careful not to overcorrect, as producing too much rice now could lead to a glut and cause prices to crash. "We're in a delicate moment," Mr Yoshikawa said. "We've gone from rice scarcity last year to needing policy imagination. What's needed now is not just price control."
