Page 1807 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 4 May 2011

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


income households in Canberra. The investment in total, across both capital activity and recurrent expenditure, is in the order of $25 million worth of investment, to reach out to those 25,000 households across the ACT who are the lowest income earners, who are receiving benefits or payments through various concession arrangements and who need support to deal with issues around utility costs.

This, of course, is the appropriate measure for a government to adopt, rather than the broad and simplistic assertion we hear from those opposite that everyone, regardless of their income, needs help with the price of living. We instead focus on those who earn low incomes and who are particularly vulnerable to price movements. That is the rational and just approach to these measures, because the alternative is to extend relief to those on high incomes as well as those on low incomes. That, indeed, is the policy of those opposite. Those opposite would seem to be arguing that it is just as just to give price impact relief to people who live in big homes on Mugga Way or in Forrest or in O’Malley as it is to invest in supporting low income households who really face particular pressures.

Members interjecting—

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Corbell, I believe Ms Porter’s question was about the budget.

MR CORBELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker, but I think it is, of course, worth highlighting the obscenity of alternative approaches.

The government has implemented a range of measures. One of these in the budget yesterday is over $4 million to support over 4,000 Canberra households with the costs of electricity and water. These measures will operate to expand the outreach program that was trialled in the current financial year. These measures include retrofitting of both social and community housing and for people who live in private rental accommodation with better insulation, better curtains and energy-efficient appliances and water-efficient appliances. So energy-efficient fridges, water-efficient washing machines and so on will save these households between $100 and $400 a year—between $100 and $400 a year less on their water and energy bill because of this investment. This is a very important step forward.

On top of that, we know exactly what sorts of savings we can achieve and how the program will operate. We are going to reach out and double the energy-efficient appliance distribution that was carried out in 2010 to a broad range of community welfare organisations like St Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army. We will be trialling free professional home energy efficiency assessments. We will be putting in place energy and water efficiency retrofitting, retrofitting of rental properties with appropriate measures. Energy efficiency officers will be placed in four community welfare organisations to implement this program, and it will be open to everyone who holds concession cards and to other low income earners who face hardship and who meet the eligibility requirements.

This is just one aspect of the government’s measures to properly support those who are most vulnerable, to assist them with the rising cost of energy and water in the territory.


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