Page 3241 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Wales legislation and model in relation to cost effectiveness, in relation to uniformity of systems, in relation to the software that applies and in relation to the general cost effectiveness and regulatory burden.
While, as Dr Foskey explains it, perhaps we are being a bit soft and we could have had tougher targets and could have done a bit more, it would have come at a significant burden which, at the end of the day, would probably undercut the advantage of the scheme to some extent. I do not believe at this stage in relation to developments that are occurring nationally, that have been certainly championed by the states and the territories in the absence of leadership from the commonwealth, that we should jeopardise the working relationship with and our access to New South Wales technology, IT, software and systems for the sake of the sorts of changes that Dr Foskey proposes with her amendment.
On that basis, without essentially discussing perhaps the merit of the essential approach that Dr Foskey suggests would be appropriate for the ACT, I do not believe one should look at that in isolation of the administrative, the regulatory and the cost effect that the amendments would have on the scheme that operates within the ACT.
There are two issues here. We are unashamedly piggybacking off another jurisdiction and another system and we do that for a range of reasons. I do not believe the reasons for abandoning that approach outweigh the reasons for maintaining it, and on that basis the government will not support the proposals that Dr Foskey suggests.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra—Leader of the Opposition) (12.19): Similarly the opposition will not be supporting Dr Foskey’s amendment either. I certainly would like a lot more detail on the actual targets that Dr Foskey is suggesting. There are no real costings in relation to this. We are piggybacking off New South Wales. That is not to say, however, that what she is suggesting here does not have a considerable amount of merit and that is not to say, however, that the ACT government should not approach New South Wales and see whether these targets, or some other targets, should be used on an interim basis between now and when the national scheme comes into play on 1 January 2010. I think that would be entirely appropriate because the sentiment of what she is trying to do here is quite laudable, and anything we can do in a sensible, practical way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be supported. But there is a scheme in operation in New South Wales and we are piggybacking off it.
I would urge the Chief Minister to talk to his New South Wales counterparts to see if we can have some further targets, if we can do something more than is just occurring between now and 1 January 2010. But, unfortunately, that is a matter for the ACT government and the New South Wales government. For us to arbitrarily just impose these today I think would be counterproductive despite the obvious merit in what is behind Dr Foskey’s targets here and the honourable intentions that she obviously has here to see both us and New South Wales reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (12.20): It is interesting that one can put up an amendment and everyone says that it has merit, that it is a good idea that we care about climate change and that we want to do something about it and yet both parties in the Assembly reject it without even an investigation of its practicability. It was rejected on the grounds of its being impractical to move away—not that I am suggesting we do
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .