Page 1746 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 1 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As the costs to households go up through general price effects so too will the cost to government. We are considering how to reduce our energy consumption to reduce our own costs through the current budget process. In addition to the national price on carbon, the territory has set itself high standards in the areas of renewable energy and energy efficiency. The government is currently preparing climate change action plan 2 to establish a pathway to meet our legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets. We are also developing or have put in place the carbon neutrality framework for government, the sustainable energy policy, large scale solar, the energy efficiency scheme and the feed-in tariff scheme.
Undoubtedly, placing a price on carbon is an important micro-economic reform. It will price an externality and make for a more level playing field in energy production. It will make renewable energy more price competitive and encourage greater investment in renewable energy. It will reduce the carbon intensity of the Australian economy. It will provide incentives for research and development of renewable energy technology. Given our undoubted strengths in the research field, the ACT is likely to benefit significantly.
Our universities are well placed to develop and commercialise renewable technology. We have the CSIRO in our backyard. Putting a price on carbon is the most efficient way of moving our economy to a more sustainable future. It allows the market to develop solutions and find the most efficient ways of reducing carbon emissions. Other approaches, such as so-called direct action, can indeed complement a price on carbon. However, they will not do the necessary heavy lifting required to transform our economy.
The likely practical effects of climate change include higher average temperatures, more extreme weather events, a loss of biodiversity and changes to vegetation patterns. Canberrans have a role to play in addressing these issues. I am confident that this community accepts that challenge and that we are up to the task. In the context of how this community responds and how this government will respond, it will be to adapt to these changing circumstances. A head in the sand approach will not work.
The suggestion from those opposite that at this point in the debate we walk away from this significant challenge is, frankly, very disappointing. In the context of their previously stated positions in relation to greenhouse gas reduction targets for the territory, it is a remarkable about-face from the Leader of the Opposition. It completely shreds any environmental credentials the Liberal Party might seek to claim. Given what the federal Leader of the Opposition has announced this afternoon—that is, his support for the removal of horizontal fiscal equalisation and for the GST to be allocated on a per capita basis—the greatest risk to the territory is a federal Liberal government not only ripping 12,000 jobs out of this economy but then compounding the impact by ripping $165 million of GST revenue away from Canberrans. That is the position of the Liberal Party.
Mr Smyth interjecting—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Smyth!
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video