Page 3240 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
scheme is based firmly on the New South Wales greenhouse gas abatement scheme and it is fully integrated and consistent with the New South Wales legislation and the New South Wales scheme. So on that basis the ACT legislation includes benchmark targets that are the same as those in New South Wales, and that consistency is important and it is important that it be maintained.
I should also add that it was agreed based on discussions at COAG and a request from the Prime Minister that individual jurisdictions not vary the basis of existing emission reduction schemes, as planning for the transition of those schemes to a national emissions model had already commenced. There has been much comment by both the Liberal Party and the Greens in relation to moves afoot and announced by each of the two parties federally, Labor and Liberal, to move to a national emissions trading scheme and there has been informal agreement—or understanding, at least, or acknowledgement—to respond positively to the request that has been made by the Prime Minister in that regard.
Uncoordinated targets or the breaking of a nexus between the ACT and New South Wales would have some perhaps undesirable consequences, some of them unintended. We have always been very open about the fact that we embraced a pre-existing scheme, a New South Wales scheme. We did it for ease of administration. We did it on a cost-effectiveness basis. We do not want now to break the nexus, to now create a separate scheme, a scheme distinct or separate from New South Wales. Our legislation was spawned by the New South Wales legislation or model; ours is a carbon copy.
This proposed amendment by Dr Foskey, as admirable as it may be, as sound as it may appear, would in essence create a separate scheme within the ACT. In the context of the moves nationally, acknowledged by all of us, by both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, to now embrace a national scheme, to work co-operatively, the question must be asked: what is to be gained today in relation to an operating scheme that is based solely on another scheme in a larger jurisdiction? As noble as the notion of regular assessments or rejigging or adjustment might be, for the ACT now to snip the cord, to say, “That’s it; thanks for the ride; we’ll now go it alone,” would create a whole range of issues, including, of course, issues around cost and the regulatory burden that would be imposed on retailers here within the ACT, and it would have the effect of removing the cost effectiveness that we achieve from the current arrangements. It would actually fly in the face of the nature of the partnership. It would breach the partnership and all the benefits that come from it if we were now to create a separate scheme.
In fact, the investments that we have made in the administration of the scheme on the basis of the partnership and the statutory targets that are in place would be wasted. As part of the climate change strategy, the ACT government is currently developing joint renewable energy target legislation with New South Wales. We can piggyback off the investments made by New South Wales in relation to the administration of that scheme, whether it be in relation to IT or whatever. Certainly, we can only do that if we have the same targets as New South Wales, and New South Wales is more than happy for us to work in that way in relation to their scheme. We say this unashamedly: there are significant advantages to the ACT in mirroring the New South
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .