Page 3253 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I was assured that the modelling that has been done by the government shows that this outcome can be maintained for at least some time. But Greenrazor, the electronic newsletter of Green Pages Australia, contains, as its first story, an article headed “Australians believe they will be driving hybrids”. The brief introduction states:
An online survey conducted by UMR Australia’s leading research and issues management company, has discovered that over a quarter (28%) of people believe they will be driving a hybrid car in five years’ time …
I do not believe that the sustainability of this proposal is well founded. If, as the UMR survey says, in the next five years we will see this change, the revenue base in the territory will be affected. I suspect that what will happen, as the government applies their land policy of ‘squeeze them till they bleed but not quite till they die’ to owners of old cars and owners of less environmentally friendly cars is an increase in the size of the fleet. Anyway, the fees will come back onto the green cars.
The concern that I have is that at some point there will be so many vehicles subject to the zero rated duty, with the rate on other vehicles so high that the revenue collection will fail. At that point the government will either have to accept the loss of the revenue or rearrange all duties across all motor vehicles to maintain revenue collection. What we want is something sustainable into the long term, not something you do in the weeks before an election.
I do not believe that this will be a good policy outcome when that situation is reached. Indeed, I am concerned that the longer term implications of this proposal have not been properly thought through. This proposal has a superficial appeal to it, but the reality is that after it has been operating for some years it will require modification, and probably significant modification.
I have also a more fundamental question about determining the appropriate standard for determining environmental benefit. It seems to me that it is important to consider the whole-of-life cost of a vehicle to establish a more acceptable environmental outcome for each vehicle. I would like to be satisfied that the green vehicle guide—it is just one example—does provide the broadest possible estimate of the whole-of-life environmental impact for a vehicle. As I have already said, my understanding of the guide is that it is quite clear that it tests vehicles only on the basis of emission standards and fuel consumption.
I would be interested to hear the Chief Minister and Treasurer stand and tell us what other guides or standards are available in Australia and other countries and how these compare to the green vehicle guide, and in particular how they deal with matters such as whole-of-life environmental impact. I was at a function the other day and it was stated to me that in theory the most environmentally friendly vehicle is a Jeep Cherokee because it is made of steel. There are low inputs of energy in the construction and delivery processes and it runs a fairly efficient motor. So, contrary to what we might all expect, it is something that might in the long term be more friendly to the environment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .