Page 3812 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 22 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
think that we, as a contained, compact community within a community that I think would be fairly supportive, could actually show the world, within the limitations that we have here, how effective we can be in tackling many of these environmental concerns.
It is certainly my intention to press ahead with this approach. It is not inconsistent with the motion moved by Mr Gentleman. I think it just extends it further. It is consistent with good public policy practice and would ensure that, in going forward, we embrace measures that are actually going to achieve an outcome that can be implemented by people, but will not damage our community, our industry, our welfare or our livelihoods in the territory. For that reason and, as illustrated by those programs that I went through in some detail a moment ago, I think that we can achieve a great deal.
As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, the greenhouse challenge plus program has now got over 770 participants; indeed their agreements cover over 1,000 operating sites or facilities. Would it not be wonderful if we, at the territory level, could develop programs with a similar concept that involved not only business houses, but also engaged residents here, whether they be owners, owner occupiers or even people in a tenancy arrangement, to try and have them embrace improvements in terms of reducing waste and preserving the environment in which they operate?
I do not think you have to splash large amounts of money out. I certainly recognise that there is a measure of education that would need to be increased, but I do not believe that you necessarily have to say the taxpayer must fund everything. It has not worked well in New South Wales, where they have tried to fund replacements for shower heads, light globes and the like. The savings have probably been matched by the amount the government has spent. I am not a big believer in the government always writing out a cheque to solve every problem.
I think that, if handled correctly, these programs can be effective. The greenhouse challenge plus program does not involve giving grants to these businesses. The programs are simply brought on board and sold on their relative merits. I think if you do that on both a domestic and a business basis, you will actually get the result. You will not be burdening the taxpayer with a massive cost. You will deliver savings to other business houses or individuals and you will, in fact, play your part in reducing emissions in a community that is recognised as one of the greatest producers of emissions. That is quite extraordinary, given the low industrial base of the ACT, but that is what the experts tell us. So it behoves this Assembly and representatives on all sides to take on board these measures, and this is certainly one important way of achieving that outcome.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.50): It is very interesting that the two so-called major parties in this Assembly—the two clever parties, the two parties who care so much about the world—can combine to endorse a very weak motion on climate change and thus avoid the opportunity to get on to discussing a motion that would put some real teeth and guts into the attempt to do something about this issue. You sit there feeling so clever and so comfortable, but it is so obvious that you have not done the reading; you have not done the work. You really are not putting the effort into doing what I
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .