Page 5995 - Week 14 - Thursday, 8 December 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that. We will not be moving to disallow that in any form. But it does leave us the opportunity down the line to have a more flexible approach to this.
The minister has spoken in some detail about the other amendments. I do not feel the need to repeat that other than to say that, as I said earlier, we are glad to see some of those changes coming through just to clarify a few matters.
I did want to pick up on the broader policy issue that Mr Seselja raised around Richard Denniss’s analysis of how the federal scheme plays out. I have got a lot of time and respect for Richard Denniss. He is the sort of person this country needs. He really sits down and thinks about things—and often thinks about them in a bit of a different way. He does not just accept the standard analysis of things but looks for ways to find better solutions. His role and the role of the Australia Institute are incredibly valuable to us.
As it happens, I disagree with Richard Denniss on this analysis. Richard and I have had a couple of lengthy conversations about this, and we have just had to agree that we disagree. I think it is quite clear, if you sit down and read the federal legislation, that there is the capacity for additionality in that legislation. It is something that my federal colleagues, particularly Senator Christine Milne, took up in the negotiation around the federal carbon legislation. It is quite clear that the Climate Change Authority may take into account that additionality.
What is also clear in the architecture of the federal legislation is that the Climate Change Authority has the ability to increase the target with its annual review. So if jurisdictions such as the ACT, or for that matter Queensland or Tasmania, undertake voluntary additional action which frees up the permits—this comes into the Richard Denniss argument—the Climate Change Authority has the ability to recommend new targets, and increased targets, to reflect that voluntary action. There are some hurdles to be crossed there; there is work to be done on methodology. But it is quite clear that, under the federal legislation, that additionality can be counted.
So I reject the argument that what we are doing here in the ACT can somehow just allow polluters in other jurisdictions to do further pollution. I think the work that we do here will serve several purposes. It will reduce our emissions. It will reduce the cost of living for ACT households. Some of the modelling contained in action plan 2, which the minister released earlier this week, underlines the fact that striving to reduce our greenhouse emissions produces cost of living pressures across many areas as well. That is something that the Greens will continue to focus on. I reject the scaremongering that says that tackling climate change necessarily costs us a lot of money. That modelling shows it, and it underlines points that I and my colleagues have made in this chamber on more than one occasion.
I welcome these amendments today and the subsequent passage of the legislation. I think this is an exciting initiative for the ACT; it will see us well on the way to achieving many of the goals that many people in Canberra want us to achieve.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (4.40): I want to back up the comments made by Mr Seselja and respond to some of the comments made by Mr Rattenbury. It is quite
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video