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

View division | Edit description

Change Division
senate vote 2020-02-12#3

Edited by mackay

on 2020-02-14 13:13:02

Title

  • Motions Climate Change
  • Motions - Climate Change - Logging in the Tarkine

Description

  • <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</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=2020-02-12.129.2) introduced by Tasmanian Senator [Peter Whish-Wilson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/peter_whish-wilson) (Greens), which means it failed.
  • ### Motion text
  • > *That the Senate—*
  • >
  • > *(a) notes that:*
  • >
  • >> *(i) urgent action is required to mitigate climate change,*
  • >>
  • >> *(ii) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report on Climate Change and Land, stated that, in the short term, leaving existing forests standing is the most effective way to manage forests to mitigate climate change, and*
  • >>
  • >> *(iii) the plans by the Tasmanian Government to allow logging in the Tarkine in north-west Tasmania will result in an increase in carbon emissions; and*
  • >
  • > *(b) calls on the Tasmanian Government to abandon its plans to allow logging in the Tarkine.*
  • <p class="italic">(a) notes that:</p>
  • <p class="italic">&#160;&#160;(i) urgent action is required to mitigate climate change,</p>
  • <p class="italic">&#160;&#160;(ii) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report on Climate Change and Land, stated that, in the short term, leaving existing forests standing is the most effective way to manage forests to mitigate climate change, and</p>
  • <p class="italic">&#160;&#160;(iii) the plans by the Tasmanian Government to allow logging in the Tarkine in north-west Tasmania will result in an increase in carbon emissions; and</p>
  • <p class="italic">(b) calls on the Tasmanian Government to abandon its plans to allow logging in the Tarkine.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Malcolm Roberts</p>
  • <p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p>
  • <p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Malcolm Roberts</p>
  • <p>One Nation opposes this motion. No-one has ever provided the empirical scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity causes climate variability. Secondly, the plans are for sustainable logging that will benefit jobs, maintain fire trails and sustainably reduce fuel load. We've just been through a terrible bushfire season due to national parks and other areas stopping sustainable harvesting that is needed to reduce the risk of high fuel loads. We need sustainable, select harvesting to reduce and manage fuel loads in order to save native fauna and flora, save property and save human lives. In One Nation we are true environmentalists, because we make decisions, based on data, to support human progress.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p>
  • <p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p>
  • <p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p>
  • <p>Labor does not support this motion. Labor has led the way in providing legislative protection for old-growth and high conservation value forests in Tasmania and across Australia, including through the creation of new reserves in the area known as the Tarkine. However, Labor are also unequivocal in our support for the sustainable management of our productive native forests and the many communities who rely on the jobs provided in forestry, including in north-west Tasmania.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p>
  • <p>The question is that motion No. 447 be agreed to. Senator Whish-Wilson?</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p>
  • <p>A point of order: Labor saved none of the Tarkine. Senator Gallagher, you just misled the Senate&#8212;</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p>
  • <p>Senator Whish-Wilson, good try. Cut him off. I'm going to start cutting people off when they don't even make a remote attempt to link a point of order to the standing orders. The question is that motion No. 447 be agreed to.</p>