Page 4991 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Proposed new clause 10A.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (10.50): I move amendment No 6 circulated in my name, which inserts a new clause 10A [see schedule 2 at page 5087].
This clause refers to emissions offsets outside the ACT. The Greens believe this is an important new provision. As the rest of this section sets targets for how the overall target will be achieved, this, too, gives important policy guidance under the legislation in regard to offsets.
The government has not yet released its proposed offsets policy, nor has it articulated what component of the emissions reductions can be achieved through offsets. The Greens think it is important that the ACT does not rely on offsetting our emissions outside the ACT, but that if we are to do this then the government must be accountable for it and the intention should be clearly stated.
I guess what we are trying to ensure, again, is that there is an explicit debate on just how much of our emissions we will seek to offset outside the territory. I think there will also be a very considerable debate about what those offsets might be. That is not for this legislation, but I am sure that it is a debate that will ensue.
Obviously, these offsets do not come for free. It is a necessity that we have a debate about the quantum and the appropriateness of pursuing offsets outside the ACT. In giving the minister the opportunity to determine a maximum amount of emissions that may contribute to achieving any target, that provides an opportunity and an explicit moment when this Assembly and the community can consider whether that amount is appropriate in the light of where we are up to in pursuing our targets.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (10.52): The Liberal Party will not be supporting this amendment for a number of reasons. We believe that the artificial limiting of offsets outside the ACT does not stand up to scrutiny in terms of the overall policy aims or what we should be doing—that is, to find the best solutions and the most cost-effective ways of reducing emissions. I certainly will not support a provision which could potentially see Canberrans being forced to pay more for emissions offsets than they would otherwise have to because there is an artificial restriction on where those offsets can be purchased. I just do not see that this makes any sense.
If there is a legitimate emission to be purchased outside the ACT, whether it is in Australia or elsewhere, and that leads to actions being taken elsewhere which otherwise would not have been taken—the simplest one is the planting of trees—if a lot of trees are planted as a result of the purchase of an offset by the government of the ACT and we can do that cheaply, then we are contributing to the reduction of emissions, but we are looking to get the best price possible for the reduction of those emissions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video