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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2280 ..

that the government establish an integrated catchment management system. At the moment, Mr Speaker, we do not have an integrated approach to catchment management; we have dire issues with the catchments inside the ACT and the catchments situated outside the ACT that return us water. At the moment, catchment management on an integrated approach is really handled by, from time to time, a meeting or a nod and a wink between Mr Stanhope as the Minister for Environment and as Chief Minister with the New South Wales Premier. Really, a bit of an understanding between Mr Stanhope and Mr Carr is no substitute for catchment management.

The ACT government has foreshadowed that it will be reviewing its greenhouse strategy with a view to lowering the greenhouse targets. This committee recommends that the government not downgrade its greenhouse targets. It is a very difficult process that we are involved in, but it is also vitally important, Mr Speaker, and this is not the time for us to lose our nerve. The Liberal government set up very rigorous greenhouse targets, there is no denying that, but because they are rigorous does not mean that we should just put them into the too-hard basket. There are many things in this budget that come into the too-hard budget.

The energise your home program, as I have spoken about before, is a good enough program, but we are concerned that it does not go very far. It is about people who own their homes privately and does not really take account of renters. The committee has made recommendations about the audit program under the energise your home program and suggested to the government that it consider combining the water audit program that is also in the budget with the energy audit program to see whether you can get more bang for your buck. This is already done through the COOOL communities project, where both energy and water audits are done. I think that you may end up with a better result. This is not to criticise the initiative itself, but I think that it could be better thought through.

Another issue which is in the too-hard basket, Mr Speaker, is the government’s approach to biowaste. (Extension of time granted.) This government has been gunna do something about biowaste through its life and at the last estimates hearings the minister said that he was going to go off on a fact-finding tour and hoped to make some recommendations soon so that we could start to tackle the problem of biowaste. The minister did go on his fact-finding tour, but the message that has come from the minister and the officials is that it is too difficult.

Mr Speaker, I am not persuaded by the argument. Yes, it is expensive, but it is important work and we cannot afford to continue to put it in the too-hard basket. I have to question this government’s commitment to the no waste by 2010 strategy because there is no enthusiasm in this government for actually implementing initiatives that would give it a kick along. We have done, in a sense, the easy bits and we are now up to the intractable bits. That means you have to redouble your efforts, not halve your efforts, which is what is happening here.

But there are some areas of the no waste strategy where we are still not making the grade. One of those is in allowing for recycling in multiunit developments. Many people who live in multiunit developments do not have the capacity to recycle on site. As multiunit developments are an increasing trend in our cities, as more and more people are living in flats, units, townhouses and multiunit developments, it is something that we

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