Page 3797 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 22 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I found a positive reception to the idea of utilising the offer that was made to me by Malcolm Turnbull, where the methodology could be tested at the commonwealth level with the specialists they are now engaging. Subject, obviously, to the territory government reaching the same view, this could give us a greater level of comfort that the planning we have for this territory is reflective of the best available scientific minds in Australia.
I said I would go back to the greenhouse challenge plus program with some facts and figures because of the extraordinary ignorance demonstrated by the Greens which I referred to this earlier in the week, when we were told it was 30 years out of date and was of no value. For the benefit of my colleague, the greenhouse challenge plus program is a $31.6 million partnership between the Australian government and industry. It has been established to support and encourage industry to help reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. I thought that was what this was all about. For that reason, I would have thought it would attract endorsement from those who purport to represent an interest in the environment.
The greenhouse challenge plus program currently has around 770 members, with the strongest representation in the following sectors: in manufacturing, it has 265 partners; in accommodation, cafes and restaurants it has 112; in transport and storage it has 104; and on it goes. Another 50 companies have expressed their intention to join the program. Existing agreements with challenge members cover well over 1,000 operating sites or facilities. But apparently, according to the green movement in Australia, this is a waste of time and is something from 30 years ago.
The fact of the matter is that 30 years ago people did not even know about this sort of thing. In 2005 challenge plus member companies reported abatement of more than 26 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent delivered since the beginning of the program. But apparently it is of no value. Current projections—this is pertinent to other discussions we might get to today—suggest that challenge plus would deliver more than 15 million tonnes of abatement each year in the Kyoto period 2008 to 2012. So it seems that maybe this program is not so irrelevant. The principles enshrined in that program that I want to see brought into the territory, which I am told by the ABC were very similar to what was enunciated by the environment commissioner, might have an element of sense.
The approach that I refer to here can be taken in some detail. I will address more on this at a later stage. It is very important to not let emotion come into the picture but to look at the facts. One of the things I find interesting when I look at the ACT Greens’ environment policy—when I go through it I look for the tangible measures that will make a difference—is that it is full of all sorts of expressions, collection of data, application of resources and annual reporting. That is great stuff. Build up a dossier of thoughts and views and data collection.
Mr Hargreaves: Consultation.
MR MULCAHY: There is a lot of consultation, as Mr Hargreaves points out. I keep ploughing through this document and I am struggling. But I found something, so it is unfair for me to say there is nothing. They are going to check vehicles suspected of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .