Page 810 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 2 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
this is the best way to proceed, the ACT should work closely with the Australian government on the development of a trading scheme. Any cooperative work between the Australian government and the states and territories should be conducted in light of the joint government-business Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading. This task force is advising on the nature and design of a workable global emissions trading scheme in which Australia could participate.
Once the task force has reported on what it believes to be the best nature and design, the Australian government will be in a position, as Ms Porter’s motion suggests, to work with the states and territories to establish a national greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme. This task force is scheduled to report by 31 May, at the end of this month. For that reason I think that we are jumping the gun a little bit until we see what comes from that group. My office has been in liaison with Mr Turnbull’s office on the progress of that task force and we await with keen interest their report and their recommendations in relation to a trading scheme.
I welcome the chance to speak about climate change again in this place. It is an important issue and it deserves discussion. I welcome another opportunity to discuss environmental issues in this place, but will say, as I have before, that we need to do more than just talk; we need action at a territory level. It is all very well to call on the Australian government to act and work cooperatively, but it is worth noting that we are still waiting for the ACT government’s climate change strategy—a call that I have made repeatedly and that Dr Foskey has made repeatedly—and there is a resounding deathly silence from the territory on this matter.
It smacks of a measure of hypocrisy for government members to get up in this place and chastise Mr Howard over his approach to climate change when, in fact, in the territory here, we are dragging the chain. The people of Canberra have been waiting for this strategy for some time, and it must be said that, given the amount of times we speak on the environment during matters of public importance, private members’ business and adjournment debates, it is surprising that it has not happened sooner.
We hear that the latest strategy of the government is to centralise things further in the Chief Minister’s office. Mr Speaker, I know you have expressed publicly concern that we are getting to a situation where we are becoming rapidly a one-man band. And, of course, when one person tries to do everybody’s jobs things start to fall off—the wheels start to fall off. In terms of climate change and the environment we have had a lot of rhetoric from those opposite, but they have been light on action.
I know the opinion polls would be telling the territory government that this is an issue that is front and centre in the public’s minds, but the public in this town are very well educated and they will be sceptical of a government that trots out statements of feigned concern but fails to perform. The government seems very willing to talk about environmental matters but it seems much more hesitant to take action.
Of course, with the environment it is easy to fall back on rhetoric and emotion: “We must act. The Australian government has failed to do anything. Kyoto will save us.” This rhetoric pays no attention whatsoever to the level of cooperation required to address climate change, the efforts of the Australian government to work cooperatively with other players on the international stage and the failure of many of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .