Page 3737 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and have given no legitimate reasons as to why, we are now supporting the Liberal Party’s amendments, which will be an improvement on government inaction.
I can assure the people of the ACT that the original bill, as amended, will fall far short of the mark of its original intent and far short of the benefit it could have delivered the people of the ACT. The Canberra community cannot trust the planning minister or the environment minister to act without Green leadership on environmental issues. So we have put forward a proposal to address energy consumption and greenhouse gas reduction for the ACT community. We have led the way and the government cannot even follow.
The voters of Canberra wanted change. They wanted Green leadership, so they voted for Green MLAs. They have entrusted that the Greens will deliver on climate change initiatives. Sadly, it appears that we will have to drag the government kicking and screaming up to the speed that the people of the ACT want.
The Greens will be accepting the opposition’s amendments, so something can be delivered to the people of the ACT. But I want the community to clearly understand that Mr Barr would not work with us on this bill. He has not made available any help or evidence from ACTPLA or DECCEW. By these actions he makes it very clear that the government is not serious about the threat of climate change and the need for increased energy efficiency. Do not, Madam Deputy Speaker, for one minute mistake this government for anything but a pale shade of green. In fact, we could refer to it as “light green”, as the public can very clearly see who is leading on the extremely important issue of energy efficiency.
Amendments agreed to.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (5.04): In rising to close the debate I thank Ms Hunter for her comments about the process that we have gone through in doing this. It has been a quite amazing process. I originally introduced the bill in April. I was told by the planning minister’s office that it was fatally flawed—so badly flawed that there was no possibility of amendments and there was no possibility of even telling me what was wrong with it. I do not know what was wrong with it because they were not capable of telling me.
I then made some amendments to the bill. I tried to think of all the possible things that could be wrong with it. There was still no feedback from the government. However, I did have lots of feedback from the community. As I said before, most of the community thought that this was already the law. I did not find objection. The only people who had any objections were concerned about equity issues with low income people. As I said when quoting Dr Hugh Saddler, we believe that one of the reasons that you should support the original bill is to protect the low income people of Canberra.
It is important to act on greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency. This is one of the ways in which the Assembly can act which will be good for the environment and good for the financial efficiency of the people of Canberra. It is one of the occasions when there is a win for the environment and a win for the economy. That is one of the reasons I have been so passionate about supporting this.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .