Page 1965 - Week 05 - Thursday, 5 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Both of them would seem to probably be large enough for the ACT public service and both could be refurbished to meet the green leasing requirements. Just opposite us is the old ActewAGL building, which I note is being refurbished to 4.5 NatHERS. The government must have known that that building was going to become vacant as they are a half-owner of ActewAGL. It is just really bizarre that they have not taken into account these options. From a life cycle analysis you should take into account the embodied energy, not just the operational energy, of any building.
The ACT government appears to be only looking at operational energy. Even if you only look at operational energy—I speak from experience here—Mr Stanhope said the new office building would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 79 per cent. My previous employment before being an MLA was for Australian Ethical Investment. We refurbished an existing building and we reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by 75 per cent. You do not have to build new to get a good outcome.
From a financial cost-benefit analysis, almost certainly a refurbishment would be a better option. Also, from the point of view of good housekeeping, it would be better to utilise the existing space rather than see it stay vacant. It would also potentially free up quite an amount of the $400 million that the government has allocated to spend on other priorities. The PAC report into this went through these issues. I would reiterate again my support for PAC’s statements on this.
Looking at planning more generally, the opportunity for Canberra’s urban future to be more sustainable depends on our strategic planning and expenditure shifting to centre around transport corridors, rather than building more dormitory suburbs for a car-dependent society. This budget moves a little bit in this direction. Unfortunately, though, spending on unsustainable road-based transport infrastructure continues to far outweigh spending on sustainable and active transport infrastructure. In this budget alone, if we are generous and include every cent spent on buses, ACTION, paths and other such infrastructure, this budget still allocates over 60 per cent more to roads than to more sustainable options.
The budget plans to spend on Majura Parkway which, as my colleague Ms Bresnan has noted, has some significant issues from the point of view of long-term transport sustainability. What we need to do, if we are going to shift to a truly sustainable future, one in which the people of Canberra will be resilient to the impacts of peak oil—which, as Ms Hunter mentioned, has very likely already occurred—we need to shift to sustainable transport. It will also in the short run save the people of Canberra money. If we can organise Canberra so that households do not need two cars—they only need one car—it will save the average household at least $5,000 a year. That would be great.
There is funding for transport corridors such as Belconnen Way and Northbourne Avenue and for a feasibility study of bus stops on Adelaide Avenue and bus priority measures on the Barton Highway. Adelaide Avenue is a classic example here of a major road which has thousands of people who live and work by it, but they have very poor public transport options available to them because there are no bus stops in Adelaide Avenue. That means that the workers and the residents of these areas have to rely on the winding and inefficient suburban bus routes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video