Page 3110 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We are assisting those households with reducing their electricity and water costs by doing things such as improving the energy performance of homes—insulation, draught sealing, all those things that we are familiar with—as well as providing direct assistance through, for example, the purchase of more energy efficient appliances, so that when it comes to the fridge or the washing machine or the dryer we get more energy efficient appliances, which has a direct impact on reducing household electricity bills, particularly for people who cannot control the fabric of their homes because they are in a rental situation and on a low income.
These are good outcomes for low income Canberrans, and they combine with the very significant investment the government is providing in relation to energy concessions which the Chief Minister outlined today. There is an increase of over $150 in the energy concessions combined across the different programs, and that is a fantastic outcome in supporting low income households to deal with these issues.
I turn to the role of ranger staff. This is an on-balance decision for the government. I understand why many people would like to see the ranger staff co-located with the nature conservation policy staff that now sit within the Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate. I have a lot of sympathy for the issues they raise, but I also believe that it is absolutely essential if we are to stay true to learning and implementing the lessons of the 2003 bushfires that we maintain a single land manager for the territory.
I do not want to see land management staff split between two separate directorates. That is a recipe for a significant diminution of the capacity of our agencies to deliver effective land management, particularly when it comes to issues around fire management and fire hazard reduction. That is the reason why I have not agreed to the relocation of those staff. I want to see the land management function remain entire within a single directorate. I think that is the responsible thing to do, and that is the lesson of 2003.
In contrast, policy functions are working well within the Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate, and they will be able to work effectively with the operational staff on the ground, whether it is in ESD or whether it is in Territory and Municipal Services. That has been the experience with waste—waste policy sits in ESD, waste services delivery sits in TAMS. The relationship is a strong one; the feedback loops between the two entities is very, very effective. I have no doubt that that cannot be the same experience when it comes to the nature conservation policy staff and the operational staff on the ground.
Some of the other measures that I want to mention just quickly in the budget include $4.2 million over four years for master planning for group centres, transport corridors and rural villages in response to the Assembly’s strong interest in this matter; and $6.7 million over four years to address the critical issue of building quality in the territory, additional building inspectorate staff, the focus on quality, safety and, importantly, the sustainability of new buildings in the territory to make sure they meet the necessary standards in terms of energy efficiency.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video