Page 2149 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As well as peak oil, we have got the other big issue, of course, which is climate change. If we did not think these were issues, there are many other issues—food security, refugees et cetera. I could go on for a long time, but my point is simple: the future is not going to be the same as the past. This budget is very much preparing for business as usual. We need to be more innovative. We need to look at the likelihood.
I will now go on to a few specific issues. We have all spoken about the one building to rule them all, otherwise known as the government office building. I will read out again what is obviously the most salient recommendation here:
The Committee recommends that the ACT Government provide the ACT Legislative Assembly with additional information to support a decision on the Government office building.
Basically, there was a lot of information given to the committee, but we ended up feeling—me in particular, I suppose, given my past—somewhat confused. I was involved in an office project where we very seriously did look at building a new building but we in fact decided to buy the building and renovate it, which was better environmentally and better financially.
One of the things that I have been asking about this building is whether the government has looked at the option of refurbishing existing buildings. I have been saying this for a few years, because the government has been thinking about it for a few years. I have been asking Mr Stanhope about this every time and he said no. Has the government in fact looked at the options of refurbishing existing buildings? It seems that the answer is no. So one of the recommendations of the committee’s report is recommendation 7:
The Committee recommends that the ACT Government commission a study into the options for refurbishment of existing building(s) for a government office building. This study should include lifecycle analysis …
I have been requested to be very quick in my discussion so we can get on to a scrutiny report. I will very briefly mention the fitters. This was obviously a very topical issue. I would like to read out recommendation 72:
The Committee recommends that the ACT Government revisit the plans with the aim to preserve the acoustic quality of the Fitter’s workshop and co-locate Megalo, so that no group is disadvantaged.
I would talk more, but I recognise the needs of the scrutiny committee. Coming back to my earlier theme about peak oil, I am somewhat amused about the situation that we are trying to get additional tourism from places like China and India. I would like us to look ahead: is this viable long term? I would speak at length about the Majura parkway but I recognise that tomorrow we have three motions on the subject; so I will speak at length about the Majura parkway tomorrow, you will all be pleased to hear.
I will end up with waste and recycling. It is really disappointing that we have not progressed with waste. From the point of view of recycling and from the point of view
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video