Page 3681 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The undeniable reality is that energy prices will rise and we have to respond to that challenge. The best way to respond is to encourage the production of renewable energy and maximise our efficiency in the way we use that energy. This is the best way to reduce the cost of powering Canberra homes. I would love to hear the opposition’s alternative policy on exactly how they would reduce energy bills for Canberrans.
Over many years, the Greens have been constant advocates for public housing. Public housing is the most effective way to assist those in need. The Greens are very proud to have been responsible for the increase in government funding to improve the energy efficiency of public houses and will continue to push for the expansion of public housing stock so that we can provide accommodation for all those in need.
Also in previous debates, I have outlined how only the Greens are proposing a real alternative to the high costs of car travel. I was encouraged to hear that the minister has recognised the problem of continuing to force Canberrans to rely on cars and that we should be looking at providing real alternatives. I fail to understand why the Canberra Liberals find it so offensive to their fundamental way of life that Canberrans should be given an option other than the car to get to work and to get around town faster and more cheaply. It defies logic that they want to cut off options for other people who would be happy to be able to be provided with those options.
Cars are expensive. Locking Canberrans into car ownership or multiple car ownership and into paying the ongoing costs when there is an alternative is a silly position. The approximate average time that a resident of Canberra has to work in order to pay for their car is 550 hours a year, or 1½ hours every day of the year. These figures are based on average Canberra incomes, meaning that many Canberrans must work even longer than this to pay for the upkeep of their cars.
Owning a car also comes with opportunity costs. A recent study found that by running one less car in a household over a 25-year period, the household could accumulate more than an additional $1 million in superannuation over their working life; repay a $300,000 housing loan in 12 years instead of 25 years, saving $245,000 in interest repayments; or purchase a home which is $110,000 more expensive than they would otherwise have been able to do at the outset.
Interestingly, calculations can also be done on the percentage of income that goes to running cars, based on different regions of Canberra. The figures show that Belconnen, Weston Creek, Tuggeranong, Gungahlin and Hall are particularly affected, with 19 to 21 per cent of income in these regions going to car costs. Surely common sense would say that a modern, reliable, fast public transport system and other active transport options will give Canberrans real options and that this is a good way to go.
The Leader of the Opposition has publicly stated that he believes in development at all costs and has little regard for the natural environment and the nature reserves within Canberra that are such an important part of what makes Canberra such a lovely place to live. Certainly it is a fair argument that if we exploit or destroy all our natural resources as quickly as possible, one generation, or perhaps two generations, will have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video