Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 09 Hansard (Tuesday, 24 August 2010) . . Page.. 3754 ..
September 2009, with an acknowledgement that the inquiry had been made more difficult due to uncertainty about the commonwealth government’s proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme, the potential outcomes from international climate change negotiations held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the lack of detailed analysis from the ACT government on cost-benefit analysis of its existing climate change strategies, and uncertainty about the direction of the energy policy in the ACT.
When presenting the interim report, the committee indicated that the inquiry was ongoing in light of these issues. In preparing the final report, the committee has sought to address these uncertainties, but unfortunately there has not been significant development in many areas. In light of this, the committee will continue to monitor developments with a particular focus on the implications for the ACT.
The report provides an update about national initiatives such as a carbon pollution reduction scheme and renewable energy targets and summarises the outcomes of the United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Copenhagen in December 2009. The committee has also analysed climate change issues in an ACT context, with a particular focus on the draft sustainable energy policy 2010-20, the ACT GreenPower scheme and 2010-11 budget initiatives.
The committee is concerned about the ongoing delay of the finalisation of key ACT government policy documents relating to climate change, such as the final sustainable energy policy and weathering the change action plan 2. These documents are particularly important in the context of achieving zero net emissions in the territory, and the committee calls on the government to release these documents as a matter of priority.
The committee has also reviewed a cost-efficiency evaluation methodology presented by the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission which may be used to assess the efficacy of greenhouse gas reduction strategies and associated policies and programs. The committee recognises that this framework is a valuable planning mechanism for program and policy development and should be viewed as a solid foundation for the development of a range of other methods to evaluate greenhouse gas emission mitigation strategies. The committee’s final report outlines some additional recommendations, including:
adoption of a cost-efficiency evaluation methodology to evaluate programs implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions;
establishment of a set of criteria to inform the development of a range of evaluation methodologies to evaluate greenhouse gas emission mitigation strategies; and
implementation of measures to encourage local community action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Finally, a report such as this does not come together without the hard work and assistance of a range of people. I would like to conclude by thanking my committee colleagues Mr Hargreaves, Mr Seselja and also Ms Porter, who was a member of the committee for the development of the interim report, and the large number of