Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 2051 ..
MS TUCKER
(continuing):term and presumably would like to aim for more ambitious targets than the previous government committed to?
Initiatives such as solar water heater rebates are great, but we need the sound data and the revised strategy to know that we are actually making progress, and we also need to see evaluation of the measures that are in place at the moment. The original and current greenhouse strategy promised reviews of the strategy in 2001-02 and 2003-04 and the results were to be publicly available. But from an answer to a question I asked in estimates I understand that even the first review is not yet completed; let alone a second one, which seems to have gone by the board because of the delays in doing the first.
I was also told that this government's revised greenhouse strategy is likely-I stress "likely"-to be finalised in early 2004. We are still none the wiser on the inventory data and the important question of whether or not we are on target to meet our commitment to stabilise the ACT's greenhouse gas contribution at 1990 levels by 2008. I would be very interested to know how this suggestion does sit with the government's plans for the ACT greenhouse strategy, because before it could become a firm and workable measure there would be various matters of detail, policy and consultation to be worked through by the government. The government's input in these areas will be critical if the measure is to be successful.
I'm also unsure whether presenting emissions information on a per employee basis will actually be the most meaningful measure, because it is not clear how this would deal with high-energy, low-labour businesses and the like, but I do accept that corporate entities in the ACT are predominantly office-based-type operations where the number of employees would be a meaningful indicator of scale.
It's also to be expected that the consultations with business will reveal some resistance on the part of the business sector having to meet another reporting requirement. We might expect arguments about the resources required and cost to efficiency. But just as these arguments are weighed against the public good for other initiatives, so they will be with this one; and I would hope that a simple and streamlined reporting mechanism could be developed that was not overly onerous to either business or government.
I therefore encourage the government to seriously consider incorporating this measure into its revised greenhouse strategy and committing to its implementation. I understand the government's actually interested in putting an amendment to that effect. I'd be quite happy to support that if that's the case.
MR STANHOPE
(Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Community Affairs and Minister for the Environment) (5.19): Actually I acknowledge this as a very significant and important issue and an important motion to be debating today. Issues around greenhouse, the ACT government's and community's commitment to a greenhouse strategy and the reduction of greenhouse gases are very, very significant.Ms Tucker did touch on issues around steps and measures that the government has taken in relation to the greenhouse strategy which, as Ms Tucker says, was agreed to by the Assembly in the year 2000, as I understand it. This was an issue that did receive some attention during the estimates process, and I recall during that discussion there was some
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .