Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4425 ..

insidious than carbon dioxide, the largest of the greenhouse gases. Not all greenhouse gases are equal. Another problem is that this embryonic scheme deals only with electricity. If we replace more greenhouse intensive activities with electrical equivalents we could be penalised. For example, I ripped out my wood fire heater, which is a bit dirty, and I replaced it with reverse cycle air-conditioning, which is 300 per cent efficient. That increases electricity consumption and at the same time reduces greenhouse consumption, but it is a minus for the scheme overall.

Given more time, I would have sought to clarify and to work through some of these issues. However, those concerns are not enough in themselves to rule out the bill. The government has yet to produce the necessary subordinate legislation to make this package complete. I note that there appears to be a bit of a rush to get this legislation through. It was prepared in haste, perhaps so that the government could gain kudos for being green prior to the next election. We will not oppose this sensible scheme merely because we mistrust the political motives of its proponents. I note that legislation such as this is subject to what has been called the iron law of unintended consequences. Unintended consequences that are obvious in hindsight are not always foreseeable beforehand.

I ask the government to commit to reviewing the operation of this bill after two years—not just the calibration of thresholds and fines, but its operation generally. I had considered moving an amendment to the bill but I recognise that the review provisions are hardwired into the legislation, which essentially is a template of legislation in New South Wales. We cannot institute a meaningful review without taking New South Wales with us. If such a review that had been done in isolation uncovered problems our only option would be to keep the scheme or to reject it outright. If we amended our part of the scheme unilaterally we would be back in the position that we would have been in if the Greens’ amendments had been agreed to and this scheme would be out of kilter.

This legislation is a great start to achieve what we need to achieve. However, I think this is one of those “suck it and see” issues. It will be tested in its operation but it is something that we all need to get behind. The 2002 review of the greenhouse strategy recommended the institution of an abatement scheme. The Commissioner for the Environment endorsed that view in his last State of the Environment report. I am pleased that at last the government has come to the table with this initiative. I look forward to its implementation and I hope to be able to monitor its application.

In a couple of years I hope we are able to test the scheme to establish whether it is meeting its targets. I hope that members will be flexible enough to adjust the scheme if that is necessary. To some extent we are relying on the goodwill of the New South Wales government and I hope that that goodwill continues. That is not a bad note on which to end as we near the conclusion of this term of the Assembly. As this is one of the last matters to be addressed by this Assembly I hope that it takes us forward positively and that we all work cooperatively in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. I commend the bill to the house.

MS TUCKER (10.30): Mrs Dunne is very flexible. Last week she was demanding a dragway, the right to have a Sunday drive and the allocation of $8 million of taxpayer’s money towards the dragway. Tonight she is talking about all things green, which is nice. I welcome the government’s commitment to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .