Page 1839 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
is not in place. The waste strategy is not in place, which of course is important for achieving a zero net emissions goal. We are two years down the track from announcing the goal. The sustainable transport action plan is not in place. All of these strategies feed back to achieving that goal and yet we do not have a clarity.
Given that they are all in the air at once, clearly a whole-of-government response is needed to ensure that we move forward on some of these important strategies. I was pleased that Mr Corbell brought up the Climate Change Council, which I did not mention, although I did mention it in a press release earlier in the week. But that is one of those ones where I think the community get frustrated because they were required to make their nominations to the council in a three-week rush job before Christmas. You think, “Terrific, the government is keen to get on with it.” Fair enough; people will get on with their submissions if they know that there is work to be done and stuff to get on with.
I think there is real enthusiasm in the community for something like the Climate Change Council. I think it is a good initiative and people were probably happy to put in their nominations on the basis that the government clearly wanted to get on with it. But it is now May. It is a nine-member council—up to nine members. Mr Corbell said that we need to consult across the whole of government. This is worse than public service recruitment. We know how frustrating people find that.
Of course, I could not pass up on making some response to Mr Smyth’s observations.
Mr Smyth: I was relying on it.
MR RATTENBURY: Yes, I thought you might be. Mr Smyth sort of started off on the substance of the matter but then warmed himself up into his usual themes. I think in those comments Mr Smyth demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of a three-party parliament and also the nature of the parliamentary agreement. Yes, it is true that we gave support to the Labor Party to form government. The agreement also notes that it is quite clear we will disagree with the government at times on matters of policy and matters of parliamentary business. We are relaxed about that.
I think it points to a sophistication that the opposition bench has struggled to comprehend at times. It is quite possible in a three-party parliament—I think it is quite exciting; I think it has the potential to be quite dynamic—for different groupings to work together at different times. That is something we are certainly open to. We are relaxed about that. I think that it actually offers opportunity. So the fact that we want to come in here and hold the government publicly to account on these important matters I think speaks to a level of sophistication. That agreement says that we do not have to take the government’s side on every matter. It is only Mr Smyth and his colleagues that refer to it as a coalition. We are quite clear that we have a power-sharing arrangement. That does not make it a coalition that does not question important matters as they arise and as they need to be debated. I think there is a maturity in that, that some of us in this chamber still have some learning to do on.
I thank Mr Smyth for his support for at least the substance of the motion, perhaps not for his free lecture on how a three-party parliament works. But I think it is important
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video