Page 2127 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (5.09): It is good that we will all be speaking on this issue because greenhouse gas emissions are a very important issue and one that is not currently addressed in the planning system. It is not mentioned in the Planning and Development Act and it is barely mentioned in other key planning documents like the Territory Plan.
We have to hope that what we are building today will last for at least 50 to 80 years. There are other problems if that is not the case, which I will not deal with here. In 25 years we have decided that they need to be carbon neutral—ideally, before that. This cannot be achieved if we do not have emissions covered by the planning system.
This clause covers the first of three ways in which the bill takes action on climate change. It would ensure that the greenhouse gas emissions emitted by a development are considered during the assessment of a merit track development application. It does so by introducing a requirement to consider the impact of the development on the ability of the ACT to meet our targets for greenhouse gas emissions reduction under the Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act 2010.
I have been working hard to get either the ALP or the Liberals—preferably both—to support this important clause over the last three months. The Liberals have not given me a clear position at all, which is disappointing, although I suspect I can guess what it is. The ALP have at least told me up front that they do not support it.
As a result of this, the ALP have now put forward a set of amendments that will instead see developers having to disclose the future emissions of their proposal. This is not the major step forward that I wanted but it is a small step forward. It is important that the Planning and Development Act now actually mentions greenhouse gas emissions, given that they are one of the most important things that it governs. The ALP amendments are a step forward and, given the urgency of addressing climate change, obviously, the Greens and I will accept this small progress over no progress.
MR PARTON (Brindabella) (5.12): Madam Speaker, can I get some clarification? Mr Gentleman has not moved amendments at this stage?
MADAM SPEAKER: Not at this stage. He has just indicated his intention.
MR PARTON: That was my understanding. I just wanted clarification. Specifically, in the debate on this clause, we really have to talk about jobs. Our construction sector was a 20,000 strong workforce at the start of the COVID crisis. It is not anymore. It is 19,000 strong. Madam Speaker, construction in this jurisdiction has shed 1,000 workers so far during this crisis, and when you consider that the real effects of COVID have not yet been felt by the sector, I certainly have grave concerns for the remaining 19,000 workers. I should point out that what we are talking about here is the highest private sector employer in the economy. They have the highest average wage in terms of other comparable sectors, coming in at around $90,000, and the highest level of full-time employment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video