Page 2871 - Week 07 - Thursday, 7 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There are a number of particular schemes I would like to speak about; firstly, the energy and water efficiency outreach program. This is delivered by five ACT community organisations, and the program provides technical and financial assistance to low income households to help reduce their energy and water bills. It has enjoyed high levels of participation and success, including the achievement of impressive energy bill and emission reductions. For example, the 2009-10 trial of the program assisted 895 low income households, saved 920 megawatt hours of energy and cut 800 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. The level of in-depth assistance provided by this program simply will not be met by the energy efficiency retailers scheme, and I am concerned to see that the funding for this program has been dropped.
When it comes to ACTSmart programs, it appears that these programs will be phased out over the next few years. However, we will be exploring this further during estimates, as there is a lack of clarity about how this will occur. That the programs could be cut is worrying given they provide for a range of services that will not be delivered by the energy efficiency scheme, such as business recycling programs, assistance for schools, wood heater replacement, water efficient plants for homes and a range of other measures. For 2013-14 and 2014-15 at least, funding has been cut by almost $2.5 million.
It is perplexing to see that the rainwater tank rebate offered as part of the programs has been cut altogether, despite the fact that the government is still in the process of reviewing think water, act water. There is a debate we had about whether a government subsidy of rainwater tanks is the best use of resources in the ACT, but, given that the policy is still being evaluated, I am surprised to see the policy decision already being taken.
Regarding tune up Canberra, the budget will see this $2 million grants program cut. The program offers financial incentives to encourage owners of commercial office buildings to make their buildings more energy and water efficient. It is unclear why it has been cut and, again, we will be exploring this further during the estimates process.
Wrapping up on issues around climate change, given the scale of action needed to achieve our 40 per cent reduction targets, the level of climate funding provided by this budget is clearly insufficient. Spending needs to be informed by a carefully considered analysis of the individual and collective measures needed to get us to 40 per cent. Instead, we are seeing dribs and drabs of funding being allocated which are not informed by any overarching strategy. We look forward to working with government to deliver this much needed framework for action through the finalisation of weathering the change action plan 2.
Turning now to broader environmental issues and biodiversity in particular, there are a number of areas of concern, particularly the uncertainties around pest management funding. When it comes to weeds, it is unclear whether last year’s commitment of $1.8 million over four years for pest plant management has been retained. This is despite weed programs being a great way to simultaneously stimulate employment and protect our biodiversity. It is also despite TAMS indicating last year that at least $1 million is needed for improved weed management and an additional $1.4 million is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video