HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-02-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (15:23): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Mineral Resources Development, representing the Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change, a question about the impact of flaws in the federal government's planned Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on state, local government and household initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Leave granted.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: The flaws in the CPRS have been outlined by Richard Dennis of the Australia Institute in today's Australian. Mr Dennis argues that local government, state government and households are not included in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and, therefore, any reductions in pollution that they achieve will just create or free up pollution permits that can be traded to polluters that are included.

This occurs because, under the Rudd CPRS, there is a low target of a 5 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, and this is achieved through a system of tradeable pollution permits. A polluter can increase emissions as long as they are able to buy permits from another polluter that is reducing emissions. Therefore, any investment by state and local governments or households will simply subsidise polluters, because it will reduce emissions but, in doing so, free up permits for the polluters. My questions are:

1. What advice has the state government received about the impact of the Rudd CPRS scheme on state government efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions?

2. If the CPRS is introduced in its current flawed form, will the government's Greening of Government Offices initiative be a waste of time and money?

3. Will the installation of solar-powered streetlights by local government be a waste of time and money?

4. Will the solar panels on top of Parliament House be a waste of time and money?

5. Will plans to purchase 50 per cent of electricity requirements from renewable energy sources by 2014 and to make government operations carbon neutral by 2020 be a waste of time and money?

6. Will the 'Black Balloon' advertising program, which urges households to reduce their emissions, also be a waste of time and money?

7. Given the fact that the Rudd government's flawed system looks like it will gut the Rann government's greenhouse strategy, will the state government vigorously, vociferously and relentlessly lobby the federal government to amend its emissions trading scheme to ensure that the efforts of householders, state government and local government actually reduce emissions?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:26): The state government has already made submissions to the federal government in relation to the proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme. As I understand it, those discussions are ongoing. I read the article by the Australia Institute this morning; of course, that institute has a particular line to push. I also noted the comments made by Geoff Plummer from OneSteel in relation to this scheme. I guess we will hear a lot more about it before we come up with a final version of dealing with these climate change issues.

I will refer the specifics of the honourable member's questions to the Premier in another place, as the Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change, and bring back a reply.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT