Page 698 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 19 March 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Fourthly, there are the biodiversity benefits of our street and park trees. These trees in our urban areas are important as food sources and connecting links for our native birds and for insects et cetera. Fifthly, of course, trees are a carbon sink. They are a natural way of removing CO2 from the atmosphere, and God knows we need to do that, given what is happening to the rest of the world. I know that the government is supportive of more trees—I have no doubt whatsoever about that—but I urge the government to be more supportive, to take on board the concerns of these Canberrans by planting 7,000 more street and park trees, or preferably even more, every year.
Planting these trees is an investment in the future of our city. It is important from a climate change point of view, as I said. It is important to protect our city’s character and our heritage. It is also important because it is something that the people of Canberra want to have happen. No-one talked to me about whether or not we should plant trees. We did have some long discussions about the species of trees, and that is because we, the people of Canberra, love our trees and would love to see them flourish and prosper in Canberra.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Reflection on the chair
Statement by Speaker
MADAM SPEAKER: I wish to make a statement about the conduct of Mrs Kikkert since she was suspended from the Assembly in the last sitting, on Thursday, 21 February 2019. Members will recall that Mrs Kikkert made some remarks in the adjournment debate on Wednesday, 20 February that I considered implied that I had not given Mrs Kikkert a fair hearing, so the following day I asked Mrs Kikkert to withdraw any reflection on the chair. She has yet to withdraw that reflection, although it has been put to me that after I named Mrs Kikkert there was in the proof Hansard, in a statement made by Mrs Kikkert, a withdrawal.
I remind members that House of Representatives Practice, to which we are linked through standing order 275, states that when being asked to undertake a certain action by the chair, “a member may not do so ‘in deference to the chair’, but must do so “in a respectful manner, unreservedly and without conditions or qualifications”.
My attention has been drawn to a social media post from Mrs Kikkert which stated:
Tried to get a fair hearing in the Assembly.
And got booted. Oh well, at least I didn’t have to listen to them dancing around the answers during question time.
As set out at page 74 of the companion to the standing orders, it is not in order to criticise or reflect on the actions of the chair; the Speaker’s actions can only be criticised by way of a substantive motion. That section of the companion outlines several precedents where the Speaker has considered an accusation of partiality in the discharge of their duties, both inside and outside the chamber, and has asked that that reflection be withdrawn.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video