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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2537 ..

to reduce emissions by 2008 to the same level as in 1990 and to continue thereafter to work towards further reductions.”

The 2002 review of the greenhouse strategy, whilst saying we had to lift our game, said that we were on the right track; that our intentions were right; and it set a path that we might go down to address those issues. We have here a number of measures which this government has essentially ignored since these recommendations came out. They have talked a little bit about the government approach, but they have ignored the costs and benefits to business, consumers and householders. There is an enlightening table on page 116. You can look down the list of things that they suggest could be done, that have been left undone by this government for over a year.

One of the measures under “residential measures” is to address the issue of water heater covers. This is one that members of the planning and environment committee might find interesting. They suggest a cost subsidy plus associated costs of administration; there would be benefits to the suppliers of the covers, and the benefits to consumers and householders would be lower expenditure on energy for heating water. It is a simple thing. The product exists. It is recommended that we go down that path, but it is not here. There are six recommendations in here, most of which are essentially, “Hold your mettle, Minister for Environment. Do not waiver, because you can do it but you have to try.”

The ACT Liberals, in continuing their proud commitment in this place, have already made policy announcements in this area. We announced in November 2002—and I thank Ms Tucker for raising it—that we have adopted as policy, which we will implement come the successful outcome of this election, the solarisation program suggested by the ANU’s Centre for Sustainable Energy Systems.

This is a system that could work for us here today. What it will do is provide savings for people across the board, not just for people who own their own homes. If ACT Housing did it, they would provide savings to public housing and in the private rental market. One of the most intractable problems is how to improve the energy efficiency rating in the private rental market when it is not in the interests of the owner to fix it up. This solarisation—the loans program that Ms Tucker has talked about which the Canberra Liberals endorsed in November 2002—is part of that solution.

In September 2003, as an add-on to this, the Liberals proposed an environmental rating system for efficient Canberra houses. To add onto the already existing energy efficiency rating scheme, we propose what we have called the “bluebell awards”, whereby you would get a bluebell for particular initiatives. So you could say that you have a three-bluebell rated house or a five-bluebell rated house. This is very much based on the concept of the green building process put forward by the green building council.

It is proposed that, under the scheme, you could get recognition for measures including a builder who uses sound environmental design practices, building a house to higher than the minimum energy rating system, installing a solar hot water system, improving your basic water efficiency by using dual flush loos and water efficient showerheads and flow regulating meters and water efficient appliances. You could perhaps get an extra bluebell if you installed an underground tank, which would give you thermal mass as well as storing your water. These are the things we could look at. These are sensible approaches that we should be educating our people about. The minister is not even prepared to stand

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