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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (2 December) . . Page.. 4242 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

This transaction is clearly a borrowing - money being advanced to the ACT and repaid with interest over 15 years - no matter how the Government tries to dress it up. It is essential that we have greater openness from the Government. The Chief Minister made a very clear, plain promise about borrowings and should not use accounting doublespeak to try to gloss over the fact that she has broken it. Her Government has clearly borrowed more than $49m to be repaid with interest.

We also saw a flaw in the Government's greenhouse strategy released last week - a failure to tackle the transport issue in the ACT. Transport accounts for 50 per cent of energy use. The latest State of the Environment Report has stated that Government policies have not been successful in curbing the growth in motor vehicle usage. If we are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is critical that we reduce them in the transport area, and I look forward to a very comprehensive response from the Government to the recommendation of the Estimates Committee on this matter. We also recommended a bicycle strategy. That has now been released. It was released on Sunday. I hope to see more members here riding their bikes.

The committee talked again about ACTEW. I raised the issue of the hedging contract that ACTEW has entered into with Yallourn and how this fits in with ACTEW's corporate objective of pursuing policies consistent with ecologically sustainable development. I am very disappointed that the Government, the same Government that claims that they are leading Australia in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is not willing to enter into more open discussion about the implications of the national electricity market. I disagree wholeheartedly with the Government's argument that if we do not someone else will, or that it is just a financial arrangement. The fact is that both Yallourn and ACTEW do benefit from this deal, or they would not have entered into it. ACTEW should be taking a lead in promoting clean technology, not the oldest, dirtiest technology we can find in Australia.

There was also great concern - and Ms Reilly has referred to it - about the level of information the Government has about homelessness in the ACT. The questions that I asked were not answered appropriately at all. Mr Stefaniak claimed that seven people in the ACT were homeless. He was not sure where his figures came from. First, they were anecdotal, then they were from the ABS. What is clear is that we have to have a willingness from the Government to look at how they would assess or define homelessness. It obviously is not just about people sleeping on the streets. It is about people moving from one friend's house to another. It is about several families living in one house. It is about 10 to 15 young people, as I have heard in the Social Policy Committee hearings on children at risk, sharing one bed-sitter. That is what you call homelessness. You need to look at those issues. When you have understood how many people are living inappropriately, then you have a chance to make informed policy decisions.

The school sponsorship issue came up again. One of the fundamental concerns that the Greens have about imposing the market model on our education system is that we see an ever-increasing reliance on private sponsorship and on parental contributions for our schools' financial viability. Our concerns are to do with equity and the provision of high-quality education which is equally accessible to all children in the ACT, regardless of the income of their parents or of the school that they are in. We hope that a future

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