Page 4860 - Week 11 - Thursday, 21 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
electricity and some of what is happening. There is some detailed analysis that Mr Hunt has done. Despite these massive increases in electricity prices, electricity use has not gone down. So the question needs to be asked: what kind of pain is going to be imposed by these policies? What kind of pain is going to be imposed and what kind of environmental gain?
Again, we have seen the government’s strategy in recent times. With the solar feed-in, we are paying over $400 per tonne. That is a very expensive way to deliver emissions cuts. That is not going to deliver anything like what is necessary to get anywhere near this 40 per cent, but at the moment they are choosing some very expensive ways to go in order to cut emissions.
Canberrans will be asking themselves about this in the next couple of years after this bill has formally passed and this 40 per cent target is in place, after the government, presumably, if it is serious about the 40 per cent target, starts putting in place those policies. Those policies can come in only a few key areas. We all know where they are going to come, because we know where the emissions come from. They are going to come in the area of transport; they are going to come in the area of electricity. And therefore they are going to come in the areas of building standards and the like in dealing with electricity. Those are the areas where they will come.
Yesterday we saw the government refuse to rule out the congestion tax. Those are the kinds of measures that governments will need to look at in order to achieve such a target. When they do go down that path of a congestion tax, who will bear the brunt of that? I would say that the most likely people to bear the brunt of that will be people in the outer suburbs. I would say that it will be those in Tuggeranong, Weston Creek, Gungahlin, and Belconnen, particularly west Belconnen, those who live furthest away from their places of work generally and have the least opportunity to use public transport, who will be the ones who bear the brunt of some of these taxes and charges.
This debate is no longer about whether or not there should be targets; it is not about whether there should be action. It is about asking what the consequences of that action are and what it actually achieves. We are saying that showing leadership is fine. We should show leadership; we are in a different position from some other parts of the country in terms of industry and other issues. At the same time, it is also about recognising the costs and the benefits. And the costs of going that extra mile, that significant extra mile that the Labor Party and the Greens are supporting in this bill, will be significant. The environment minister here has said so. He has talked about the government’s analysis. For that reason, I commend this amendment to the Assembly. (Time expired.)
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (12.18): We have just heard the great big fraud from the Liberal Party in this debate. This argument is a great big fraud.
Mr Seselja: On a point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker, Mr Corbell is becoming a serial offender. We get pulled up for using terms like “gutless” and “vendetta”. Mr Corbell cannot allege that I have engaged in a fraud. It is a personal reflection on me under standing order 55, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video