Page 264 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
issues that I raised—issues like “do we have a commissioner for the environment?” I would be very interested to hear about that at some time.
The government goes to great lengths to say that there is no way it could support my motion because it has to show that it is influenced not by the Greens but by experts. That is funny, though, because the Greens’ policy on these issues is informed by the experts. By “the experts” we mean the scientists, engineers and other people who work in the sustainability area.
The minister says that he does not have a clue what I mean by part 2 (e) of my motion, about developing a centre for sustainable industries. I see that it is missing from his amendment. That says more about the minister than the idea. I was pleased to see that Mr Smyth did understand what I mean and can see that it could be a very exciting thing. Unfortunately, that is something that the government has omitted from its motion; it shows that the government still doesn’t get it.
It might also show that they do not talk to the people in the community—those businesspeople, of whom there are many. They certainly do not listen. They do not listen in the Assembly, so I guess they do not go out and seek knowledge in the community either. There are people who need just a very small amount of support—like Perpetual Water, like Andrew Blakers. They have the idea; they just need the policy setting and perhaps a little bit of support to get those industries going.
Mr Hargreaves disparages the Greens but praises earlier governments. He forgets that it was the Greens that put the issue on the agenda in the first place. By the way, I have to apologise for getting very loud last time, as Mr Hargreaves said, but I was very aware that he was not listening. There are two things you can do when people are not listening to you. One is that you can shut up; the other is that you can speak up. I choose to speak up. I thought that if I raised my voice he might hear me, and apparently he did.
Mr Mulcahy is like any other person—interested to see the greenhouse strategy. No doubt he is partially reassured by the fact that there is one coming soon—like Christmas. It was coming last Christmas; it might come next Christmas. I will speak later on Mr Mulcahy’s amendment, which he has not yet put.
It was very good to hear Mr Stanhope’s more reasoned response to the motion. At least he acknowledged its importance without personal abuse or discouragement of the Greens’ role. No, we do not expect to take government in the short term. But if the Labor and Liberal parties keep trivialising these matters, which are of great concern to people in the community, then, if people have the choice between a dead planet society, which these two parties look as though they are becoming, and the Greens, they will probably choose the Greens.
I heard it again: “too small”. The ACT is small, but it has a very strong leadership role. We are a community with a very large ecological footprint, but we also have a large footprint in that we are highly visible as the national capital. Sustainability could become part of our brand, along with the national institutions that we like to trot out to attract tourists.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .