Dr WOODRUFF question to PREMIER, Mr ROCKLIFF
Viewed rationally through the lens of global heating, your government’s interim budget is a man-made disaster for this island and its people. While national and state climate risk assessments are telling your government the climate threat is pressing and requires urgent action, your budget prioritises over $600 million this next four years into a third stadium. At the same time, it underfunds our TFS, SES, Parks, and forestry firefighting services when we know more frequent and intense fires are threatening communities and major population centres like Hobart. As usual, the budget continues to prop up the logging and burning of carbon‑bank native forests and funding to the Climate Office was slashed by more than $7 million a year. It is shameful and alarming. You’ve ignored experts again and prioritised a stadium over keeping Tasmanians safe from accelerating climate change. Why are you doing that?
ANSWER
Honourable Speaker, I thank the honourable member for her question. There’s a bit to unpack here in terms of social licence of language and Armageddon and all sorts of things that may have been mentioned. We take strong action on climate change. You mentioned our emergency services; we invested across various services enormously. Over $700 million to strengthen our emergency services’ communications, which is an extraordinary amount, but also much needed in that sense. I thank minister Ellis for leading that particular reform and investment as well.
We were briefed yesterday about bushfire plans for this year and I have every confidence that the learning from successive events, including last year, will be highly valuable to our preparedness as well. We remain committed to taking strong action on climate change, as we have said many times, as Tasmania was the first Australian jurisdiction to achieve net‑zero emissions and we have maintained that for the last nine years. Our government will continue activities to support what is a very impressive milestone and something that we and our forebears can be very proud of.
To continue this good work, we have dedicated more than $9.5 million in this budget to support the work of the Climate Change Office in Renewables, Climate and Future Industries Tasmania (ReCFIT). The Climate Change Office works to deliver the important initiatives from Tasmania’s climate change action plan and six sectoral emissions reduction and resilience plans. The emissions reduction and resilience plans have been developed to support greenhouse gas emissions reduction to assist our businesses and industries in the transition to a low‑emissions economy and to build resilience to climate‑related risks.
The action plan includes 98 practical cross‑government actions that improve knowledge about climate change, reduce emissions, and build resilience to the changing climate. This plan builds on the significant investment of more than $250 million in climate change activities already underway across government, so our approach is a coordinated, whole‑of‑government response to climate change, and we believe in those matters very seriously.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Dr WOODRUFF – A supplementary question, Speaker?
The SPEAKER – I will hear the supplementary question.
Dr WOODRUFF – Honourable Speaker, the Premier said that our question was implying Armageddon. I said a disaster for this island and its people and that national and state climate‑risk assessments are telling your government the climate threat is pressing and requires urgent action. Are you saying national and state assessments are over‑egging the reality of the disasters that we are confronting and the real threats?
The SPEAKER – I say, again, that the Premier did give a substantive answer, so we just need to be careful about questioning. You can clarify, but don’t take it down a new path of inquiry.
Dr Woodruff – It was clarification. He specifically used that term.
The SPEAKER – Honourable Premier.
Mr ROCKLIFF – Well, I did because every question you ask is Armageddon in nature and that we’re about to confront the worst thing in the whole history of the world. That’s the premise of all your questions, with respect. What I have already outlined to you is the fact that I reject the premise of your question because I have outlined a range of activities and a large amount of investment in this particular area.
