Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1168 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Some creative, proven job creation techniques are also missing from this budget. They might not be as glamorous; but, in terms of pure effectiveness, local employment initiatives are a lot less costly per job and more sustainable - in both economic and environmental terms - than big marketing campaigns, events and attracting businesses from other States. It is in building up our local businesses that the real engine of employment growth and investment lies - a point that is raised as the major issue in the McKinsey report, "Lead local compete global: unlocking the growth potential of Australia's regions".

In the energy and waste area alone, the Greens' proposals would create real jobs as well as meet other objectives like helping households and businesses achieve lower energy bills, reducing the ACT's greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to meeting our target of no waste to landfill by 2010. The Greens want to see the creation of an energy efficiency and alternative energy fund, which will stimulate innovative financing schemes and public education to get households and businesses investing in energy-saving systems.

We all know that the ACT's stock of housing is poorly equipped for our climate. It is, in fact, quite primitive for our climate. If we establish a 10-year target for improving the energy efficiency of housing and buildings, that could provide a real stimulus to jobs in this area. Numerous studies have indicated that energy efficiency is a very good area for job creation - and much less costly than other job creation schemes. We have also called for more money to be directed towards catching up on the huge backlog - $65m - in our public housing stock. The Government has put some money into that in this budget, but there is a question mark hanging over whether additional money in the housing budget is going to be financed by sales of inner suburban housing.

Talking of energy efficiency, now let me turn to the issue of ACTEW. The Government's decision to take $173m in the form of an increased dividend and a $100m equity payment from ACTEW is, as others have said, rather devious. Whether it is sale and lease-back or money from ACTEW, the Government should come clean about it, rather than saying that they are improving their underlying budgetary position. The merits of this initiative obviously require much further examination during the estimates process. However, I would like to say that ACTEW should be investing in our community. It is, after all, a community asset, and we certainly do not agree with some of the projects ACTEW wants to invest ACT taxpayers' money in, particularly the gas-fired power station.

The Greens have a vision for ACTEW which does not involve a gas-fired power station. Besides the fact that a surplus of electricity production already exists, ACTEW could become a real leader in the energy market by diversifying its services to help people save energy. This would create far more jobs and local investment. It concerns me greatly that ACTEW is still saying that it wants to proceed with the development of a gas-fired power station. The Government's move to take $173m from ACTEW could be seen as a clear signal that it does not support ACTEW's planned investment in a gas-fired power station either. I would like the Government to stop plans for this new power station or influence ACTEW as much as it can and back the Greens' call for ACTEW to diversify its operations.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .