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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2533 ..

It continues:

It should be noted that the ACT Government has already made some valuable steps in putting into place the framework to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions. The ACT has established a Greenhouse Steering Committee, which meets every two months to discuss potential new initiatives and the progress of actions already taken. Also, some agency officers of the greenhouse steering committee have contributed a large amount of time and effort to energy recording and identifying energy efficiency projects. However, despite the individual efforts made and the development of a general framework for reducing energy consumption there is a need for decisive, meaningful action to be taken and for adequate resources to be allocated to this task. This may require the establishment of a more formal and structured financing program for energy efficiency projects.

The clear message here is that it is time to commit, and it is time to act. Part of the specific recommendations on this area of action are that “a dedicated position with Environment ACT be established to facilitate the compilation of government energy reporting, the identification of energy efficiency priorities, and securing of capital funding for projects”. The conservation council’s response to the review recommended on this basis that the government establish a dedicated position in Environment ACT to drive the process of change within government. Point (f) of my motion calls for this to happen but leaves some flexibility as to where the position is.

Clearly, according to the review, there are problems in the resourcing of the greenhouse office. The review makes several references to needing to focus on measures to allow the staff to do the work. We note that, this year, overall funding for the greenhouse program only increased by $100,000 for next year, even though the government claims it is increasing capacity for a range of programs aimed at reducing ACT greenhouse emissions to the tune of $300,000 per year.

Unfortunately, the government has not responded to a question on notice put during the estimates hearing in which there was a request for a breakdown of greenhouse expenditure for 2002-03. We wonder about that and will wait to see it. I have also noticed that we were able to afford $8 million for a dragway. It seems as though the priorities are a little askew here. I encourage members to support this motion and encourage the government to take action.

MS DUNDAS (5.08): I thank Ms Tucker for moving this motion. We are asking the Assembly, including government members, to reaffirm our commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. The federal government have so far proven reluctant to commit to generous targets for Australia under the Kyoto protocol, but this motion reminds us that we have an essential role to play in reducing emissions at the territory level.

The previous ACT government was willing to go further than the Kyoto protocol, but I fear that this government is not even serious about meeting the Kyoto minimum. I hope what I hear this afternoon proves me wrong. I am extremely disappointed that the Stanhope government has chosen to back away from the commitment made by the previous ACT government to move to 100 per cent purchase of green power for government operations.

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