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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 8 Hansard (26 October) . . Page.. 2128 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

to us and, as you promised to do, consult with us about how you might be able to pick off individual French manufacturers to make sure that an impact is felt. Mrs Carnell, your actions are a sham. It is obvious that you do not care about the environment. You do not care about the explosion of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific; that is obvious. Your claims that you are committed to the decisions of this Assembly have no weight.

MR MOORE (4.09): Mr Speaker, I take a different view from that of Mr Berry. When I stood to support the motion, I certainly intended the Chief Minister to implement it. I knew that there would be costs associated with identifying exactly which French products were available and which ones we could avoid buying. I am still very keen, for example - and I think it is a good example - that we ought not to let new contracts to buy Renault buses or other buses that are manufactured in France. I do not move from that. I think that we should take action, in spite of the letter of the French Ambassador and his threats. I think we should stand up to those.

However, I also think it is important that we not cut off our nose to spite our face. Perhaps Mr Berry will agree with this. The item that hit me most strongly in Attachment B of the report is the one showing antibiotics for the Department of Health for which there is no alternative source. Mr Berry indicates that he agrees. We expect a rational approach that does not cut off our nose to spite our face. A rational approach would also be that if we have already purchased French buses we need to buy the parts to keep them going. That is acceptable. It is quite true that the motion as worded did not allow room to move there. Mr Berry indicates his agreement.

We would expect a rational approach to these sorts of issues. There will be a number of them, and for us to actually identify them would be impossible. If you took a rational approach to this motion, then I would find it acceptable. I believe that it is appropriate that the motion still stand, but in standing to speak to this issue in the Assembly today I hope - and I know that Mr Osborne will say the same - that the Government will have the freedom to operate in a sensible way in implementing the motion. I think that is what the Opposition is asking for. Mr Berry is indicating that that is what he would expect. I am certainly indicating that that is what I would expect. I appreciate the fact that the Chief Minister has brought the matter back to the Assembly to ask, "What am I supposed to do?", and for us to clarify the issue.

MR OSBORNE (4.12): I support what Mr Moore said. I voted along the same lines as Mr Moore, the Greens and the Labor Party. However, I was made aware at the time that there could be a problem with the antibiotics. I am glad that by our addressing the matter here we have alleviated that problem. I back up what Mr Moore says. I hope that the Chief Minister adopts a sensible approach to the motion.

MS TUCKER (4.12): Mr Speaker, the sense rather than the detail of the motion was made clear at the time. It is obviously sensible to consider problems arising from the motion.

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