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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4430 ..

The Total Environment Centre’s modelling on the benchmarks, which we are being urged by the government to adopt, shows that emissions will blow out after 2007 due to the impact of population growth. To truly achieve emissions five per cent below 1990 level, the modelling shows that the benchmark should drop annually until it reaches 5.85 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per head of population in 2007—considerably below the 7.27 tonnes provided for in this bill.

The same modelling shows that, because of population increases, the existing New South Wales benchmarks will result in emissions being higher by 2007 than they are currently, exceeding Australia’s Kyoto commitment of eight per cent above 1990 levels. It is very important that we have the opportunity to adjust the benchmarks, if necessary, before the final five years of the scheme or, at the very least, to have an informed discussion on the implications for other activities impacting on the territory’s greenhouse reduction target if we do not.

Finally, this amendment aims to ensure that there is greater alignment between the government’s public statements on its greenhouse commitments and targets and its actions. While I do not expect this bill to be the sole mechanism for the achievement of the territory’s greenhouse gas reduction target, there should be a clear link between the targets included in this bill, the fact that in the ACT electricity use accounts for 59 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, and the territory’s broader greenhouse gas reduction strategies and targets.

While I understand the government is concerned about complementarity at this time, it may be possible to achieve a greater reduction in emissions in the future. I note that the government is currently estimating that the emissions scheme will deliver only about 16 per cent of the territory’s broader greenhouse reduction targets. There should be no difficulty with this amendment given the government’s—and indeed the opposition’s—oft stated commitment to achieving a sustainable, high quality environment for the Canberra community and the untested nature, from a territory perspective, of this scheme and its impact on the territory’s broader greenhouse gas reduction target.

In case people have not understood what I have said, I repeat that this is a review for information only. It does not force a change. We could well find that we have a national agreement at that time, in which case we will not be bound just to New South Wales. This is about acknowledging the seriousness of greenhouse and acknowledging that we need to be prepared to look at this again. I look forward to getting support for this amendment.

MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism and Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming) (10.49): The government will not support this amendment. It boils down to the fact that our legislation can be revisited and changed by an expert. It virtually says that if we get a report from the expert then the minister of the time must, if the report recommends changing the benchmark, “in writing determine the Territory greenhouse … or present a statement setting out the reasons for not following the recommendation”. That is getting a bit tight.

As I said during the in-principle stage, we want to work with New South Wales. A system will develop. I think that we can accept that. It will be in the hands of the next

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