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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 2052 ..

MR STANHOPE

significant discussion around some rollover of funds in relation to some particular programs.

Be that as it may, as at the end of May this year the government has spent $1.024 million on the implementation of that greenhouse strategy. That is a significant commitment to the strategy but, as I say, there were also a number of items within the greenhouse budget which were committed but which weren't spent during the year. Some of those, for example, include:

$220,000-this is in addition to the $1.024 million that was spent-was set aside for participation in a national travel smart program;

$100,000 is still to be spent on the consultancy to facilitate energy performance contracting within the industry;

$80,000 is still outstanding for promotional activities pending the commencement of the public consultation phase of the review of the strategy, which Ms Tucker has also referred to;

$20,000 was set aside to implement an original measure in the strategy to make insulation of water efficient showerheads mandatory in new buildings;

$10,000 was set aside for a demonstration installation of photovoltaic panels at Macarthur House.

The target for expenditure in 2003-04 is regarded as realistic and does reflect a return to normal activity levels in relation to the program for implementation of the greenhouse strategy. The target for 2003-04 is $1.453 million. $1.5 million is a significant commitment by the government.

Ms Tucker also touched on the review, and delays in the review, of the strategy that is currently being implemented; that is, the 2000 strategy which, as Ms Tucker says, was introduced by the previous government. I've earlier indicated that independent energy consultants, energy strategists, were contracted to undertake the first independent review of the greenhouse strategy in May 2002.

A draft report was completed in July 2002. The consultant produced the first full report in August 2002. Additional revisions and amendments were undertaken in October 2002 and January 2003. Further revisions were undertaken in May 2003 to address continuing issues with some of the baseline data used for electricity and transport emission projects. Those issues have now been resolved, and I'm awaiting a final report.

Environment ACT is currently in the process of ensuring that the consultant that was engaged has made all the agreed revisions. Following receipt by me of that final report, it will be released for public consultation. I'm hopeful that there will be a new, revised greenhouse strategy for the ACT within the next six months.

I do acknowledge the point made that this process has been long and tortuous. I think it's been frustratingly long. I have to say, advisedly, that I think it's taken far too long. I am impressing on Environment ACT the need for us to move with far greater speed and decisiveness in relation to a review of the greenhouse strategy and our implementation of the strategy.

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