Page 3234 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
some need to introduce this amendment and extend the life of the existing NSW-ACT scheme to 2020, but events have overtaken that somewhat. The situation as it now stands is that, irrespective of the outcome of the federal election in a couple of weeks, there is commitment to a national trading scheme that will commence on 1 January 2010.
While it is probably a moot point as to whether we should be having this debate today, I think that while we are having the debate it is worth noting how things have changed since this legislation was first introduced in 2004. At that time, when I was the shadow minister for the environment, we were having considerable discussion in this place about the Stanhope government’s commitment to greenhouse. We had seen the then minister for the environment, the Chief Minister, pulling further and further back from commitments to a greenhouse strategy. He was starting to say that the existing greenhouse strategy was untenable. When challenged, he said, “No, no, no; we would never throw out that greenhouse strategy, but it would be difficult to implement.” But after the election the Stanhope government did exactly what, before the election, the Chief Minister said it would not do.
This is another example of a matter where the Stanhope government has lied to the people. It said that it would not throw out the existing greenhouse strategy and then it went along and did just that. It was yet another Stanhope government lie. This is added to all the lies about things that they said they would not do in this term—closing schools, for instance. What we have actually seen is this: instead of sitting down and working with the community, this Chief Minister, as the minister for the environment, has in many ways made himself a laughing stock in the environment community.
MR SPEAKER: Mrs Dunne, you referred to the Stanhope government’s actions on two occasions. The first was in relation to the community; the second could apply here. I ask you to withdraw the second, please.
MRS DUNNE: Sorry; I thought that I had made it perfectly clear that I was referring to its relationship with the community, but to remove any doubt I will withdraw the comment.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you.
MRS DUNNE: Instead of sitting down and dealing with the community, Mr Stanhope—the Stanhope government—has made himself a laughing stock with the environment community over his handling of the greenhouse strategy. During the 2004 election campaign, just after Mr Stanhope had bagged the existing greenhouse strategy and then said that he would not withdraw the greenhouse strategy, I was approached, at social functions and the like, by a couple of prominent scientists and people prominently involved in the greenhouse strategy. They bemoaned the situation: how discredited the Stanhope government was in relation to its greenhouse performance and how poor was the minister for the environment’s understanding of the situation—or at least his stated understanding. They said that his claims of inflated costs to implement the greenhouse strategy were just that—inflated claims—and should not be taken seriously.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .