Page 1921 - Week 05 - Thursday, 3 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is important to note that scheme energy savings targets reflect the total lifecycle energy savings of activities undertaken in a given year. I also note that the bill provides for rollover provisions for shortfalls of up to 10 per cent to minimise compliance risks and to ensure maximum rate of participation through the undertaking of energy savings activities as opposed to the payment of penalties.
Finally, I point to the wide-ranging capacity for the administrator to establish codes of practice for eligible activities, particularly in relation to health, safety and environment matters. Such codes may go to matters such as the proper disposal of lighting or other electrical appliances or safe construction practices. The approach adopted in the territory builds on the experience of schemes in other jurisdictions and their good health, safety and environment records.
In conclusion, this scheme is robust and it is flexible. This bill is a practical response to the current and forecast energy cost pressures facing our community and our economy. It will deliver savings to households and to business and it will help address the cost of living pressures for large swathes of our community. I commend the bill to the Assembly.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (11.26), in reply: I thank the Greens for their support of this bill. This is a very important piece of legislation. The Energy Efficiency (Cost of Living) Improvement Bill is a bill which will result in reduced energy costs to households and businesses in the territory while also reducing the territory’s carbon footprint.
Firstly, let me deal with the issue of abatement. We know that energy efficiency is one of the most effective measures and one of the lowest cost measures to achieve abatement of greenhouse gas emissions. That is why the government has pursued the introduction of this comprehensive piece of legislation. The abatement identified in this bill is in the order of 750,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over the life of the scheme. That is a significant contribution in working towards the territory’s greenhouse gas reduction targets. And it can be done at a real net benefit to the territory economy. This is not a piece of a legislation that imposes costs on the territory economy. In fact, it produces benefits. The net present value of this scheme over the life of the scheme is in the order of $40 million to the territory economy.
So how can the Liberal Party stand up in this place with any credibility and suggest that this scheme imposes costs on the territory economy? Clearly, they have not read the regulatory impact statement. They have not done their homework on this issue. The net present value of the scheme—the value to the scheme, the value to the economy—is $40 million. That is the value to the economic activity of the territory from this scheme. Clearly, they have ignored that point.
What is worse, though, is the claim by the Liberal opposition that this is a scheme that provides a subsidy to big business. What an outrageous, stupid and ill-informed claim. This scheme will not be available to big business. If Mr Seselja had done any homework whatsoever, he would know that what the government has said and what
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video