Page 820 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 2 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As we are aware, the premiers and chief ministers requested that the Prime Minister place the development of a national emissions trading scheme on the agenda for the last COAG meeting and had hoped that this would see the Prime Minister come to his senses, but to no avail. The commonwealth still refuses to commit at this time and, regardless of whether or not this federal government comes to the party, the states and territories will be introducing an emissions trading scheme by the end of 2010.
If a federal Labor government is elected this year, we will be joining together with that government to introduce such a scheme. The opposition leader has already made that commitment. Members would be aware, I am sure, of numbers of articles that have been appearing in the media on this very subject because the media have suddenly woken up to the fact that it is happening.
In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 31 March, Ross Gittins gave an overview of the different arrangements that could be implemented, either carbon tax or greenhouse gas emissions schemes. He concluded the article by saying, “You finally accept trading schemes as the main game.” Today the Financial Review carries a full page statement on the matter of climate change, entitled “To all Australian governments on the economic impact of climate change in Australia”, under the name of five well-known and respected financial managers. I do not think these people are known for jumping on bandwagons. They say:
A market-based emission reduction scheme provides the most efficient means to substantially reduce the costs of emission reduction over time, by encouraging industry to develop and implement low emissions technology and by facilitating changes in consumer preferences.
The article is under the name of Paul Brennan, Alex Erskine, Saul Eslake, Richard Gibbs and Geoff Weir. As I said before, I do not think they are the kinds of people that necessarily jump on the latest bandwagon.
In conclusion, I want to quote the words of Martin Luther King Jnr. He said, “It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment.” Obviously he was talking about something else, but his words at a different time and in a different context nonetheless sound the warning. These days of environmental peril are, perhaps, for us a defining moment—defining for each citizen and for us in this chamber, defining for our families, this territory and this nation. It is incumbent on all here, those few who are elected to represent the many, to carry the burden not only for this generation but also for many generations to come.
Upon our shoulders rests the future welfare of our unborn children. It is for their welfare and our legacy that this great challenge provokes us. It is this challenge that compels us to think beyond ourselves that we in this place might embrace, with its consequences, so that we may choose to lay a foundation of hope and not despair, of joy and not sorrow and of a positive vision and not a devastated landscape.
The words of Martin Luther King Jnr bear repeating: “It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment.” It is on this ground, on the great weight of evidence before this chamber that I would expect members to pass this motion.
Motion agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .