Page 1867 - Week 05 - Thursday, 16 May 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
to speak about an issue that is the largest crisis of our time. It is the biggest issue facing us. To come in with an amendment that essentially mocks the substantive motion, puts a division between the two crossbench members, the two Greens members, instead of talking about the substantive issue—
Mrs Jones: Are you mocking Ms Le Couteur’s approach?
MS ORR: I am not mocking Ms Le Couteur’s approach. I am saying that you are making a mockery out of this topic, which is incredibly important, by trying to wedge the two Greens members. The opposition could have come in here and made a speech that went to the substantive issue that made it clear where they stand on climate change and what action they wanted to take. But they chose not to do that. They chose to come in here and to pick a fight, really, to niggle everyone and say, “Come on, let’s put in a division.” We do not need division on this topic; we need to work together. We need to work as a community to make significant and urgent change because this is the biggest dilemma facing our generation. I will not be supporting Mr Coe’s amendment because I do not feel the need to make a mockery out of this topic.
MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (4.45): I am a bit disappointed that the Greens and the Labor Party will not be supporting this amendment. It is difficult for me to understand how, on the one hand, members on the crossbench come in and say there is a climate emergency but, on the other hand, say they are still going to consume tonnes of fossil fuels by jet-setting around the country and around the world, not only for work-related issues but also for recreational pleasure.
I think it is important to make sure that what we do in this Assembly is take good climate action. I think we have done that. We have demonstrated that. We supported Ms Orr’s amendment. We have taken good, sensible measures. We have ambitious targets, the most ambitious targets in Australia. We support that. We support that and we have. What we do not support is people coming to this place with grandstanding motions that do not match the reality of their actions. On the one hand, if you are saying it is a climate emergency, then—
It being 45 minutes after the commencement of Assembly business, the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 77. Ordered that the time allotted to Assembly business be extended by 30 minutes.
MR HANSON: It just looks hollow, doesn’t it? It looks like hollow grandstanding if you are not prepared to live up to the ideals that you demand of others. It is very easy perhaps for Mr Rattenbury, living in the inner city, a very wealthy man, to impose certain rules and requirements and demands on others whilst he is not prepared to take the action that he would deem necessary if it is a climate emergency.
Let us make sure that we are addressing the issue of climate change; let us make sure that we are doing it in this place. But I think it is poor form and it belittles what we do in this place, to come in here on election eve with a grandstanding motion. When he is called on it, he is not prepared to actually put his money where his mouth is and take any action required, if indeed he believes there is a climate emergency.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video