Page 4581 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We are not here to debate whether we should make cuts; we are here to debate how much we should cut, how we should make the cuts and what those cuts are going to cost. As you also know, and as I referred to earlier, the Canberra Liberals prefer a 30 per cent target, and for good reasons. It is a strong target, but an achievable one. It will make a serious difference to territory emissions. It will show leadership but will not cripple household budgets. It can be achieved through sensible measures, not through massive taxes. Yet the government and the Greens are committed to 40 per cent. As to how, when or at what cost, neither of these parties can explain.
They are important fundamental questions that must be answered before any party can accept this bill in good conscience and with proper regard for our responsibilities in this place on behalf of all Canberrans. As I have stated previously, I believe 30 per cent to be an achievable target using sensible measures. We also believe 40 per cent will inevitably move us into areas where there will be significant pain to Canberra families, and that is significant pain that we have regard to. The Liberal Party did this in government when we were showing leadership well ahead of other governments, and we will do so in opposition and in government. We will take strong environmental action, but we will also have regard to the impacts of that action on families and seek to mitigate those wherever possible.
Interestingly, it is not just the Canberra Liberals who recognise the fact that measures that would otherwise be supported can get us up close to that 30 per cent target which we have advocated. On 29 July this year, Simon Corbell himself said:
Energy efficiency is important, but on the government’s assessment it will only get us 25 per cent of that, if Shane wants 40 per cent, it’s only going to get us 25 per cent.
And later:
… there will be a range of measures we will need to explore beyond energy efficiency, energy efficiency alone won’t get us there.
The government’s own assessment is that efficiencies and other sensible measures, such as better public transport, will get us to around 25 per cent, and a range of other measures will be needed. This is where the pain comes in.
It is perfectly legitimate to ask just what those measures are before signing off on this bill. Who will be hit? Families driving kids to school and to sport? Will it be workers getting to work, parking at work, doing their errands? Will it be businesses? Will they be asked to bear the burden? And what will that mean for business growth and job opportunities? What will it mean for the economy of the territory?
When we were developing our own policy and legislation, far earlier than any other party in this place, we saw that the ACT produces about four million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year from four main sources. It is worth touching on that, as it actually goes to some of the amendments that are necessary to this bill, because the government simply has not done its work in terms of representation on its climate change council.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video