Page 4582 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Some 64 per cent comes from electricity generation which occurs outside the ACT’s borders but is included in the ACT’s usage; 24 per cent from transport fuels; nine per cent from natural gas use; and three per cent from waste. Which of these areas will be affected and in what way? We already know efficiency measures and other improvements such as public transport will get us to around 25 per cent. That is what the government says. Where is that extra 15 per cent? Where is the extra 10 per cent over and above our target coming from? From local businesses?
Dr Chris Peters has indicated to many that he is most concerned about cuts going this far. A reduction of 40 per cent from 1990 levels is equivalent to approximately a 53 per cent reduction relative to today’s business-as-usual levels. Are we really asking businesses in the ACT to halve their use? What will this mean for the territory economy and for jobs? What will it mean for families?
We have put together a budget for a middle income family, and we need to look at the cost pressures on Canberra families. These are the cost pressures that Mr Rattenbury, I think, dismissed in his speech. It is not just the poorest Canberrans who face cost pressures. Of course, we know those who are on very low incomes or those who are without jobs or those who require support in other ways clearly have cost pressures. But many middle income families have serious cost pressures as well, and they will not be in line for the assistance. They never are in line for the direct assistance under the government programs. So we have to have regard to the effect on those families.
Does anyone think that a family with three children on $70,000 or $80,000 is wealthy? Likewise, does anyone believe that those families will be targeted for direct assistance by this government? Unlikely; very unlikely. That is the point that is worth reflecting on. It is worth reflecting on the fact that families in Canberra do face cost pressures.
Our role as governments, our role as leaders, is to say, “Yes, we want strong environmental action because we believe in it, because we believe in a better environment.” But, in doing so, we need to make sure it is sensible, it is reasonable, that the cost impacts are carefully considered and that, wherever possible, we take the most efficient means of cutting emissions rather than inefficient ones. When we take those inefficient means, it costs more and that eventually flows through to Canberra families.
As stated, there are many families in Canberra who do not have a lot of room to move in their household budgets. Increases in costs which seem inevitable under a 40 per cent scheme will go directly to those families who are just making it, and it will have serious implications for them.
One of the measures already in place is the feed-in tariff, and it is worth considering this government’s record and what I spoke about before about the efficiency of these measures. This is exactly the sort of program that needs to be carefully watched. It makes for a great headline, but what does it cost and what does it deliver? The ICRC has said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video