Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2548 ..

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ms Dundas listened to you in silence and you should extend the same courtesy to her.

Ms MacDonald: She wasn’t here; of course she listened in silence.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Of course she did. Proceed, Ms Dundas.

MS DUNDAS: As I said before, political leadership is needed on this issue. We have the opportunity and the need to address greenhouse gas emissions in the ACT and it is disappointing that the Stanhope government is not keeping to the commitment made by previous ACT governments—is that a more accurate wording?—and are not working to move to a 100 per cent purchase of green power for government operations. If the claims that have been put forward in this debate are not accurate, show us the greenhouse strategy. We need to have some action taken on this issue. I urge the government to support the motion as it stands.

Amendment negatived.

MS TUCKER (5.57): I take this opportunity to close the debate. I would like to make a couple of comments. I have to say that I am really sorry that Mr Stanhope chose to use over and over again the name of a public servant in making some political point. I do not think the person he named deserved that. I am really sorry that Mr Stanhope chose to do that.

As to the particular issues that were raised, Mr Stanhope has expressed concerns that implementation of this motion would cost $100 million. I can only assume that he has misunderstood the motion, because I have not said that every single item in the strategy has to be carried on as it is in the strategy. I said that we should stick with the target and find ways of reaching that target. I have seen costings for the couple of things that I have raised as important to develop. The estimate I have seen for retrofitting current public housing to a four-star energy rating is that it would cost $30 million. Obviously, establishing an additional dedicated position within Environment ACT would have some costs.

As I have already explained in some detail, we are looking at lots of initiatives that would be cost neutral to government through innovative financing schemes. The basic reality check is that many buildings in Canberra are too primitive for the climate we live in. New developments are taking place that are not nearly as good as they could be. They are not as bad as some, with a four-star rating, but they are still way under what we could be seeing. Cars are still being used most of the time in Canberra. Most of the power is coming from dirty fossil fuels and we are not seeing the renewable energy industry being properly supported. That is the reality in Australia.

We have had a great desire for Australia to ratify the Kyoto protocol. In fact, the Warnings from the bush report of the Climate Action Network in Australia, which drew on 50 scientific studies and was peer reviewed by the CSIRO and other scientists, highlighted that it was very important to ratify the Kyoto protocol and set a national target that went well beyond it for the reduction of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, going to well below 1990 levels by 2010. We want to see a national commitment to that.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .