Page 3250 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
notice last week have not been answered. This morning, when my office asked if they were to be answered before this debate, Mr Stanhope’s staff advised that, in fact, I should ask the Minister for Territory and Municipal Services for answers to my questions. I think the lack of courtesy in this regard is quite sad and I am disappointed that the details were not provided by the Treasurer’s office.
I would like to thank Mr Hargreaves’s staff because when we were informed—I think at about 20 past 10 this morning—that the answers would not be forthcoming from the Treasurer, that he could not answer the questions, and that I should go to Mr Hargreaves’s office, we did, and, through you, Mr Hargreaves, I want to thank your staff for promptly answering a number of the questions. Unfortunately, some of the reports are still running, so the details cannot be available for this debate, but thank you for trying, Mr Hargreaves, and thanks particularly to your staff.
I am disappointed that I do not have the detail that I sought, and this has helped influence my decision and the decision of the opposition about this bill. The opposition will be opposing this bill. While it is a very simple bill and the notion of encouraging the purchase of more environmentally friendly motor vehicles is excellent, there are a number of adverse implications that arise from the proposals in this bill. The longer term implications of this proposal are significant and I need to satisfy myself that any implications arising from this proposal will not significantly disadvantage either consumers or the ACT government.
My concerns with respect to consumers include whether the mechanism chosen to indicate environmental friendliness is a satisfactory basis for distinguishing between the environmental performances of vehicles, indeed, the whole-of-life cost to the environment of vehicles. We also need to know that there is no undue discrimination that would affect choices being made by consumers and that there is no increased regulatory or financial impact on business or, indeed, on individuals.
My concerns with respect to the government’s bill are, firstly, that the administration underpinning this proposal is not complex and, secondly, that the revenue base is protected. What the bill does not propose is a specific mechanism for determining environmental friendliness or, indeed, a definition. It seems to be based on the consumption and performance of vehicles and the amount of greenhouse gas that they emit, not an all-of-life summary of the cost to the environment of the vehicle.
It is interesting to visit the green vehicle guide website and to try and find out what it is that they are attempting to measure. There is a section called “Information on green vehicle guide ratings and measurement”. I would like to read to members of this place the note at the end of the section, because this is the nub of the problem. The note states:
The ratings are based on tailpipe emissions. Like any manufactured product, motor vehicles can have other impacts on the environment. For example the vehicle manufacturing process and the level of recyclability of vehicle components can impact on the environment, as can emissions from the refining of different fuels. These elements have not been factored into the Green Vehicle Guide ratings as it is not possible to provide objective numerical values for these factors at an individual vehicle level.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .