Page 347 - Week 01 - Thursday, 27 February 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It was made clear in the report released by Minister Corbell on Tuesday that electricity bills will go up by 16 per cent. That is not an insignificant amount for the average family. The Canberra Liberals stated on 21 October 2010 that we thought a 30 per cent greenhouse emissions target was reasonable and a sensible way forward. We believed 30 per cent showed leadership and would ensure that we increased energy efficiency and improved public transport. It was a target that would ensure we reviewed how we operated as a territory, and that is still the case today.
I am not quite sure what the point of today’s motion is since we already have a commitment to that target based on previously released policies. In fact, the motion includes a page of information to note and hardly calls on the government to do anything. That page full of information to note could perhaps have been placed in an opinion piece in the Canberra Times, which seems to be the point of Mr Rattenbury’s speech today. He seems a little upset the Canberra Times had the gall to publish an opinion piece not been written by a member of the government or the Greens.
Canberrans are not all living the high life. We have many vulnerable people in our community and many for whom day-to-day costs are already a struggle. To refer the targets to committee so we can all understand the cost impact on ordinary families in Canberra and how the targets will achieve seems a logical thing to do. We simply want to make sure there is a balance between the impact on Canberrans and the environmental gain we will receive. We are not disputing the other information.
I ask that you support us here today in the referral of this to the Standing Committee on Planning, Environment and Territory and Municipal Services to enable detailed analysis on how we can do this in the most cost effective way, how we can achieve these targets in a manner that our community can afford, and what changes we can make to achieve these goals without crippling families who are already doing it tough. We need a practical, measured and considered approach to achieving these targets. I commend the amendments to the Assembly.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (5.34): I move the following amendment to Ms Lawder’s proposed amendments to Mr Rattenbury’s motion circulated in my name:
Omit paragraphs (3), substitute:
“(3) the Assembly refer the implementation of Action Plan 2 (Climate Change Strategy) to the Standing Committee on Planning, Environment and Territory and Municipal Services for review, taking into account overall effectiveness of measures, including measures to assist low income households.”.
I welcome this debate today. We are now engaging in an exercise to shift our city to a more sustainable future and we are doing that to a comprehensive action plan released in 2012 which sets out the principle elements—indeed, all of the elements—of achieving the abatement we need to achieve to meet our 2020 greenhouse gas
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video