Page 1231 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Rattenbury, you were going to continue with your closing remarks.
MR RATTENBURY: Yes, I am continuing my remarks. I am observing the standards that they seek to operate to in this place. I am prepared to sit here and listen to the observations that Mr Smyth wants to make in silence, but as soon as I get up and make a counterpoint, the hectoring starts, the points of order start. It really is a frontbench of glass jaws on that side of the chamber. But when it comes down to it, I am pretty comfortable because I would much rather stand up in this place for the environment than stand up for Coca-Cola. I am happy to be called a Greenpeace warrior. I would rather be a Greenpeace warrior than a Coca-Cola warrior because there are actually people out there who are motivated and who are working for the common good, not the private good, not just for personal profit at the expense of the planet. And they are the people that Mr Smyth is in here vigorously defending.
It is quite consistent with the approach of the Liberal Party nationally. They will stand up for the big miners. They will stand up for the coal miners. They will stand up for the people who are doing environmental damage to this country rather than stand up for the environment or for the interests of the common people. If that is the position they want to take then that is fine, but this motion, despite the comments that Mr Smyth made, is actually a very sensible motion. It calls on Australian governments to work together to expedite consideration of any application made by the Northern Territory government. So it is a collective effort.
Mr Smyth made some observation about the fact that fast enough was not good enough. Given the fact that the Northern Territory scheme has now been undermined by the corporate players who want their way rather than the common good, I think it is quite appropriate, now that the scheme has been struck down in the courts, that governments do work together collectively and in an expeditious manner to overturn this situation because this is a bad outcome for the environment.
I spoke at some length in my remarks about the environmental benefits that arise from such a scheme. I think it is quite appropriate for the ACT Assembly to indicate our support for just such a model because this is a model that is recognised to work in South Australia. South Australia is going along just fine with it. As I said in my remarks, South Australia is recognised by Keep Australia Beautiful as having the lowest overall volume of litter in Australia and by far the lowest volume of beverage container litter. Those are the hard facts on this matter and that is why the Assembly should be supporting this motion today.
Question put:
That Mr Rattenbury’s motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video