All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change Division
senate vote 2019-10-16#6

Edited by mackay

on 2019-10-24 15:48:04

Title

  • Motions National Parks
  • Motions - National Parks - Accessibility

Description

  • <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p>
  • <p>I move:</p>
  • <p class="italic">That the Senate&#8212;</p>
  • The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2019-10-16.166.1) introduced by South Australian Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) (Greens), which means it failed.
  • ### Motion text
  • > *That the Senate—*
  • >
  • > *(a) notes that:*
  • >
  • >> *(i) Australia's national parks are at risk of being privatised, to the exclusion of everyday Australians, against environmental interests, and in favour of high-end tourists for private profit,*
  • >>
  • >> *(ii) a private corporation, The Australian Walking Company, is planning a luxury private development on fragile coastal sites in the wild and unspoilt parts of Flinders Chase National Park on Kangaroo Island in South Australia – South Australian taxpayers have foot a $830,000 bill for this project despite not being consulted,*
  • >>
  • >> *(iii) the same private company has already developed parts of Cradle Mountain in Tasmania, and other locations across Australia, including Uluru and Hinchinbrook Island, are under threat, and*
  • >>
  • >> *(iv) the applications for these private developments lack transparency and proper scrutiny; and*
  • >
  • > *(b) calls on the Federal Government to honour the century-old Australian ethos that national parks should be for the people, and not for private 'high-end' resorts which exclude ordinary Australians and devalue prime park qualities.*
  • <p class="italic">(a) notes that:</p>
  • <p class="italic">&#160;&#160;(i) Australia's national parks are at risk of being privatised, to the exclusion of everyday Australians, against environmental interests, and in favour of high-end tourists for private profit,</p>
  • <p class="italic">&#160;&#160;(ii) a private corporation, The Australian Walking Company, is planning a luxury private development on fragile coastal sites in the wild and unspoilt parts of Flinders Chase National Park on Kangaroo Island in South Australia – South Australian taxpayers have foot a $830,000 bill for this project despite not being consulted,</p>
  • <p class="italic">&#160;&#160;(iii) the same private company has already developed parts of Cradle Mountain in Tasmania, and other locations across Australia, including Uluru and Hinchinbrook Island, are under threat, and</p>
  • <p class="italic">&#160;&#160;(iv) the applications for these private developments lack transparency and proper scrutiny; and</p>
  • <p class="italic">(b) calls on the Federal Government to honour the century-old Australian ethos that national parks should be for the people, and not for private 'high-end' resorts which exclude ordinary Australians and devalue prime park qualities.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Malcolm Roberts</p>
  • <p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p>
  • <p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Malcolm Roberts</p>
  • <p>We oppose this. The Greens in Tasmania led the war against the forestry industry for decades in the name of conservation. This war against a sustainable forestry industry has seen a decline in the industry. This has included job losses and seen communities struggle to survive. The socialist Greens argued that a new tourism boom would spring up in its place, enabling Australians and international visitors to visit the incredible natural Tasmanian wilderness. So, now that the free market is looking to invest in the Greens' new tourism industry, what do they want? They want to change the rules, because their intent was never to transition from forestry to tourism but to lock it up and lock out everyone from enjoying nature. So what do high-end resorts bring? They bring high-end, wealthy customers who will help create jobs and thriving communities with high-end local services and products. Not everyone likes a rugged camping holiday or a rustic bungalow. Some like to have some modern comforts. Turning away these customers is an idea that could be dreamed up only in the fairyland in which the socialist Greens exist.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p>
  • <p>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 182, standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.</p>