Page 1256 - Week 04 - Thursday, 4 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
schemes. Nonetheless, some schemes do take into account a mix of pollutant levels and, if the government choose not to support my amendment today but would rather go away and consider their options, I would urge them to make an effort to implement a world-best-practice, evidence-based, polluter-pays sales tax and vehicle registration system. This should exercise the minds of Treasury and provide some education in directing fiscal policy to sustainability in the knowledge that revenue can thus be enhanced and not harmed.
I have also not included the details of whether or not this scheme should be revenue neutral, by decreasing the percentage of stamp duty charged to low-emission vehicles and increasing the level for high emissions, as such a proposal would need to be fully costed by the ACT Revenue Office to predict possible impacts on government revenue. If the office does undertake these costings, I would like to see the costings take into account the health savings and other social and environmental benefits that will flow from these measures.
One other point worth mentioning is a requirement under the fringe benefits tax scheme for a vehicle to travel a certain number of kilometres before receiving a tax credit. Such a scheme encourages emissions by rewarding high kilometre readings. Although the ACT government is not responsible for this, I would like to see it lobbying the federal government for a greener approach.
The ACT government’s report entitled Measuring our progress: Canberra’s journey to sustainability, delivered by the Chief Minister on 9 July 2004, investigated the size of the ACT’s ecological footprint and told us what we already know—that Canberra people are among the highest consumers of the world’s resources. The report stated that the ACT’s ecological footprint in 1998-99 was 5.73 hectares per capita, or when totalled eight times the size of the ACT—the worst of any Australian state or territory. Although this data appears to be some six to seven years old, it is relevant as it takes years to change our practices and therefore change these figures.
The paper also demonstrated that ACT residents are committed to using their cars. I quote these statistics from the government’s paper: 82 per cent of the ACT population favour private motor vehicles as their main form of transport—seven percentage points higher than the overall national level of 75 per cent—and transport emissions contribute to 24 per cent of the ACT’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
While I support and promote the use of public transport and cycling, I also recognise that some ACT residents prefer or need to use their cars. Canberra was designed to be a car city, and special measures will be required to change that. It is difficult for families, with their numerous drop-offs and errands on the journey to and from work; I would not deny them the use of their car while there are no alternatives. However, with oil scarcity, they deserve the government’s assistance in reducing their oil use.
If the government does support my amendment in principle, but chooses not to agree to it today, I would like to request that the Treasurer commit to a date, sooner than April 2009, at which the government will implement financial incentives via a motor vehicle stamp duty and/or registration fees to encourage the use of low-emission vehicles. If it does not, it will be failing in its duty to its citizens and to the environment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .