Page 2485 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 22 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
going to try to do anything, the critique that came from the scientific community was devastating. If this Chief Minister could have heard the comments that were made about his lack of policy and his lack of courage, he would have been ashamed of himself.
He was there puffing himself up, saying he was doing the righteous thing, but no-one apart from this Chief Minister, this erstwhile minister for the environment, actually believed that he was doing the right thing. The opposition, the crossbenchers, the scientific community and the conservation community saw a Chief Minister and an erstwhile minister for the environment who was abandoning the environment in one of its most important areas. Once upon a time this territory was at the forefront of policy; we have now come to the back of the field. We do not even have a greenhouse abatement policy. We have a very flimsy discussion paper, which is not making very much progress.
It was good to see the first report on the greenhouse gas abatement scheme, which the opposition supported, tabled in this place today. It shows that we have a lot to do and a long way to go. I also noticed that the states brought out an emissions trading scheme discussion paper last week which, although it is quite fat, at 265 pages—most of which I have read—is still pretty light on detail and the way forward. It is still a talk-fest paper rather than an actions-based paper.
Most of the policy failings on greenhouse abatement in this country rest with groups who think that there is one big answer to the question. One of the things that we are starting to see more and more is that people who are practically involved on the ground know that there is not one big answer and that there is not one silver bullet. While ever there are people in the policy debate who refuse to look at all the options, we will never make satisfactory progress.
You can criticise the commonwealth government for only talking about clean coal and geosequestration, but the Labor states have only come up with a trading scheme which is an all-right effort—and if it is modelled on the basis of the proposals that we agreed to here in late 1993, it will be a good start—but is not everything. Very few people in policy areas in this country talk about energy efficiency with any particular strength of conviction because, in many ways, it is not sexy enough; there is not enough in it that they can be the first. I would like to take my extra 10 minutes and contribute to the debate on the greenhouse effect even more.
MR SPEAKER: Continue.
MRS DUNNE: Very few people talk about energy efficiency and the cutting of emissions through using less energy, whether that be in our houses or in our cars. On that subject, we now have an ACT government policy that says that, as far as practical, all vehicles in the fleet should be four-cylinder. Again, this is a one-size-fits-all policy. Instead of giving people an array of options and allowing them to choose from an array of options, it is four-cylinder or nothing. It does not take account of the innovations that are being made by car manufacturers across the world and does not take into account simple things.
For instance, most members who drive sedans have Ford sedans. Every one of those members could, next time they replace their Ford sedan, get an LPG car off the factory
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .