Page 2152 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
costs are quite substantial, because you are not just providing housing; you are providing facilities for people to train where they live. It is estimated in the UK that the per-bed establishment cost is about £50,000, so about $120,000 per bed. It is a worthwhile model and worthwhile innovation, but it is also something that requires the involvement of the community, and I would see it as something being run by community housing rather than by the department of housing itself. It is something that, by its history, requires the involvement of the community.
Turning to the environment, I acknowledge the allocation of $13.9 million over two years for the construction of wetlands in Lyneham and Dickson. Many members have dwelt on this. I think that this is a good move. It is probably the best measure in relation to water that we have in the budget, because there is little or nothing in relation to existing education and water tune-up programs. It seems to be the same old, same old. There are very few issues in the budget in relation to water conservation.
You, Mr Speaker, touched on a range of climate change initiatives which the government claim as their own. Really, you got in before me. Most of the climate change initiatives, as you rightly say, are spurious, such as the planting of grass on sporting fields. Sometimes some of that grass is artificial grass, so I think it does not even become a carbon sink. There is the hoary old chestnut of an arboretum as a climate change initiative, and the planting of street trees. While the planting and placement of street trees are important, it is hardly a climate change initiative. I concur entirely with your sentiments, Mr Speaker, that this $40 million-odd of money could have been better directed to more effective climate change initiatives and changing our practices and the way we run our lives and the amount of energy we use.
I note the switch your thinking campaign, which is $4.6 million over this year and successive years. That is a lot of money for essentially a one-stop shop. There seems to be nothing in there about programs and about how that changes. I contrast that, Mr Speaker, with the Canberra Liberals’ proposal for a climate change agency—the Canberra climate change agency—which we took to the last election. We were proposing to spend about $4 million a year and, in addition, having a revolving fund which would have had real programs and real initiatives which would have helped change people’s behaviours, rather than just give them pamphlets.
Ms Le Couteur touched on the missed opportunities and the failings of this government to help the commercialisation of solar technology. Our solar Canberra plan would have helped to do this. The work of the Stanhope government is a pale imitation of our solar Canberra plan. They like to use the words “solar capital”, but we have not seen very much progress on that. We see nothing in here that would facilitate the establishment of, say, a solar farm or provide a hand-up for emerging industries, like Spark Solar. There is nothing in this budget that goes towards innovation in renewable energy. As Ms Le Couteur has talked about, there is nothing in this budget that relates to dealing with organic waste. That is in contrast to the initiatives that were put forward by the Canberra Liberals in relation to green bins. I am also concerned about a lot of other things. (Time expired.)
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .