Page 4992 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I strongly object to the notion that we should put a limit on that so that we cannot necessarily find the most cost-effective ways. Apparently, there are good ways of cutting emissions and bad ways of cutting emissions. We should be looking at what is effective and how much it costs. We should not be taking anything other than a pragmatic approach to this, and I think it undermines the argument that is put forward most prominently by the Greens. We know this is a global problem. The idea that we would draw a line around the ACT and say, “Offsets in the ACT, good; offsets outside the ACT, bad,” does not stand up to scrutiny. I do not think that that is logical.
My concern, and the reason we will not be supporting this, is that any sort of cap like this potentially leads to the government not having maximum flexibility to look for the best cost and, therefore, Canberrans paying more than they otherwise would have to. We very strongly oppose this new clause for those reasons. It does not make sense, and it potentially will impose added burdens on the people of the ACT for absolutely zero environmental benefit.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (10.55): The government will not be supporting this amendment either. A carbon offsets policy for the territory is currently under preparation, and it is appropriate to note that some offsets outside the ACT could have very significant regional benefits. Why would we rule out the provision of such benefits simply because they were beyond the geographical border of the territory?
A limit on offsets ignores the net benefit to the ACT of mitigation options, and we believe that having this requirement for a maximum amount of emissions offsets places the government in a very difficult situation and limits the capacity of the territory to explore all possible options, including appropriately audited and accountable offsets, to address our emissions profile. The government will not support this amendment.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (10.56): I am concerned by the tenor that this debate has taken. I think that it is quite clear from the way the amendment is framed that this is an option—the minister may determine the maximum amount of emissions. It is quite different from the previous targets we have talked about where it has been a requirement upon the minister to set a renewable energy target and an energy efficiency target. The amendment does not seek to set a quantum now on the amount of offsets that are available. I think that is something that we can determine down the line.
At the same time, the suggestion that we can somehow go for almost a limitless amount of offsets outside the ACT is concerning on two levels. One is that the whole point is that we should be taking action here in the ACT. I am not suggesting that there are not some available offsets, but, as a policy decision, we may want to make a choice to set a policy standard that we only want 10 per cent of our reductions to come from offsets. That may be a policy decision we want to make because that is the sort of impetus that is required to shift transformation here in the ACT. From that point of view, there is value in having the ability to cap offsets so that we do not just, essentially, carbon pardon our way out of our target.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video