Page 1207 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 4 May 2022

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

not be supporting Mr Braddock’s amendment. I will not speak for long on Mr Braddock’s speech. I will make some observations.

There are many elements of issues that he raised—around failed defence procurements, the importance of diplomacy and issues relating to climate change—where he makes a reasonable point. There are other elements of that speech that I just cannot agree with. I appreciate his right to express his views in this parliament, and that is what it is. But I do believe it is important today to be clear in relation to the necessary nuance and the extremely complex and challenging national security and defence environment that we find ourselves in.

At a state and territory level we are not actively involved in day-to-day defence operations. We do have a role and a seat at the table in relation to national security matters. My role as Chief Minister does, from time to time, bring me into the orbit of some of the issues and challenges that are confronted by our national government. It is a challenging environment. I do not think that it lends itself to sloganeering or simplistic responses that would appear to be designed to appeal to very narrow sections of the community. However strongly felt those views are, I am not sure that the tone of what has just been expressed serves the interests of Canberra or, indeed, the nation. I regret that, whilst acknowledging that there are many elements of Mr Braddock’s speech that are legitimate.

Mr Hanson: Do you think?

MR BARR: Having just visited my place of birth, Lismore, last week, I will acknowledge that that city faces some extraordinary challenges. It was heartbreaking to visit where I was born, where my grandparents lived and where I first came into the world and to see the state that it is in as the result of multiple floods. Mr Braddock is right to raise the slowness of response there, but I do want to acknowledge that the response, when it came, involved Australian Defence Force people, many of whom have perhaps been indirectly attacked in some of what has been said this afternoon.

I think we can all try and lower the temperature on this a little. I do not think this is serving anyone any good, at this time, acknowledging, as I have, that there are strongly held views on this matter. I stand by the amendment I moved that has been supported by a majority of members in this place and reiterate the points I made in speaking to that. It is not going to please everyone and achieve 100 per cent of what everyone wants, but it is very rare in this place, and indeed in Australian public life these days, for an outcome to be possible where everyone is happy.

We will not be supporting the amendment Mr Braddock has moved. I believe the amendment I moved that has been supported in this place sets the appropriate tone for our local response and sends the right signal to our community about the majority view of this Assembly. So we will not be supporting the amendment this afternoon.

MR BRADDOCK (Yerrabi) (4.01): Starting with a point of order, under standing order 47, misrepresentation: Mr Hanson alleged that I wish to disarm the Ukrainians. I have never said anything to that extent.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video