Page 809 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 2 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a practical, flexible and relatively low-cost means of achieving an emissions target for some sectors, and importantly potentially including the energy sector. So why is the federal government so slow in coming to the realisation that we have a problem? Mr Howard is quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald of 11 February as saying:
I’m not going to adopt an emissions trading scheme in Australia that burdens our industries whilst allowing others that are less efficient and greater pollutants to get an unfair advantage.
However, the Australian Conservation Foundation executive director has been quoted as saying that he sees the future generations facing a bill 10 times that of the amount devoted now to the federal government Murray-Darling scheme. That is 10 times $10 billion, Mr Speaker—$100 billion—if the carbon trading scheme does not place strict enough limits on greenhouse gas emissions that companies are allowed to produce.
Last year the Lowy Institute poll found that seven out of 10 people believed global warming to be a critical threat to Australia’s interest over the last 10 years. Last October, when this government and its state and territory colleagues commenced this vital work, where was Mr Howard then? Mr Howard’s position flies in the face of the obvious: not acting now will cost more. We need to choose to act immediately. The Stern report says that failing to act now will cost five times more economically. Mr Howard has been caught napping and is no doubt ashamed of his stance on the Kyoto protocol. The emperor is found to have no clothes.
Mr Howard has obviously suddenly woken up to the economic and political damage that could be created by global warming, let alone the environmental and social damage. He has missed the boat. Indeed, at the last COAG meeting and in his “Australia Rising” speech in Queensland recently—I presume that is his vision for the future—he again downplayed the importance of this issue. He is quoted in the Canberra Times on 24 April as saying that independent action by Australia would not materially affect the climate but would jeopardise the economy.
Yet at the ALP national conference just last weekend the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kevin Rudd, committed the party, once in government, to join with the states in meeting the target of a 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. And, of course, not only did he commit to the target; he committed to a number of other measures to enable ordinary Australians to feel they have a part in the process in very practical ways. Of course he is to be applauded. Do we now see the commonwealth joining the Leader of the Opposition on this issue? I think not. I expect, though, that later in this place all members will support this motion.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (11.22): Mr Speaker, the opposition support some of the intention but not the substance of Ms Porter’s motion and for that reason I will be moving an amendment that will call on the Assembly to note that on 10 December 2006 the Prime Minister announced the establishment of a task group to look at greenhouse gas emissions trading schemes.
The task force is currently inquiring into a global emissions trading scheme in which Australia could participate and it will report by 31 May. If the task force decides that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .