Page 3501 - Week 08 - Thursday, 23 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is disappointing to see the continued lack of support for rooftop PV in the ACT. Since the feed-in tariff ended last July, there has been a marked drop-off in installations. Whilst households can access Actew’s solar buyback scheme, this does not provide the same security as a feed-in tariff and it is not accessible by businesses. Renewables are fast approaching grid parity, but we are not there yet, so it is important that incentives such as feed-in tariffs are continued, to encourage renewable energy uptake. It may well be that they come in a different form, certainly at a far reduced cost, but nonetheless we need to continue to drive that innovation forward.
Finally, when it comes to climate policy, we note that a mitigation pathway for meeting our 40 per cent reduction target is still to be finalised. The Greens have been pushing for this to happen sooner, so that funding could start to flow in this year’s budget. The longer we delay rolling out this plan the greater the challenge we will face. The Greens keenly await the announcement of weathering the change 2 and will be working hard to ensure that funds are appropriately earmarked to get us to our 40 per cent target.
I turn to some biodiversity issues. There are uncertainties around pest management funding. There is a lack of sufficient and ongoing funding for weeds in this year’s budget. Weeds are a longstanding issue in the ACT, and the indications from various climate and environmental projections are that they are only going to become more intractable unless ongoing and consistent funding is dedicated to their management.
We are not satisfied that funding for rabbit control is sufficient. In an investigation into the Canberra nature park, the environment commissioner found that at least $200,000 annually was needed and that an additional $125,000 was needed to develop a management plan specifically for rabbits. This is well above what currently exists in the budget. These are particularly important issues, because if we go back a couple of years we know the commissioner for the environment identified a number of threats to Canberra’s grasslands, in particular, and I think similar issues arise for the woodlands. The commissioner identified a whole series of threats. They did include kangaroos, but they also included weeds and rabbits. To see that both weeds and rabbits, particularly, are not being addressed in the budget with the vigour that they should be is of concern, particularly as we continue to undertake the cull of kangaroos.
When it comes to protecting threatened species, last year’s commitment of $300,000 over three years for conserving threatened species and communities is a good start, but all the indications are that this is not enough. Each of the past six state of the environment reports have seen an increase in the number of threatened species in the ACT. While Mr Seselja selectively quotes one, we know that these issues are long-term trends and that the sizeable increase in our urban footprint is driving this issue when it comes to threatened species.
It is critical that we recognise the impact that urban growth has on our natural biota and fund its protection accordingly. We should not simply be investing hundreds of thousands in offsets, as this year’s budget has, especially when we still have no formalised ACT offsets policy. I think it might be in the same cabinet as the review of the Nature Conservation Act, but I guess at some point we will actually see those documents come to fruition.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video