Page 4162 - Week 13 - Thursday, 14 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
propose different tax rates for the consumption of renewable energy versus coal. While we recognise the value of the ACT government’s greenhouse gas abatement scheme and other such actions, Stern has told us that these measures are not nearly enough. Here is an opportunity for us to improve the situation further.
Green energy already costs 40 per cent more than standard energy and there has been little increase in the take up of green energy by ACT residents. Instead of trying to minimise this market failure the government is exacerbating it by increasing the cost of green energy. Regardless of the short-term revenue gain, demand for standard electricity is relatively price inelastic, so I do not expect any significant reduction in power demand to flow from this added cost.
If the ACT bureaucracy is too lacking in imagination or expertise to present the government with policy proposals that include positive initiatives to reverse or slow the extent of market failure, it is time to recruit people who will, and the government should listen to and pay attention to them. Is this a problem of political leadership? When the head of Treasury expresses the view at a public hearing that the market, left to its own devices, will address all ethical and presumably environmental ethical problems, the time for change is long overdue. Business as usual is not acceptable. It is not ethical policy, it is not sensible policy and it will not take us into a future that our children deserve.
I also question the government’s decision to include telecommunication networks in this bill. This was proffered as the primary justification for the current form of the bill. While it provides approximately one-quarter of the income raised through this tax, the inclusion of telcos prevents the government from placing different rates of tax on different types of utilities due to a High Court decision confirming that taxes on telecommunications cannot be discriminatory.
Acknowledging that the future of telecommunications is uncertain and we are in a period of rapid change, we are still curious to know whether the government has taken the time to consider the future of telecommunications and its impact on this bill, especially given the number of people who opt for mobile phones over home lines, and wireless internet access. Whether Telstra ever gets around to releasing ADSL 2 will also impact on wireless access. Telstra’s threat not to place broadband in new ACT suburbs, while objectionable, is possible.
The New South Wales and Queensland governments are considering providing free wireless access to the internet in parts of their major CBDs. I wonder whether this will happen in the ACT. Perhaps the telecommunications network revenue will be secure for two to three years, but after that things could start to look very different. The ACT Greens are dubious about the ACT government’s ability to use a whole-of-government framework, or to ensure communications between government agencies on like matters of interest.
I appreciate the government’s provision of a regulatory impact statement but I see from this statement that Treasury did not consult with the Department of Housing and Community Services, which is in charge of the concession program, and the Department of Territory and Municipal Services, which is the office conducting a review of the Utilities Act and developing the climate change strategy. Why did
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .