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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2542 ..

energy use into the assessment. These programs certainly should be further investigated in the interim.

A program to retrofit current public housing to achieve a higher standard of energy efficiency could well be another part of the solution, although funding for the program, like all budgetary expenditure, would need to be considered in the broader budget context. ACT Housing has set as a minimum a three-star energy rating benchmark for all acquisitions of existing properties in an effort to increase the overall energy rating of the portfolio. Newly constructed public housing has to achieve a mandatory four-star rating, as with all new housing. Unfortunately, while efforts are made to rejuvenate stock through the sale of older properties and the purchase of newer stock, the rate of exchange is slow.

ACT Housing has advised me today that it is estimated that to achieve major water and energy efficiency for ACT Housing stock an expenditure of around $60 million would be required. In the view of ACT Housing it would require the expenditure of around $60 million. However, the government certainly is prepared to consider further proposals to upgrade the energy efficiency of ACT public housing stock. It is interesting to me that Mrs Dunne, on behalf of the Liberal Party, has committed an incoming Liberal government to these expenditures; that is, $100 million has just been committed by the Liberal Party to this policy. (Extension of time granted.)

It does need to be remembered that that is what has just been committed to by the Liberal Party in this debate. They have just committed an incoming Liberal government, on the basis of the best advice available to me, to the expenditure of $100 million to achieve these greenhouse targets. That is what you have just done. You have not done your costings, you have not looked at the emissions and you have not bothered to wait for a detailed scientific analysis which is being undertaken of the strategy on behalf of the government and which I have advised you is about to be released. You did not bother to wait for it. You did not look at the assumptions. You did not care about the greenhouse gas emission levels. You have not costed it. You have just committed yourself to $100 million worth of expenditure as an incoming government. It needs to be remembered and it will be remembered that that is what you have just done: $100 million of expenditure has just been committed to that.

Another issue that we need to look at in relation to our determination to address issues concerning greenhouse emissions is, of course, greenhouse gas emissions from transport, which is another area that is being targeted by the government. Through the Canberra spatial plan and the sustainable transport plan, the government is committed to an annual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The Canberra spatial plan has the following specific outcomes relating to greenhouse gas emissions: decreased greenhouse gas emissions per year per capita and less greenhouse gas emissions and other negative external impacts from private car use.

The introduction of annual targets for greenhouse gas emissions is not a practical solution to the management of greenhouse gas emissions. The concept of annual emission targets is attractive on the surface, but it is unproductive as annual targets do not accommodate the lead times for the results of structural and policy initiatives to become apparent. Rather, the setting of broad five-year or 10-year emission reduction targets is a much more appropriate response. For example, the sustainable transport plan

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