Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 17 March 2010) . . Page.. 1042 ..

Even before looking at further expansion of the replacement program, the ACT should review programs that are used in other jurisdictions to enhance air quality, and consult with industry and all interested parties. Without reviewing all the options, we have the potential to spend a great deal of money for little environmental impact.

MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (5.11): I would just like to talk to Mr Doszpot’s amendment. The Greens will not be supporting it, but obviously the government will be, so it is going to pass. I would like to clarify a couple of things in relation to my motion and what has been put forward by Mr Doszpot. I think essentially we want the same thing. We were not trying to be prescriptive at all with anything we have listed. What we have listed here are programs that already exist in the ACT and we wanted to look at things which are already being done in other jurisdictions.

Mr Doszpot has mentioned, as I have, Launceston, which is probably one of the most successful examples of where the wood heater replacement program has worked but also where they have been able to have people using wood heaters more efficiently that are already in their homes. They have not put in place a ban or a phase-out. They have actually focused on enabling people, if they do want to replace wood heaters—and that has been primarily due to health reasons—to do that, and the replacement program is expanded there. As I noted in my speech, they also focused on a system of regulation which was aimed at educating people to use their wood heaters more efficiently.

That is what we were basing the motion on by including these particular issues. I would note that we said “including”, so we were not prescribing that it would just be those things. It also relates to the stakeholders. Again, we were not being prescriptive. I note the words that are used: “consult with relevant stakeholders including”. We are just listing some of the relevant stakeholders as they stand. Obviously, in including those, it should be broadened. That was always our intention. I note that the last group we had was industry and community groups, which would bring in those community councils and industry groups that are involved in the selling of wood heaters.

I did mention to Mr Doszpot’s office that we were happy with subparagraph (1)(d) and that we would have been happy to have that included, so obviously we do not have a problem. But it has been accepted and supported by the Labor Party. I am slightly disappointed that we do not have what is here before us because again, as I said, it is based on programs we already have. That is what we wanted to have it targeted to, as well as things which are already being done in other jurisdictions. That said, it is good that we do have general support from the Assembly on this.

Mr Corbell’s amendment to Mr Doszpot’s proposed amendment agreed to.

Mr Doszpot’s amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Racing industry

MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (5.14): I move:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video