Page 956 - Week 03 - Thursday, 7 April 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
trying to control population growth. I would request that the Leader of the Opposition pull her team into line on this, because it is pretty extraordinary.
What also is extraordinary, Mr Acting Speaker, is that there has been no consideration of the climate or the health of our environment and the future of our city and our people in this motion. It is reflected in Mr Gentleman’s amendment, but it is not reflected in Ms Lee’s original motion. It certainly was not reflected in any of the contributions that we have heard today that we need to be a city that is sustainable so that there is a future for the populations and the children that we are talking about—that Mrs Kikkert seems to care so deeply about, and yet she wants to trash their future. If there is no planet, there is not going to be anywhere for those children. It is just quite extraordinary. This is an opposition that, I have to note, did not speak—not one member—to say, “We are doing away with the old Coe approach of not supporting the fact that we need to do something on climate change”, and saying that the opposition is heading in a progressive climate action direction. Repeatedly, this week the opposition have been absent when it mattered. They are absent in their contributions today and I think they should really reflect on that. Mr Acting Speaker, in your own speech—
Members interjecting—
MR ACTING SPEAKER: Ms Lee! Members!
MS CHEYNE: The opposition can reflect on their own actions. There were plenty of words last year, but there is a considerable absence of actions this year, I have to say, especially in this place and especially when it matters. You also reflected, I believe, in your own speech, Mr Acting Speaker, on medium density and that the government does need to make sure that it will be reflecting that in its plans. Can I just point you to the amendment. This is really clearly stated in there, at 3(a). I could say more, but I am actually despairing of what we have heard from the opposition today. There have been a lot of calls from the opposition that we should be ashamed of ourselves. I think they should take a good hard look at themselves. I commend Mr Gentleman’s amendment to the Assembly.
Mrs Kikkert: You are a clown! You’re a clown.
MS ORR (Yerrabi) (4.21): Much like my colleague Ms Cheyne, I was not actually planning to speak today, but after hearing a few of the points that have been put forward in the debate I wanted to get up and share my views as well, so thank you for playing musical chairs with me, Mr Acting Speaker, and giving me the opportunity.
The part in this debate, for me, that has become most worrying is this idea that a particular house form will be better for your mental health than others. It is simply not true. The contributions we have heard put forward by members within this place today very much cherry-pick the evidence that is out there. We have seen a lot of places throughout this last pandemic which are really well set up to handle a health crisis that separates us. A good example has been Los Angeles, where everyone could go home. They had a house, they had a yard, they could do everything that they needed to do within the COVID health restrictions, and what we saw there was an increase, a very big increase, in mental health issues and isolation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video