Page 4916 - Week 11 - Thursday, 21 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
place and say, “We want 30 per cent.” But they do not apply the same standard to themselves. They are a joke. They have no credibility and they have no policy substance behind them whatsoever. On each and every day between now and the next election, Canberrans will see that more and more: they have no policy substance.
I draw to the Assembly’s attention again the fraudulent argument that the Liberal Party make when it comes to their emissions reduction target. They claim that 30 per cent can be achieved without paying, without cost, but that 40 per cent is somehow the end of the world. The fact is that any emissions reduction target comes with costs. Those costs must be managed and the impact of those costs, where they are unfair and unreasonable, must be ameliorated. That is the challenge that we face. That is the challenge that our society faces.
For Mr Seselja to go out to the Canberra community and say that his emissions reduction target does not mean cost to them, does not mean impact on them, is a fraudulent argument. The reason for that is that we have heard Mr Seselja say, “We are going to achieve this through energy efficiency and similar measures. That is how we are going to achieve it.” Energy efficiency gets you eight per cent of your 30 per cent, Mr Seselja—eight per cent. You need to find another 22 per cent. Solar hot water is going to get you only four per cent.
What is going to get you the remainder? It is going to be measures like green power purchase, Mr Seselja? That is the argument that he uses to hit the government around the head with about the fears of electricity price increases. It is going to come from the feed-in tariff—six per cent there. And it is going to come from sustainable transport changes, modal shift—around four per cent.
The three areas where Mr Seselja criticises the government and runs his fear campaign in the Canberra community are the three areas that he himself will have to use to get towards his 30 per cent. To get his 30 per cent, he will need to use measures around green power, the purchase of renewable energy such as through the feed-in tariff, and modal split. He is conducting himself in a way where he presents a fraudulent argument if he suggests otherwise.
To get to his 30 per cent he will need to do more than all of those things combined. He will also need to explore the 10 per cent reduction possible through the adoption of trigeneration and energy from waste technologies as identified in the government studies. He will need to find interventions through new policy measures such as changing employee density and biosequestration mechanisms. He will need to engage. We as a community need to engage on these issues and in these policy areas. Whether it is 30 or whether it is 40, it will require considerable effort.
The difference between the Liberal opposition and those on this side of the chamber is that we accept that the only rational position to adopt is one informed by the science, that a 40 per cent reduction is what is required. If that is what we would expect of others to achieve a safe climate, it is what we should expect of ourselves.
That is the approach that we adopt. We do so without apology and with a commitment to work through the delivery of those outcomes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video