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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2532 ..

solarisation proposal includes organisation of a one-stop shop for solarisation, which removes another hurdle. That is not in my motion today but I raise it because it is another very good idea that has come forward towards which the government should be considering taking action.

Point (c) of my motion is about setting in place a rating system for commercial buildings. I know that there is a range of systems about and I know that the property council, among others, has been active on this. I was talking to them today at the launch of the government’s documents on sustainable building. What is our government really doing about this issue? This part of the motion simply calls for the government to get it together, without specifying the particular system.

Point (d) calls for the retrofitting of public housing. This is a measure supported by the conservation council and by housing advocates. There are obvious links between high energy costs and poverty. The WEST trial, which works with people who go to the essential services council because of difficulties with their energy bills, has focused on such basic things as window coverings and energy efficient light fittings. I understand that something like 80 per cent of the properties that have been fitted with basic energy conservation measures through this program so far are ACT Housing properties. The fact that ACT Housing still does not routinely provide even for thermal window coverings is really disturbing. We need money to do the work. That money would reduce poverty and would also reduce our greenhouse emissions.

Point (e) calls for annual targets, specifically for greenhouse emissions, from transport in the ACT. We do not yet have the data. We need to delegate that responsibility to measure how much fuel is sold in the ACT. We also need to be making a much greater effort with transport. The Gungahlin Drive extension decision and the failure to invest in a light rail core for public transport are big mistakes. Requiring regular reporting on targets related to transport at least keeps the issue visible. I refer to point (f). The review conducted last year had the following to say on what the government has achieved in its own building energy efficiency program. I am quoting from page 98. It says:

A…process of setting individual agency energy intensity indicator targets is being planned within the ACT. The Energy Use in ACT Government Operations 1999/2000 report states that:

Once reports from future years are completed and compared to each other, mandatory energy intensity targets will be set for end use categories…In addition, the ACT Greenhouse Strategy states that ‘each ACT Government Agency is required to develop an action plan which demonstrates how this energy use will be reduced to achieve nominated targets.’ Agency action plans will be developed in light of this report. Agencies will then be required to implement their action plans, and monitor and publicly report on performance against action plans on an annual basis.

Such indicators are planned but yet to be developed or enforced upon individual ACT government agencies, but their use is still intended for future implementation. However, since the 2004 target is only two years away and indicators are yet to be applied, it is considered unlikely that this measure will achieve its stated first target. It is recommended that individual agency energy intensity indicator targets are assigned as soon as possible and that the Commonwealth program is used as a guide to assist the ACT in this matter.

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