Page 858 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 27 February 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
You only have to look at the results of the latest state of the environment report to see what actually happened during those seven years of inactivity, followed by four years of coalition government under the Greens-Labor government. What were the results? The results were quite humiliating. Greenhouse gas emissions increased eight per cent over the last five years. That is what Labor and their comprehensive policy delivered for the ACT—an increase, Ms Berry. I guess they did not write that in the notes for you. You need to get your facts accurate.
If we look at the report of the Commissioner for the Environment, what happened under the Greens-Labor government of the last four years? Canberra’s ecological footprint was 13 per cent above the Australian average, the second highest in the country behind Perth. The commissioner determined that Canberrans are using 14 times the land of the ACT to support their lifestyles. As I have said, greenhouse gas emissions increased by eight per cent over the last five years, waste generation was up 28 per cent, faster than the rate of population growth, and green space decreased by nine per cent over the last four years. It is a good thing Mr Corbell did not run that referendum to lock all that green space away back in 2001 as he promised.
Mr Corbell interjecting—
MR SMYTH: There you go: green space decreasing by nine per cent over the last four years and, of course, only a 4.9 per cent take-up rate for green power by Canberra residents. This government’s commitment on the environment, in conjunction with the Greens’ support for their policies, is a joke. In a moment of startling clarity and a moment of honesty from Mr Rattenbury, what was his response to the state of the environment report? This is what he said to the media: “The Gallagher government’s policies are driving the territory in completely the wrong direction.” That may be why there is only one Green left out of four. What was that Green-Labor alliance doing? Driving the territory in completely the wrong direction. He went on to say, “The government’s business as usual policies are driving the ACT in the wrong direction.”
Now we are being asked to endorse this as a comprehensive strategy. It will be interesting to see how Mr Rattenbury votes. We look at what the independent assessor of the state of the environment says, where Mr Rattenbury backs up that person, but will he vote for this comprehensive strategy? It will be interesting to see what happens. Mr Rattenbury went on to say, and I am paraphrasing here, “The good news stories coming out of this report are mostly all community-based actions. The failings are largely on the government end.” You are right, Mr Rattenbury.
He also said words to the effect, “The government’s inaction on sustainable transport, organic waste and protecting biodiversity are the clear lowlights.” We have got to the bottom—we are at the lowlights—and what we need the government to do now is to implement recommendations rather than writing more strategy documents. Your cabinet colleague blows your assertion that you have a comprehensive strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions out of the water.
The government’s initiatives that Ms Berry is applauding in her motion really amount to very expensive ways to achieve very little. If the government in 2001 had followed
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video