Dan Boyle (Green Party)

I second the motion.

One of the more interesting features of Standing Orders in this House is that the Government side has Private Members' time to highlight what it regards as interesting developments in specific policy areas, a facility not available in the other House. The side effect of this is that Government motions may sometimes appear self-congratulatory and other Senators may view their role as being to prick this pomposity. The motion is well written, referring, for example, to the commitment to developing a policy, rather than stating that actions taken to date have been done well or things are as they should be. It also points out that we have a considerable distance to travel. As a result of the formation of this Government and the agreements in the programme for Government we at least have an acknowledgement that this is a policy priority and an issue on which the Government and my party's participation in it must be judged. On those grounds, I had hoped for a more generous response from the Opposition than that which I have heard so far in the debate.

While I do not disagree with the sentiments expressed by the Senators who moved and seconded the amendment, nevertheless, the decision to move the amendment runs counter to the spirit of the motion. Although I do not disagree with the amendment's core elements, the difficulty is that it includes a checklist running to several times the length of the motion. What the House needs is a discussion on how to secure cross-party support for political action on meeting our targets.

I get a sense from the amendment that it is a case of opposition for the sake of it, an exercise in finger-pointing that is meant to imply the Government is not doing its job and the Opposition would do a better job if it was in power. That is not the correct approach to this issue.