Page 350 - Week 01 - Thursday, 27 February 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It was pushing this pensioner’s electricity bill through the roof. The outreach program found this family, they did the audit and, with the government funding provided, they replaced the fridge. That alone dramatically reduced that household’s electricity bill.
I am very proud that we run a program like that because it helps those individual families. There have been hundreds of interventions in low income households across the ACT to do just that. So when those opposite criticise the cost of renewable energy, remember the story of the fridge. Remember the pensioner couple who got their fridge replaced and their electricity bill reduced because of a program introduced by this government which delivered savings well in excess of the cost of increasing our renewable energy supply.
I think this is a very important motion that Mr Rattenbury has introduced today. It is timely that the Canberra Liberals really restate what it is they stand for on this very important issue. It is not an issue that can be left simply to national governments. Yes, national action is critical, absolutely critical, and many of us remain dismayed at the approach taken by the Liberals’ federal counterparts, but that is a debate for another day.
The fact is that there are some national governments and state, provincial, territory and city governments that are taking real and practical action on climate change. There are alliances of cities across the world who are focusing on achieving abatement similar to, equal to or even greater than the abatement targets that we now have legislated here in the ACT. We are not alone; we are not radical; we are not exceptional. We are part of a worldwide movement of cities and sub-national governments who are taking action, even when national governments cannot get agreement in international fora. Our programs are critical and they will deliver jobs and economic opportunity as much as they will deliver abatement and improved environmental outcomes.
I have moved the amendment to Ms Lawder’s proposed amendments because I would indeed welcome the Standing Committee on Planning, Environment and Territory and Municipal Services looking at our greenhouse gas reduction targets. I do not think it is about having a debate again about what the target should be. It should, instead, be an opportunity to review progress. How are we going in implementing action plan 2? What steps have we put in place? How are we going in terms of continuing to assist low income earners? How are we going? How effective are these measures to achieve the abatement we need achieve? I think that would be a very worthy thing to do, and that is why I have moved the amendment that I have circulated in my name. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (5.47): I will speak to the amendment and close the debate, which I think seems to suit the Assembly. I will be supporting Mr Corbell’s amendment and Ms Lawder’s amendments as we move through them. I think that the point of clarification Ms Lawder has sought is fine. The establishment of the committee will provide us with an excellent opportunity to examine the implementation of the ACT’s targets and how effective they are and look at issues such as the costs. I think that will stack up very well.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video