Page 1587 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
work than ever and I wonder how they have fared, and I will look at that in the estimates process.
What does worry me is the Chief Minister’s discussion on water and the assumption that the drought will break soon. If this is the message the government is giving out, then it will be very hard for the community to take real steps in establishing measures to reduce our use of and demand for water in the longer term. Some of the statistics that the government has been crowing about make me cringe. Some 10,953 showerheads have been provided to ACT residents, yet only 564 double-flush toilet rebates have been given out. Showerheads are offered free through various programs, yet the toilet cistern rebate arrangement is only a subsidy whereby the largest portion of the cost is borne by the house owner. In Queanbeyan, I believe, they gave them away. This shows that people are interested in improving water efficiency, but for it to be meaningful the largest part of the costs need to be borne by the government.
Of course, just like the financial “crisis”, the environmental crisis has been gestating over the last 10 years, and any one of the last 10 years or more would have been an appropriate time for tackling either of those “crises”. Every year that governments postpone taking serious, whole-of-government action to increase energy and water efficiencies, reduce energy consumption and lower emissions, the larger the problem gets. Never was the cliche “a stitch in time saves nine” more appropriate than when applied to the economic, social and environmental consequences of failing to act on climate change.
This is the reality that Australian governments, at state and commonwealth levels, just do not seem to get. Surely it is economics 1.01 that if the cost of doing nothing—or pitifully little—on climate change is far greater than the cost of taking effective action sooner rather than later, then the prudent, financially conservative course of action is to do something now. This longer term thinking is only evidenced by the Greens.
It is not as if climate change crept up on the government and has taken it by surprise. What has taken it by surprise is the public and media reaction to Al Gore’s film, the Stern report and the increasingly alarming reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Like most Australian governments, it is now scrambling to be seen to be doing something.
The time for action is now, because the public have finally come to an acceptance and understanding of the need for action on climate change, and they are looking for leadership. This budget is weak on leadership; $4 million is lip-service. It contains handouts and sweeteners for most pressure and lobby groups, without actually setting an agenda for social and environmental responsibility. Nonetheless, I welcome the small steps that the government has taken, and I applaud the lobby groups, public servants and government members who managed to get these measures through caucus.
For instance, I welcome the grey water rebates and the dual-flush toilet initiatives. But where are the incentives for drought tolerant plantings and for reducing domestic and commercial consumption? Price signals may work, if the price elasticities of demand are responsive, but they favour the wealthy, they increase inequality and resentment, and they are potentially inefficient methods of delivering on targets because they rely
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .