Page 3254 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The common perception is that if you are driving a Prius or a hybrid, it is good for the environment. It might be good in terms of petrol consumption and emission, but you have to change the batteries. The current thinking is that batteries have to be changed every five years, although I have heard a range of three to seven years. Because of their particular construction and design and the materials that they are made of, they actually use up a larger amount of energy than in the manufacture of the vehicle.
If we are going to be selective and just say that the only thing we are worried about is emissions then let us be honest about it. But if we are actually talking about the long-term reduction of the impact on the environment through this duty then it is not going to be achieved. We are not taking into account the all-up cost of construction on the environment. We need to hear from the Treasurer about alternative guides that might be used, in particular how these guides deal with matters such as whole-of-life environmental impacts.
I want to talk about consultation. I have consulted with the motor industry on this bill and I have learnt of two further concerns about this proposal. The first is the impact of this proposal on motor vehicle businesses. I do not know whether the Stanhope government prepared a business impact statement—perhaps the Treasurer can enlighten us—in respect of this proposed scheme. I assume that one was prepared, but there was not any mention of it.
I need to emphasise to the Stanhope government that all motor vehicle retailers in the ACT will have to make changes to their existing computer systems, and they tell me that they are concerned about this. What has been quite a simple system will now have to incorporate four different grades of vehicle according, presumably, to the guide used at the time. Currently it would be the green vehicle guide or whatever guide is pulled up under this legislation.
Small businesses are the life blood of the ACT economy and the Stanhope government, through this proposal, will be making life just a little bit more complex for those businesses. My concern is that while this proposal, in principle, appears reasonable there are consequences, particularly for small business, that also need to be taken into account.
The second matter is the consultation itself. You would think that on such a proposal the ACT government would have consulted widely. From my consultations with various business groups, I know that the motor trades association was consulted, but when you are jacking up the prices of utes and four-wheel drives, which are the mainstay of the construction and the building industry, I would have expected that the government might have spoken to, for instance, the master builders or the HIA.
I know they did not speak to the master builders, because I did. The master builders have not been consulted on this specific proposal and were not aware that some potential new vehicle owners would be punished by having to pay an increase in stamp duty. The bottom line is that business, yet again, has not been consulted adequately by this government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .