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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4428 ..

of 10 per cent by 2010 and 20 per cent by 2020. Even the People’s Republic of China recently announced an MRET of 10 per cent. The 10 per cent target is achievable right now in this country as a result of renewable energy projects that are in the pipeline. All we are lacking is the political will.

Whatever my reservations—and I will refer to my amendments in the detail stage—I am pleased to be able to support this bill. This bill, which is a good first step, puts the ACT at the leading edge nationally. It is also a constructive piece of legislation in that it offers us a vehicle to encourage and reward industry investment in renewable energy technologies and in other strategies that will assist electricity users in the ACT to make savings and that will benefit the environment by reducing electricity demand.

MS DUNDAS (10.39): The Democrats support this bill. We recognise that doing something to address our greenhouse gas emissions is unquestionably better than doing nothing. However, I am keenly aware that this bill locks us into a framework that will not achieve the level of emission reductions that previous ACT governments have committed themselves to achieving. As the Treasurer stated, 59 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in the territory are from electricity. This proposal will achieve only around 18 per cent of the current emissions reduction target. This government has not revisited that greenhouse target. Having dithered for almost three years on this crucial issue it is, by default, revising upwards the ACT emissions target.

I have begun to fear that the ACT will do no better than the federal government, which is aiming for the indefensible target of an 8 per cent increase on 1990 emissions. The main attraction for the government in this proposal is that it will have to do almost nothing in the way of administering the scheme. As the government has proved generally unwilling to resource properly the greenhouse unit in Environment ACT it must have been excited about the fact that it could do something about greenhouse with minimal effort and resources. I have already expressed the Democrats’ profound disappointment that the Stanhope government has backed away from the commitment made by the previous ACT government to move to a 100 per cent purchase of green power for government operations.

Each policy retreat takes us further away from a sustainable level of emissions. I am yet to see what initiatives could possibly compensate for these expedient and short-sighted decisions. In June I said in debate on a motion moved by Ms Tucker that in most cases the environmental damage of our energy consumption is not paid for by the supplier or by the user, so there is no cash saving for switching to environmentally friendly approaches. After energy reduction measures are adopted we are left only with options that cost more. It is not realistic to rely on residents or businesses to adopt new emission measures motivated solely by a sense of environmental responsibility.

Climate change represents the single greatest threat to our biodiversity. Unfortunately, the impacts of climate change are difficult to see with an untrained eye. An appreciation of those impacts is confounded by natural climatic variability. However, climate is one of the key factors determining the competitive advantage of native plants. A changed climate will herald the invasion of weeds and impede the reproduction of our native species. The government continues to clear native vegetation, isolating native species in islands of bush, but it is doing precious little to stop the climate change that will kill off those islands, as species are unable to migrate.

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