Cathy McGowan: Member for Indi

Direct Action vote 2014

On Wednesday 26 June 2014 I voted in support of the Government’s Direct Action Plan.  Since then, my office has received several emails and telephone calls from constituents concerned that I no longer support policy that curbs climate change and encourages renewable energy.

We need to tackle climate change and I continue to believe that market based mechanisms are the most efficient way to price carbon and reduce emissions. I want to see an ETS. I want to see an increase in the use of renewable energy and energy efficient technologies. I want to see an increase to the Renewable Energy Target. I want to work with the Government, the Opposition and the cross-benchers to introduce an ETS.

I am committed to working with the government of the day and as such chose to support the Direct Action Plan. The plan, while not perfect, will provide an injection of money into communities to enable and support changes at a local level.

I am a supporter of direct action and a supporter of market intervention. By introducing both polices and creating an environment of bipartisanship on these matters, Australia can start to embrace innovation and future thinking. We can strive to be world leaders in climate change policy

I hope this has shed some insight into why I choose to vote in support of the Direct Action Plan. I would love to hear your thoughts and ideas for how to create an atmosphere of change locally, nationally and globally. 


Showing 16 reactions

commented 2014-07-15 15:25:32 +1000
And how did you vote on the carbon tax repeal?…..
commented 2014-07-05 12:16:21 +1000
Wait a minute. I think I get it.

The coalition “promised” you something for your electorate or something more personal and you, unlike the rest of us, suffer from the complete delusion that Abbott will keep his promises, at least the one to you. That’s nice, to be so untainted by the realities of politics as to actually believe that.

It’s the most logical explanation because the one above is so utterly outside and far beyond any stupidity (not even so much the doublespeak rather than the sheer hamhandedness of it) that I wouldn’t attribute it to an MP of any conviction. Except for Pyne, of course.
commented 2014-07-05 12:06:26 +1000
If you support an ETS you might want to keep the Carbon Tax (Carbon Price) until 2015 when it becomes an ETS. We already have an ETS it is just a Carbon Tax until 2015.
commented 2014-07-05 11:05:47 +1000
These politics ‘queue cards’ are getting really old, Who are you trying to fool by saying you want 1 thing and doing the opposite when you get the chance. Can’t you just lower yourself to the level of everyone else in the country and just try tell the truth for once.
commented 2014-07-05 10:48:02 +1000
Right. You support an ETS and therefore voted away existing in-force legislation that has a schedule for the introduction of an ETS before too long?

I’m sorry, but if your going to expect us to eat that bullshit then frankly that’s disgusting. Cowardly enough not to stand up for the environment, fair enough, but then this grade-A prime bullshit ass backwards reasoning that insults the logic of anyone past kindergarten really takes the cake. What a disappointment.
commented 2014-07-05 10:43:20 +1000
“I am committed to working with the government of the day and as such chose to support the Direct Action Plan. The plan, while not perfect, will provide an injection of money into communities to enable and support changes at a local level.” Well, I thought you were an independent and was committed to working for your constituents. Silly me.
commented 2014-07-05 10:21:29 +1000
> I choose to vote in support of the Direct Action Plan.

So you support taking money from taxpayers and giving it to polluting companies?

Righto then. I can see on which side your bread is buttered.
commented 2014-07-05 10:09:50 +1000
Cathy, can you please eloborate on why you support direct action, other than a broad support for market intervention? Interventions can be good or bad, depending entirely on the mechanism and detail.

The direct action policy does nothing to compel heavy carbon emitters to reduce their emissions, from the looks of things it merely offers rewards for attempting to do something, and no penalty at all for no attempt to curtail emissions.

The modelling that’s been done by two independent analysts has shown the policy to be ineffectual and will devote too little money to acieve even the 5% emissions reduction target.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/24/coalition-will-provide-an-extra-1bn-on-emissions-reduction-fund

Thoughts?
commented 2014-07-05 09:28:31 +1000
If you support an ETS, why would you choose to repeal legislation that would have introduced an ETS from July 2015
commented 2014-07-05 09:21:23 +1000
No, it does not shed any light what so ever onto the matter.

Direct action has been shown to be nothing more than a policy of doing absolutely NOTHING, while handing BILLIONS over to business in order to continue to pollute.

For anyone with even the remotest understanding of the issue this is the worst possible outcome.

You should be utterly ashamed. In your first serious test in what it means to represent the INTERESTS of the people of this country – you vote directly to cause them maximum harm, and grace private corporations with repugnant levels of public funds for their private use in continuing to engage in the very practice which is threatening modern society. You chose to support the greatest threat humanity has ever faced.

The most significant issue in tackling Global Warming is speed – encouraging things which are doing “something” but no where near what is required is the very essence of what private corporate polluters are striving to achieve (diminishing their cost in ameliorating emissions) and is EXACTLY, the very essence of what is threatening humanity – insufficient and inappropriate action with a lack of expediency. Not doing enough, but doing something – is what will cause runaway positive feed back loops. It is precisely what will push us over the edge.

How profoundly sickening of you.

Either you are too stupid to understand the magnitude of what Global Warming entails, or you are too stupid to understand that you have been absolutely conned, hook like and sinker. Alternatively you are just totally corrupt. Those are the options. Pick one, then take a look in the mirror.

Either way, don’t ever go to bed, look anyone in the eye, especially children, the peoples whose futures you just destroyed through ineptitude or nefarious complicity, and feel comfortable with yourself as someone who works for the people. You do not.

You most certainly do not. You are a corporate stooge.

CSIRO, and every other scientific body has resolutely condemned direct action, sequestration, and if you think Abbott wants to plant trees why don’t you ask the UN, UNESCO about his recent appeal to have Tasmanian wilderness de-listed.

No- seriously – you voted for someone who is claiming he wants to plant trees as a store of carbon and he went to the UN in order to destroy the Tasmanian wilderness.

You are a sycophant. A pusillanimous, obsequious, kow-towing, sycophant.

Your constituents should rightly be utterly ashamed of you.
commented 2014-07-01 13:19:27 +1000
I was, and still am, a believer in the Carbon Tax. The scare campaign the Abbott government ran when in opposition came to nothing – we saw little change in our electricity bills, and I’m sure we’ll see even less when the Carbon Tax is removed. The assurances every household will be $500 better off annually post Carbon Tax is a myth! Trying to be positive about this disaster of a Liberal government that refuses to accept there is such a thing as climate change, I agree some action is better than no action – but what sort of action will we see? I am glad the Renewable Energy Target is staying, although how this will continue to be successful with no government help is a big question in itself. I’m not sure Direct Action is going to do anything either. I do hope there is more pressure put on the government to increase renewable energy, particularly in rural and country areas. I can see more wind and solar installations as a win/win on the jobs and environment front, but will this ever happen? I still believe in what you are doing Cathy, disappointed in this outcome – yes, but understand how and why the vote went as it did. Thankyou for keeping us informed, and for the continual feedback on the day to day activities in parliament. Good luck, and keep on keeping on please.
commented 2014-06-30 16:20:47 +1000
Cathy – Cathy Cathy – People expected more from you.
commented 2014-06-30 15:40:02 +1000
U set out all the things u want 2 have happen,then do a full circle and go with Direct Action,which is basically playing lip service.Very surprised at your choice ,it’s almost as if it’s too hard. And you’re tired already.
My daughter is a follower of yors and is in yor electorate I live outside and saw u as a change maker & a futuriste. It appears I was wrong
Jack Long
commented 2014-06-30 15:13:16 +1000
Paying corporations to pollute is the direct opposite of an ETS, which was already in place. The money lost from the existing ETS you voted against will now come from the poor and disadvantaged in your electorate while the polluters rake in extra profit. Voting to scrap the existing ETS was a very bad choice.
commented 2014-06-30 15:08:32 +1000
Modelling suggests direct action will lead to an increase in emissions of 16% by 2020. The direct action policy is a dud designed to appease conservative voters who do care about the environment but lack the ability to determine its efficacy.
commented 2014-06-30 15:00:54 +1000
The whole point of Direct Action is to support an injection of public money into private corporations, NOT communities