Page 3802 - Week 14 - Thursday, 10 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries quite rightly pointed out that curriculum in schools in the ACT is decided by the school, but I think there is a role for government to encourage environmental issues to be taken up in schools. You and I both know that environmental issues are already involved in the curriculum of schools. There are ways and means, through national frameworks and other processes, to encourage schools to include renewable energy in their approach to environmental issues. (Extension of time granted)
The issues raised by Mr Humphries on this report are primarily to do with those two factors - the breaking of the nexus between buying the technology and having the technology ready and cheap enough in the first place, and the difficulty the committee had in recognising the advent of the national grid and the national resources. At the same time, we have not resiled from what is necessary. That is why, Mr Humphries, we chose to look at what we could do in the short term and what we could do in the long term, and present our recommendations in that way. It surprised me that we did not get more criticism for presenting it in this way, because in some ways it makes them more difficult to read. We were conscious of that, but we also thought it was very important to recognise that some things are achievable in the medium term and some are achievable in the long term.
Mr Deputy Speaker, one of the things that made preparing this report easier was the fact that the Electricity and Water Authority was prepared to be frank with us. We provided for them one chapter, I believe, of the proposed study and said, "We would like to hear your criticism of that". One of the areas on which they chose to present a different view was the very recommendation Mr Humphries talked about. Recommendation 3.5(2) states:
legislate for an additional minimum quantity of electrical energy to be supplied from renewable sources by the year 2000.
In the initial draft, the committee had determined a specific percentage - either 5 per cent or 10 per cent. The Electricity and Water Authority said that they would not be able to meet that within that term without massive extra costs, and that the issue Mr Humphries raised about the balance between costs and environment would be able to be dealt with. That is one of the reasons why we left it as a broad issue to be discussed between the Minister for the Environment and the Electricity and Water Authority.
In summary, Mr Humphries has put his finger on the difficulties in saying that the issue raised the question of costs. It always is going to raise the question of costs. What we have to face, and I know that Mr Connolly has already dealt with it in terms of water quality at the Molonglo sewage treatment works, is that when we take action to ensure the protection of our environment it will not come without costs. We have to find a sensible balance between how much we are prepared to spend and what we are prepared to do to protect our environment. I think that is the basic philosophy behind the report, as Mr Humphries pointed out, and as matters come up before the Assembly we are going to have to deal with that issue again and again. We are going to have to face the reality that protecting our environment is going to cost us some more, and we ought to be prepared to spend it.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Sitting suspended from 12.19 to 2.30 pm
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .