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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 5283 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

It is interesting that the government claims as one of its actions that it will be dealing with climate change. The government that really dealt with climate change was the previous Liberal government in putting out its greenhouse strategy. We have set a path there and we all await the government's response to its own work on that, but it is interesting that the Chief Minister is quite happy to stand up and criticise the federal government, saying that what it does has an effect on the ACT, but there is no criticism of the other Liberal states and territories which have not signed up to anything in regard to the Kyoto agreement, which have not set themselves targets.

Where is the commitment from the other side, particularly New South Wales, which surrounds the ACT and obviously has such an impact on what happens here as well? It is interesting that the Chief Minister says that he is now looking at a regional strategy on the supply of water because in the 1998 debate-I did not have time to get the Hansard out, but it is still there-Mr Corbell was very critical of the whole thought that we might have some sort of water trading, which is what it is. If you are going to supply water to the region, water trading is involved.

It is interesting that in 1998, in opposition, they were saying, "No, not ever, not over our dead bodies, it's never going to happen,"but suddenly we are developing a regional water strategy. I would commend that; it makes eminent sense. I look forward to Mr Stanhope bringing back amendments to the water act that would allow water trading to occur, because we have always said that we are part of a region and that, as part of that region, there is an obligation to look out for each other and some of that might involve the trading of water. I think that that is appropriate.

The government has a short memory. There they are back in their little silos. Mr Stanhope, the Chief Minister and Minister for Environment, is burrowing away in his silo to have a regional water strategy. No doubt, Mr Corbell is now sitting in his silo seething because he said, "No, we'll never do this."What has changed in three or four years? Perhaps Mr Corbell is sitting in his silo seething simply because of his failure as minister for the environment. The portfolio was shifted and the Chief Minister has now taken it on. The changes have been interesting.

As to other things that the Chief Minister lauded as being good initiatives, signing up to the green fleet program might have happened under a previous government, the establishment of the energy advisory service might have happened under a previous government, and so the list goes on.

Mr Wood: They're still there.

MR SMYTH: Mr Wood chips in that they are still there, and they are still there because we put them there. We put them there, we funded them, we got them going.

I would like to close on the Office of Sustainability and its future. Is the Office of Sustainability sustainable? Is there a commitment beyond reproach to sustainability? It is interesting to note that in March of next year the Office of Sustainability will celebrate its second birthday. The Office of Sustainability is struggling because this government created something through lip service instead of creating a body with the intention of its achieving something and almost two years into its existence the office is still trying to come up with indicators. The various committees I have been on, including the estimates

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