Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 10 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 3095 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

I rise to support Ms Tucker's motion. I think it is an important issue and one that our Federal governments, particularly our current Federal Government, should feel very embarrassed about. If I were a Liberal member sitting in this chamber I would be particularly embarrassed about my Federal colleagues, which could well be the reason, Mr Speaker, why, apart from yourself, there have been hardly any Liberal members here. Even now, Mr Speaker, we see a discussion going on amongst the Liberal members, who should really be embarrassed about the way the Federal Government has acted on this issue. I would not be at all surprised if Mr Humphries were to write to his Federal counterpart and say that the ACT ought not be the only ones that are implementing the sort of strategy that Ms Tucker has mentioned.

Mr Berry: You would not be surprised; you would be shocked.

MR MOORE: Indeed, Mr Humphries is sitting there quietly. Mr Berry says, "You would not be surprised; you would be shocked". But it would be a nice, although shocking, experience to have Mr Humphries jumping into action; not only recognising the import of Ms Tucker's motion and accepting it on behalf of the Government but also writing to the Federal Government and saying, "Why do you not actually make a proper effort to meet these targets, instead of wimping out in the way that you have been doing?". Mr Speaker, I think that, by putting this motion before us, Ms Tucker has, indeed, provided some guidance to the Government on a very important issue about the sustainability of our environment.

MS TUCKER (5.32), in reply: I thank members for their support for this motion. I would like to just clarify something, though. I think Mr Humphries seems to be under the impression that we have a review occurring at the moment because of what he thinks might be the results of the national greenhouse inventory.

Mr Humphries: I did not say that.

MS TUCKER: Right. I just want to clarify why there is a review occurring. It is really because of the change of the Federal government; that is why the national greenhouse response strategy is being reviewed at the moment.

The other issue that I would like to clarify is that targets were set internationally to reduce greenhouse emissions before there was any inventory. The reason that targets are set is to actually address the whole issue of climate change. You set the target and then, as a result of that target being set, which was basically a commitment to confront the huge problem of climate change, a whole lot of initiatives resulted around the world. Some of those initiatives included an inventory; a national inventory has actually been put together. Once you have the inventory, you can then develop performance measures to see how you are going in reaching your target. I did just want to clarify that before the end of the debate. Otherwise, I am very pleased, I repeat, to have the support of all members for this motion. I hope we will be able to work cooperatively to actually set those targets.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .