Page 1444 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
would be overwhelming support for a better environment and for strong environmental outcomes. Where it becomes difficult, where it becomes challenging, is when you have to pay for those measures, when you have to pay for those programs and what people are prepared to pay for those programs. There are lots of policies which most people agree on but there is always that question about how much we pay.
I wanted to look at these issues around cost of living, the impact on people’s bottom line in relation to environmental programs. I also wanted to look, I think importantly in that context, at bang for your buck—the efficiency of what we do. I will also look at some of the election promises that we had in relation to the environment.
I will first look at Mr Corbell’s amendment, as we are speaking to the amendment. I think that there is some merit in some of what Mr Corbell has to say in the amendment. Mr Corbell’s amendment, I understand, is about addressing some of the cost implications that are inherent in Mr Rattenbury’s motion. If we look at Mr Rattenbury’s motion, there are a number of aspects, most of which I think we could agree on. Some of them are statements of fact broadly. But in terms of calling on the government, words like “adequately resourced” are a very broad concept. I think that that is what Mr Corbell has touched on in moving his amendment.
We are essentially calling on the Assembly or calling on the government to commit to certain funds in the budget context and in light of the fact that we will be having a budget delivered very soon. In fact, this is the second last sitting day before we have the next financial year’s budget presented. For that reason, we would broadly be supportive of Mr Corbell’s amendments.
But there has been some back and forth discussion. This goes back to last week when this was originally going to be debated. We did have back and forth between our offices about what we could accept. We took the view that in looking at the effects of environmental programs, of energy efficiency programs, we cannot simply say, “We have got low income earners covered in terms of rebate schemes,” without acknowledging the impact and the potential impact on middle income earners.
I want to spend a little time looking at why we believe we should do this. I have circulated an amendment that would simply slightly amend Mr Corbell’s amendment. If this amendment to Mr Corbell’s amendment were to be accepted, we would be happy to support Mr Corbell’s amendment. The understanding I have from the government is that that will not be the case but I have not heard from Mr Corbell on this. I am sure he can speak to my amendment, which I will move before I sit down.
It is often the case that middle income families are asked to bear the burden when it comes to new policies. For instance, let us look at the feed-in tariff. I think it is worth touching on the feed-in tariff for a while. Let us take environment bang for your buck. We are talking about, on a per tonne basis, a very expensive way of reducing greenhouse emissions. At the moment, on the latest figures I think we have, it is somewhere in the order of $427 per tonne. It has been higher than that, it may be a bit lower than that, but the current feed-in tariff scheme that we have is over $400 per tonne.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video