Page 621 - Week 03 - Thursday, 15 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
crossover here, and I acknowledge that and I acknowledge some confusion in understanding in relation to that that I will address when next I look to our administrative arrangements. I think I need to make that point in clarification.
I accept the frustration of some within the community in relation to the time that the government has taken to develop a new climate change strategy or paper. The work has been done. As you have acknowledged, Dr Foskey, a detailed discussion paper was released for consultation and engagement. There was indeed significant engagement, including by the Greens. I do not think that the Liberal Party bothered to engage, but at least the Greens and others within the community did in relation to the development of a new approach to climate change, which is something we take very seriously. We want to get it right. In the interim, of course, we will continue with a raft of programs in relation to climate change and greenhouse gas emission reduction. It is a very serious issue.
I have said, and I repeat, that I do not believe that there is a more pressing issue facing the world—not just the Canberra community, but the Australian community and the world community—than the need to accept climate change as a reality and the need for all communities to address those issues. We are committed to that absolutely. We are 100 per cent committed as a jurisdiction to dealing with the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, and we have done much. It is easy to stand and ask, “Where is your latest strategy?” and then ignore the raft of policy initiatives which are being pursued and are in place, the very significant work that has been done in relation to the environment and sustainability across the board. There is nothing in relation to water, for instance, as one aspect of that debate, in relation to which the ACT government does not actually pursue world’s best practice.
Dr Foskey, you are wrong about me being the minister responsible for sustainability. You are wrong in saying that the office of Commissioner for the Environment is vacant; it is not. It has in recent times been filled.
Mrs Dunne: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. First of all, I draw your attention to the fact that the Chief Minister never addresses the chair, otherwise he might notice when someone is taking a point of order. If the question has been incorrectly directed to him, it should be redirected to Mr Hargreaves. The Chief Minister has the capacity to redirect it to Mr Hargreaves, rather than berating Dr Foskey.
MR SPEAKER: The Chief Minister is also entitled to answer it, but he should direct his comments through the chair.
MR STANHOPE: I am, Mr Speaker.
Mrs Dunne: You are turning your back on him all the time.
MR STANHOPE: I am not turning my back. That is a puerile point of order which Mrs Dunne takes from time to time. I am, in speaking now, addressing the chair. I do not need to face the chair to address the chair. That is just nonsense. That is puerile, kindergarten nonsense. The notion of addressing the chair is actually not to engage in debate or conversation directly with others in the house. The notion or requirement to address the chair is actually to address remarks through the chair. We are asked to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .