Page 4918 - Week 11 - Thursday, 21 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
For instance, if an ETS were to come in—this is an interesting one—we know that, according to the Australia Institute and others, local action taken to reduce emissions here in the ACT would allow people in Queensland to pollute more cheaply. That is what it will allow. It would allow people in WA perhaps to pollute more cheaply. We cannot simply ignore these factors.
The position of the Labor Party and the Greens is to look at it blindly, ideologically, and say, “We’ve got a magic number; we have to do that regardless of the cost.” That is the position of the Labor Party and the Greens. You can hear it when they speak about it. They do not actually give fair dinkum consideration to the cost impact on Canberra families. We are the only party standing up and saying that we will consider that.
Do we want to see action? Yes. That is why we have led the way. That is why the former Liberal government led the way. But they never did it blindly—blind to the consequences, blind to the costs. We have had these debates at the national level. Imagine if we had this kind of argument from a government: “Forty per cent—have to get there. It does not matter. We don’t particularly care about the cost. We will pursue 40 per cent.”
We need to consider all the factors. We on this side of the chamber make no apology for saying to the community, “Yes, we will support action. Yes, we will lead the way. But we will do our best to minimise those costs. We will do our best to set targets that are reasonable so that Canberrans are not asked to do far too much, far more than their fair share, for no environmental benefit.”
That is what we are facing. That is why this is an important debate. That is why it is important that we amend this clause. We can have all sorts of ideas. We can have all sorts of grand plans. But we have to consider how it works. We have to consider how it impacts on the community. It is clear from this debate.
Right at the end of Mr Rattenbury’s original speech in the in-principle debate there was a sort of cursory discussion of cost, in an almost dismissive manner as if this does not matter. If you believe it so fervently, then it does not matter that any cost is worth bearing if you approach it in such a blindly ideological way. We do not approach things in that way. We approach things in a calm and considered manner, looking at how we serve the interests of the environment and the community, how we do things that are achievable and how we do things that are cost effective.
If you want an example of how this government in particular does not have regard to cost, you only have to look at the solar feed-in scheme. Mr Corbell says that this is going to make up six per cent of their 40 per cent reduction—six per cent. That is a significant amount. It is a pretty significant amount at $450 a tonne—or will it be $350 a tonne? It is certainly not going to be getting down to the $20, $30 and $40 a tonne that we see for all sorts of other measures. Mr Smyth set it out well.
If we were in any doubt about the attitude of this government and how they are likely to go about seeking to reach this target, have a look at their record. They choose one
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video