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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 2 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 447 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I am very glad to get the support of the Liberal Party and Ms Dundas for this motion. But it did remind me of the motion we moved on the regular forests agreement. The arguments were the same but the other way round. I remember the Liberal Party saying that it was none of our business and the Labor Party saying, "What a good motion, Ms Tucker."

MR SPEAKER: Order! Ms Tucker, don't provoke them.

MS TUCKER: I can't resist it. That is why you need people like the Greens and Democrats. At least we are consistent.

Mr Stanhope is now saying he does not think we have a role in making comment, although he seemed to be suggesting I was telling the New South Wales government what to do, which is what Mrs Carnell argued too. She said I was right out of line because I was trying to take over the role of the New South Wales government. That is not what I am doing.

I am sorry to tell you that you are using the same argument. It was brought up again today. I need to make it clear, because I would not like people to be misled. I do not want to be part of the New South Wales government, but I hear these claims from both sides of the house at different times that we have a commitment to, and an understanding of, the impact of these kinds of activities on the broader environment, because we understand now that lines on the map do not mean that what we do in one place does not have an impact on another. We understand that the biodiversity of a region is connected in the whole sense. We have environmental problems which are not just regional; we have global environmental issues. We have that understanding in this place, don't we?

For that reason I understood that Mr Stanhope did say he would put in a submission. He seems to have changed that position. Mr Stanhope said in this place that he would put in a submission. I seek leave to table what is called a submission.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: I present the following paper:

Proposed Charcoal Reduction and Wood Facility at Mogo, NSW-Submission to the New South Wales Government by Jon Stanhope, Chief Minister, dated 16 January 2002.

I am criticising that submission, and a majority of members of this house have criticised it as well. It is an absolute insult that a government could produce 11/2 pages and claim that that was a thoughtful input into a very important environmental issue in our region. It needs to be done again. If it is not done again, then I am afraid it shows that the Labor Party and the government here are not taking the environment seriously. All the rhetoric from the Labor Party in the time I have been in this place is that they do understand. Now they are in government they have to show that understanding and act in good faith.

Mr Stanhope: We are in government in the ACT, Kerrie.

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