Page 1199 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 4 May 2022
Mr Braddock: On a point of process, Mr Assistant Speaker, we have two competing amendments to Mr Hanson’s original motion. Is it proper that we deal with Mr Barr’s amendment and vote on that before we deal with my amendment?
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Pettersson): Correct. Members, charting a path forward, the question is that Mr Barr’s amendment be agreed to. Once that question is dealt with, my advice, Mr Braddock, would be to seek leave to move your amendment.
Mr Hanson: Mr Assistant Speaker, if you wish, I am happy to speak again now; we can deal with Mr Barr’s amendment and then we can move on to Mr Braddock.
Mr Braddock: I am amenable to that as well.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (3.27): It looks like we are all on board. Mr Hanson.
MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (3.28): Peace has broken out. Thanks, Mr Assistant Speaker. I will be supporting Mr Barr’s amendment because, although it does change some of the language, fundamentally it reaffirms that support for our defence industry sector here in the ACT, which is the nub of it.
In terms of the motivation for what is happening here today, I think people would recognise the fact that, since my first days in this place, and indeed my inaugural speech, I have been supporting the ADF and Defence. It was the Canberra Liberals that put forward the concept of a shadow minister for veterans’ affairs. Indeed, in 2016 I made a speech at the Press Club about the importance of the defence industry sector and the need for a defence industry strategy. After we were unsuccessful at that election, Mr Barr rolled that policy out and I supported it in a bipartisan way. So it is something that I feel very passionately about, as I do about the Australian War Memorial.
I think that there are plenty of opportunities to engage in the federal election. This motion does not reference the federal election or the previous Greens commitment to cut $300 billion, nor have I mentioned that. So the reality is—
MR HANSON: I am responding to the comments. I am responding to the critique. The genesis for this was when I was sitting in this chamber on the Thursday of the last sitting week, when Ms Clay came in and made her speech. I turned to Mr Parton and said, “I am going to get up and respond.” I was furious. I was deeply upset. In fact, I did not speak; I did not respond.
Mr Parton: I talked you out of it.
MR HANSON: He was a calming influence. I did not respond because it is best sometimes not to respond in the heat of battle, when you are genuinely upset and angry. I went away and reflected on how best to deal with this. I thought an adjournment speech would be the best way to respond to it.