Page 4583 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Despite the benefits of the feed-in tariff scheme, the scheme is a relatively costly way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As the ACT Government has noted in relation to the potential expansion of the scheme, the cost of abatement is in the range of $195 and $434 per tonne.
We have actually seen the figures that have been given from the December quarter last year: premiums paid, $314,000; carbon saved, 734 tonnes; cost per tonne, $428. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is at the absolute upper end of costs. We have seen that, even on the government’s own range, it is hitting right at the top of that, and you compare that to other ways of cutting emissions.
So we do need to consider in all of this what the government’s record is on cutting emissions. This program does not deliver environmental bang for buck, and those costs are borne by households, not the government. They are borne by the households least able to afford them, and they pay the extra to the households affluent enough to install panels. This obviously raises equity issues and shows how good intentions often produce poor outcomes.
After electricity use, transport then becomes the next target. It is here where the most draconian measures may be introduced in pursuit of a 40 per cent target. Is one of the measures being considered a congestion tax? This has been reported recently. It has been called for by some in industry. Is a congestion tax part of the mix to get to 40 per cent? If so, where will it be imposed? How will it be imposed? Most importantly, what will it cost and what will be the impact on families, workers and businesses?
Is one of the measures to be imposing tolls on our roads? If so, where will they be imposed? How will they be imposed? Most importantly, what will they cost and what will the impact be on families, workers and businesses? Is one of the measures an increase in car parking fees? And let us be serious—to get to the kind of targets we are talking about here now, a couple of dollars a day is not going to cut it. The kind of parking cost increases that the government would have to be contemplating to reach these targets would be in the order of double and greater what Canberrans currently pay. Can Canberra families bear that burden? Will they bear that burden? These are the questions that need to be asked, and we will ask them on behalf of Canberra families.
It would seem unavoidable that cost imposts will be placed on users—that is, families, workers, businesses. Are we to face fees and charges that have not been put to the people? Is this bill actually a huge tax grab masquerading as a greenhouse gas bill?
Given it is a cognate debate, it is worth also touching on another difference between the bill which I presented and the government’s bill—that is, the renewable energy targets, a critical part of reducing emissions, are actually part of our bill. They are outlined in our bill, but in the government’s bill that we are debating today that is not the case. That power is delegated; they do not set the targets in this bill. We have actually put them there up front and said, “If you’re serious about cutting emissions, you need to have a serious renewable energy target.” That is another reason why our bill should be favoured over the government’s.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video