Page 3101 - Week 08 - Thursday, 25 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
One of the recurring issues in climate policy in the ACT is that of cost-benefit analysis. Each year, as we review the budget and the annual reports, we will be asking questions. Is this the best way to spend the money? Are we getting the most abatement for our money? What else are we getting besides abatement? I am pleased to hear that the government is undertaking some cost-benefit analysis of climate change policies in preparation for setting the energy policy. I think, with the roadmap to zero net emissions, it will be crucial to prioritise our climate spending over the next 10 years.
The switch your thinking program also touched on water efficiency. One of the programs close to my heart, is the idea of sending plumbers to people’s houses to undertake water audits and do some minor repairs and installations to improve efficiency while they are there. This year the government has budgeted just $565,000 for this and anticipates being able to provide 100 water audits and 1,300 toilet rebates.
To put this kind of budget in context, the people of the ACT are about to outlay $360 million on two water security projects, the Googong pipe and the Cotter Dam. We are still a long way from giving the priority and balance to domestic water efficiency programs that we should. It should not be too expensive for the government to meet the commitment to make the ACT a water efficient jurisdiction. The ALP-Greens agreement had an item that referred to this program. I will read it to you:
Implementing the ‘Plumber Visit’ program … to at least 25,000 houses over four years … concentrate on government and low-income households.
If we do the maths on that—and I know the government is doing this the hard way—it is going to take us a very long time to reach 25,000. But these are the sorts of measures that are cheap and effective.
On waste, Ms Le Couteur has already spoken about this under TAMS but I want to make a quick comment. The waste budget has been consistently underfunded and continues to be so. The Wright review of the no waste strategy warned that the growing quantities of waste in the ACT mean that it is an unacceptable expectation that the ACT government can consider reducing or even containing at current levels the current budget. I refer members to Ms Le Couteur’s more detailed comments on waste on Tuesday night.
On one small part of the waste stream, I welcome the $85,000 allocated to the government’s consultation on plastic bags. I note that the government has received advice not only on a levy on plastic bags but also on the legality of a ban and possibly some other options. The minister applied quite a level of brevity in answering the question without notice; so I look forward to seeing that legal advice so that all members of this place can contribute to the policy debate about plastic bags from the same informed position as the minister’s.
Lastly, I would like to make a brief comment about grants to environment groups. While the government has continued funding to three of the local environment groups, it was instructive to hear some of the comments made by these groups in the estimates
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .