Page 5250 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
capture and ensure that the Liberal Party are included as well because we note that emissions have, in fact, risen 25 per cent since 1990 and 10 per cent since 2000. So we have actually managed in that amendment to capture the failure of both Liberal governments and Labor governments. I did not want the Liberal Party to be left out. Do not worry, Mr Seselja; we will be looking after you there.
I think that when you talk about the need to wait for the CPRS and international developments, I really am keen to hear what difference you think that is going to make because, as I said earlier when you were out of the chamber, we do have a clear economic, ecological and moral imperative to act now.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (5.54): I would like to thank Ms Porter for bringing this matter to the Assembly for debate today. It is a timely debate both in the context of developments internationally and also in the context of the government’s response to the Legislative Assembly inquiry’s report yesterday.
I will turn to Mr Seselja’s comments and his proposed amendment shortly, but firstly I want to outline where the government stands on these issues and the future policy directions for us. I am proud, as the Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, that it is the Labor government that has put on the agenda the issue of carbon neutrality; that it is Labor that has said that carbon neutrality for our city must be the objective. And I am proud that we have put in place a clear time frame for achieving that.
I know there has been some commentary about that time frame and whether or not it is reasonable. But let us not forget that the standing committee’s report, tabled in the Assembly, said that we should achieve an 85 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. So the committee itself set an 85 per cent reduction, compared to the baseline year of 1990, by 2050. The government’s position around carbon neutrality basically builds on that recommendation. It says that we can achieve a complete reduction, a net zero emissions position, 10 years later, by 2060; that we can achieve the final 15 per cent in that last decade between 2050 and 2060. So, if there is going to be criticism of the government’s target on 2060, there should also be criticism of the Assembly’s recommended target of 85 per cent by 2050. It is interesting that we do not hear that criticism.
Let us put that carbon neutrality target in some context. The government has also said very clearly that 2013 must be the peaking year. It is going to be a hard ask. It is going to be a very challenging ask for our city. I know that there are risks for the government in agreeing to that target because it might not be met. It is going to be hard. But we are going to do everything we can to meet it.
I know also there has been commentary about the alleged lack of interim targets. Well, there is not a lack of interim targets at 2050 or at other points. What I said yesterday in my tabling statement and what I have said in the government response is that there will be interim targets and they will be in the legislation when the legislation is introduced into the Assembly. What I have said is that we need to do more detailed
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video