Page 3313 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
brought on some amendments. At least they are going to later this afternoon. The point here is that we should actually take pieces of the legislation seriously; we should debate them. If you do not agree with some of the substance, at least bring on an amendment and don’t be lazy. **
We have heard a lot today that this is going to happen later. But there is no guarantee that this will happen from 1 May, and I am sure Ms Le Couteur will speak to this in some more substance in her reply. There is no guarantee that COAG will actually come up with anything. There are plenty of times when COAG says, “We are going to do this next year,” and, in fact, it does not come on for another couple of years. We can cite examples all over the place.
The Greens are here to make sure this gets done, so that we deliver environmental and economic benefits for the citizens of the ACT. We are not interested in a timeframe that is not real, with some promise of doing it at some time in the future when we actually get around to it. I encourage members to support this legislation today so that we can deliver environmental and economic benefits for the citizens of the ACT.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (11.16): I rise to support Ms Le Couteur’s bill. I want to make a point in relation to low income families. ACTCOSS have pointed out that they think this is a good thing to do. They are actually encouraging low income people and families to install energy efficient appliances and technology, and that is because, as Mr Rattenbury has already pointed out, it will lead to significant reductions in energy costs for people on low incomes. I think that on this issue, I would be listening to ACTCOSS and not the Liberal or Labor parties.
I find Mr Barr’s comments absolutely unbelievable and almost laughable. He has basically said, “We are not going to support your bill now, but we are going to do the same thing next year anyway.” He is basically just embarrassed because the Greens have got there first. COAG has this on the agenda. State and territory legislation will be required. Mr Barr has also said that, regardless of the COAG timeframe, he will introduce the required legislation. Wouldn’t it be good if we could do it now? Wouldn’t it be nice if the ACT was the leader on this one and not the follower, as it so often is?
In response to Mr Corbell, Ms Le Couteur has consistently acknowledged the COAG process. She has also pointed out previously that Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia—all Labor states—have already done this. Presumably they have not used COAG as an excuse not to take any action.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (11.17), in reply: I understand that I am closing the in-principle debate. There are a lot of things I would like to say, and I guess the most positive way to put it is that I am really pleased to find that all three parties here are in furious agreement that we need to do something about energy efficient hot-water services. For that I thank both sides for their contributions.
However, moving on from there, I really do not think the Greens are doing me-tooism, as the Labor Party thinks. I have to point out that COAG has form for not delivering. In fact, Mr Barr made that quite clear in his speech, and I thank Mr Barr very much for his contribution. At the conclusion of his speech Mr Barr said that the COAG
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .