Page 322 - Week 01 - Thursday, 17 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There are many people who will feel the effects of this. The subsidies, or the rebates, will never keep up, so the low income earners who may be eligible for a rebate will get some of that additional cost back. But many others who struggle will get none of it back. They will pay that extra money. Simon Corbell says: “It’s not much. It’s only a few bucks a week. They should be prepared to do their bit.” As I said earlier, many might be prepared to do their bit—many who are doing okay or reasonably well might be prepared to do their bit—but they want to know that it is effective. They want to know that it is actually doing something for the environment, and when the government chooses the most inefficient and ineffective scheme it leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths, and rightly so.
We hear often about the effect on employment, on jobs. We hear that it is good for jobs. Of course, there has been analysis done of that. We saw the New South Wales scheme before it was significantly downgraded. That is another thing that has happened recently. Other governments are realising that this is simply too expensive. They are realising that it is actually too expensive and they are scaling it back. They are moving away from these schemes.
The National Generators Forum, in examining the New South Wales scheme, which of course was similar to the ACT scheme before it was scaled back, looked at the issue of jobs. It said that the cost of creating jobs under the scheme was in the order of $130,000 to $700,000 per year for each new job. That is an extraordinary amount. If this is about jobs then it is an extraordinarily expensive way to create a small number of jobs. If it is about the environment, it is an extremely ineffective way to cut emissions. You do not need to look far now to see all of the options.
People can buy green energy. We see, in fact, retailers saying that for maybe a dollar a week or so 25 per cent of your energy can come from renewable sources. That would seem to me to be a much more efficient and effective way. So, if it is a job creation scheme, it is an extraordinarily expensive job creation scheme. If it is an environmental scheme, it is an extraordinarily ineffective environmental scheme. If it is a wealth distribution scheme, it is taking the money from poor people and giving it to big corporations. It is a reverse Robin Hood scheme. Instead of taking money from large corporations and distributing it to poor people, it is taking it from poor people and giving it to large corporations.
The government, the Labor Party, and the Greens need to explain to us why they believe that we should pursue inefficient schemes, ineffective schemes and inequitable schemes. This one is all of those things. They need to explain to the families in Tuggeranong, Gungahlin, Belconnen, Weston Creek and right across Canberra why they should have to pay an extra $200 a year so that large corporations can save on their electricity. We need to get serious about our environmental policy. It needs to be more than simply feeling good or pretending to do something. That is what this scheme is about. We see the growing chorus who say that we should not bother with these types of schemes.
We cannot support this bill. We cannot support legislation which is so inequitable and so ineffective. We need to turn our minds to developing policies which actually get
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video