Page 4663 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Party approach to greenhouse gas emissions is that they have what I have classified as “set and forget” targets. It is easy to come up with a big number a long way away and then just leave it. Even 2020 is a long way away, and there are very few mechanisms between now and 2020 for reporting on this matter and keeping whichever government is in power accountable for progress.
The bill presented by Mr Seselja is in this regard far superior to the bill that has been introduced by the government. The government has a whole range of amorphous set and forget things. The government is not prepared to say what its renewable energy target should be. It is going to leave that for somebody else to do by regulation. It is not prepared even to countenance the issues of whether we should have targets for reducing per capita use of electricity. These things are not there.
As with a whole lot of other agencies that this government has set up, we are going to set up a council with a whole range of amorphous, ill-defined responsibilities. We are creating a situation where this minister will be able to deny responsibility when he fails to implement this legislation properly, when he fails to meet his targets. It will be very difficult to report against those targets and interrogate whether those targets are being met. Of course, he can then say, “But it’s not me; it is the independent body that I’ve set up. They’re the people who are failing.” This is what has happened time and time again with this government and its statutory and so-called independent bodies. It is a way of distancing itself from accountability. It is a way of saying, “Don’t blame me; blame somebody else.” When things go wrong in planning, those opposite say, “It’s not my responsibility; it’s the responsibility of the planning authority.” When things go wrong here, it will not be Mr Corbell’s responsibility; it will be the responsibility of the independent council that he has set up.
When you look at the independent council, you see that its functions are fairly amorphous. When you look at the membership—I understand that Mr Seselja is going to move some amendments in relation to that—you see that some key areas are left out. We are talking about climate change here, Mr Speaker. The two single biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the ACT are the stationary energy sector and the transport sector. There is no-one on this committee that represents either of those groups. The two biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in this territory do not get a seat at Mr Corbell’s council.
That is a shameful omission from this piece of legislation—a piece of legislation that the Greens have, with panting anticipation, embraced. Again, it is: “Let’s not worry about whether it will work. This is something, and therefore we must do it.” It is the Nike approach, which you hear over and over again from the Greens: “Let’s not worry about the consequences. Let’s just get on and do it.” You have been so uncritical that there are glaring errors. There are glaring omissions in this bill, but you do not care; you just want to get on to be seen to be doing something in an area which you think is important.
It is important; there is no doubt about this. This is an important issue. That is why today we are debating two bills. There are two bills on the table; there are two policy approaches here. And the policy approach of the Canberra Liberals is far and away the superior one. There is a superior approach to setting the targets. There is a superior
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video