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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Friday, 14 May 2004) . . Page.. 1983 ..

Overall, funding for the greenhouse program has increased by only $100,000 next year, even though the government claims it is increasing capacity for a range of programs aimed at reducing the ACT’s greenhouse emissions to the tune of $300,000 per year. This can only mean that $200,000 worth of greenhouse work has been dropped. But $300,000 per year is, in any event, clearly inadequate to achieve success through a community engagement and support program that incorporates energy efficiency audit service for existing houses and financial assistance with the introduction of approved energy efficiency improvements.

Similarly, there is a one-off allocation for energy efficiency measures on government buildings, but it is only $200,000 and it is only for this year. It is difficult to see how it will make any real change. I call on the government to do what New South Wales is doing and to introduce benchmarks for greenhouse emissions for electricity retailers so that at least some steps are taken to address greenhouse in the ACT.

As I said, I urge the government to fight for CRCs in Canberra. This has been such a disappointment not only for the environment but also for employment. The ACT is a centre for excellence and research—I see the government putting that forward as one of its key platforms in the economic white paper—and that is the identity of Canberra in Australia. When we have this fantastic opportunity which the federal government, because of its ignorance on environmental issues, is failing to support, this government should really be objecting.

I understand that the water energy savings trial is to be extended for another six months, which is pleasing, but I am disappointed that the government did not commit to programs that alleviate poverty for our vulnerable citizens and achieve greenhouse emissions savings. I notice that spending in the environment portfolio is down $2 million and that many of the initiatives announced are related to bushfire regeneration. While this is important, it should not mean that funding to other environmental initiatives should be reduced, and clearly they have been.

On the subject of pines—I noticed that Mrs Dunne also spoke about this matter—and riparian zone rehabilitation, I make the point that there have been strong arguments put that revegetating with native open woodland in water catchment areas is particularly important. If we are interested in ensuring future security of supply of water, then an area of water catchment such as the Cotter has to be recognised as a critical investment.

We are being told that a compromise solution has been reached, balancing questions of cost and jobs against environment. From the Greens’ perspective, this is not understanding the priority or investing in water catchment in the way that we should be. There are models now, which are becoming much clearer to anyone who cares to look at the literature, which show that the projections about potential landscape fires and severe rain events are changing radically. This is, of course, due to global climate change. The percentage possibility of this occurring is increasing significantly. We have to take that into account when we make decisions and so-called compromises on questions of jobs and costs and when we are talking about something as precious as water supply for the ACT into the future.

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