Page 5107 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The report which I am responding to today is a solid and considered report. It identifies the need for action. It takes up the challenge of climate change for our city. In tabling the government’s response, I can confirm that the government is adopting the broad direction of the recommendations in the report. Of the 31 recommendations presented, the government agrees with 13 recommendations and agrees in principle with 16. The government notes two of the recommendations and does not disagree with any of them.
Those recommendations where we agree in principle, or simply note them, relate to the need to await the outcomes from other processes such as the final shape of the carbon pollution reduction scheme and the international climate change negotiations soon to take place in Copenhagen or, alternatively, to the mechanics of how we go about putting in place arrangements to deliver the intent of the recommendations rather than any substantive disagreement. Therefore, in essence, the government effectively supports the intent of all of the recommendations. However, we do need to get the detail of it right.
For instance, recommendation 5 states that the proposed legislation should set a target of a 40 per cent reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The government intends to set a medium-term target for 2020 as high as possible and recognises a medium-term target should be in the range of 25 to 40 per cent. However, this needs to occur with close regard for the equity of the target measure. The government will look at the role the government must play to ensure that support is provided for those in the community least able to pay, for example in the area of additional energy costs. This support might be in the form of assistance to reduce energy needs by retrofitting buildings or replacing energy-hungry appliances, and also through improvements to the community service obligation payments arrangements.
Also, as the committee recommendation notes, in order to fully consider an ambitious medium-term target we need to assess the final outcomes of the CPRS, we need to assess the outcomes from Copenhagen and we need to assess the information from the various studies which will guide us on the cost, benefits and deliverables of various policy options. This work is ongoing, and I look forward to bringing a range of these proposals to the Assembly in the coming year.
Overall, the government supports the broad direction of the committee’s recommendations. I think this is a good outcome for this Assembly and our community, and I am sure members of the committee will agree. It is particularly pleasing that we may just be at the point where we are able to develop a political consensus, an agreed way forward, with cross-party support, on this, the most pressing policy issue of the modern era.
A key part of this process has always been the introduction of ACT legislation to set in place specific ACT greenhouse gas reduction targets. The government agrees with the committee that any targets we set will not be enforceable in a legislative sense. There will not be penalties for noncompliance. However, the legislation will mandate regular reporting on how we as a community are tracking in our efforts to meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets. The setting of targets in legislation will also send a strong policy signal of where we are heading,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video