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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (8 December) . . Page.. 3962 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

The proposition that Ms Tucker is putting to the Assembly today asks us to make some very specific and definite decisions about areas that should be protected. I went to Ms Tucker earlier today and I said to her that my colleagues and I felt very strongly that the process of woodchipping was an undesirable one and one which should be phased out. I do not think many people in Canberra would disagree with that statement.

However, we are not in the position today to make a definite decision about whether or not the areas that Ms Tucker has identified in her motion should be protected. She outlined 15 community reserve proposals as developed by the South East Forest Alliance and asked us to endorse them. Mr Speaker, I do not think we can do that. The issues to do with regional forest agreements are complex and detailed. The protection of individual areas needs to be very closely considered. There are complex issues relating to the worth of protecting areas with endangered species. There are complex issues in relation to the impact on timber industries in the areas concerned and the impact, environmental and social, on local communities.

For that reason the Labor Party is not prepared to support this motion today. I would suggest to this Assembly that, rather than making a knee-jerk response on this issue, Assembly members should consider this issue. Ms Tucker has put this motion to the Assembly because it is about an issue of public concern in the Territory. We are elected representatives of people in the Territory. We have an obligation to consider the issue.

I remind members that this Assembly has not hesitated before in sending a signal about issues which are outside its jurisdiction. Indeed, this Assembly has seen this Government support issues which have absolutely nothing to do with our jurisdictional responsibilities. Nevertheless, because of the feeling in the Canberra community, it has been prepared to send a signal.

Perhaps the most obvious was in relation to the testing of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific. If I recall correctly, Mrs Carnell spoke very strongly in favour of a motion condemning that approach. What did that have to do with us? Did we have any jurisdictional responsibility for that issue? No, we did not. In fact, whose jurisdictional responsibility was it? It was the responsibility of the Government in Paris, but that did not stop this Assembly from saying, "We object to this process even though we are not even located on the coast". Perhaps you could argue that cities on the coast would have had a direct interest, but because we are inland it had nothing to do with us.

It is a silly argument from the Government. This Assembly previously has said, "We reserve the right not to make decisions but to make a comment and to send a signal about our community's concern about matters of concern to us". That is what Ms Tucker is proposing today. Before we get a few more knee-jerk, greenie-bashing comments from those opposite, perhaps they need to reflect on their own record about sending signals to other jurisdictions.

I come back to the point that I believe is most important in this debate. In any debate we have to make a considered decision. Ms Tucker put this motion on the notice paper less than 24 hours ago. She is asking us to make a very detailed decision about very specific issues. I have said to Ms Tucker privately, and I say it in this debate, that we are not in a position to do that. We are certainly not in a position to do it simply on the basis of the

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