 Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we are all very tired. It's now 12 minutes to 8 o'clock. And to be frank, I think this piece of legislation is so very important, so very critical, underscored by the fact that the responsible minister has just indicated that this is the first of its type of legislation for the Eastern Caribbean. That it would have been so much better if this piece of legislation was debated when perhaps solution people could have listened to us in our contributions. And because of the enormous challenges among other things that face us. So there is some disappointment on my part that we are debating this bill at a very late hour when perhaps our energies have been sucked a little and they are the rather low ebb. That having been said, Mr. Speaker, I just want to add my voice to the debate, but in a very limited way just to highlight a few issues that I regard as important and perhaps necessary to highlight. Mr. Speaker, I have to confirm and confess that I rather like the introduction made by the minister, by the member for Denry North as he put the bill into context and he was absolutely correct to draw the attention of the House and the public at large to what is happening to us worldwide and indeed sharing with us our own experiences, whether it is tropical storm, bread or other weather systems. And I am also very pleased too that he touched on my own constituency before South to which I shall return to in a few moments. Mr. Speaker, when the Senatorship Liberal Party won the elections in 2011 and I was in the process of constructing the then cabinet of ministers, I recall I wanted to name the ministry with responsibility for climate matters as the Ministry of Climate Change and Environmental Affairs. I had intended then that it would have been a separate and distinct ministry for a number of reasons. One, to bring across to the people of St. Lucia the red dangers we face with climate change and to compartmentalize to put focus and direction and energy into the issues regarding climate change. And secondly, the conjuncture was just perfect just right because money was becoming available for matters of climate change. It is true that the world had not come to accept the principles of loss and damage because it was floated in Paris during the talks and climate change. It was argued but we did not succeed in persuading the international community that it was the right direction at the time. But the fact is that there were private entities and governments that were prepared to begin the process of investment. In a sense I was persuaded by the then occupant of that ministry with responsibility for climate matters Dr. Fletcher at the time who insisted that the term sustainable development was a far better term and the ministry should be named sustainable development. I have not had conversations with him recently over issues of climate change and environment etc. But I often wonder whether he now regrets the decision that we did not name the ministry as a Ministry of Climate Change and Environmental Affairs and now you could have added if you wanted to the blue economy. And I believe that even if time has elapsed that in some future configuration of ministries we can begin to move in that direction because if we do so then we'll be taking a major step forward in persuading the international community how serious we are about climate issues. And such a step will be far more important for example than giving this legislation, giving the protocols the force of law in this legislation which I shall come to in a few minutes because it bothers me. Now Mr. Speaker I hope as I said that when we look to the future we look at this configuration that we can take the lead in doing so because if we can do so then our capacity to mobilize funding would be even better would be enhanced. And the reality is that the time has come for us to move in that direction precisely because of what faces our country and the Eastern Caribbean and the world over. Having said this Mr. Speaker I just simply want to emphasize how timely this piece of legislation is and I'm certain that's very near into the future that the ministry will want to return to this legislation make adjustments because the agenda the climate agenda is unfolding and we have to expect that changes will come fast and furious and so too will be the bureaucracy that we create to manage climate change. It's interesting that the minister made the point about definitions and terms in the legislation and I understood fully that we have to use the vocabulary of the era the language of the day but at the same time I just wished and hoped that there could have been far greater clarity in the use of some of the terms used in the definitions ascribed because I really do believe that this is a piece of legislation that even our school children need to come to terms that of course you can argue that they have to understand the lexical of the day the lexical of climate change and when they hear others speak about it your greater tone your greater tone books than others whatever I think that's a correct name if I do record but that being the case and you have to adjust to this vocabulary how pleasing it would have been if it were possible for far more elegant and simpler terms to be used and when you look at the definition of climate change in the legislation it says means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to anthropogenic activity anthropogenic activity is that a correct pronunciation is it I don't think you can escape that possibility to to tell us what it is but Mr. Speaker you didn't you know understand what I'm saying because but then that is a lexical lexical of the day and then if you go further greenhouse gas means a gaseous compound in the atmosphere that is capable of absorbing infrared radiation because young scientists may know what these terms mean but I wonder about the young school children who have to be told what this is infrared radiation and I can go on and on now Mr. Speaker I'm just saying that you know we need to popularize legislation that has a major impact on our lives and wherever we have that opportunity we need to do so I regret Mr. Speaker I did not have a personal conversation with the minister regarding this piece of legislation I suspect neither of us really had the time to make contact to have a little chat and these are not by way of criticisms really I think it is more in the nature of observations for the next round when we are looking at the unfolding story of climate change but there are one or two little things Mr. Speaker if you look at page eight on the definition of loss and loss and damage I think I don't know but I think I've always said that people draft legislation have different philosophies different approaches to things and and so on and I mean I love the music of language I'm not gifted in language Mr. Speaker I'm not gifted but I love its music I love its cadence I love its I love its flow Mr. Speaker and Mr. Speaker I often you should say to my colleagues and maybe I shouldn't make a public statement but and because people use it against me because they perhaps they'll ascribe certain things they didn't understand before I remember you say to them Speaker when I had the honor to serve as Prime Minister this country that there were moments in my life as a Prime Minister when I became a little bored with being Prime Minister I actually became bored because you were dealing with some of the you're dealing with the same things over and over and over and over and over and over and over and if you were like me put in a position where you had to receive certain calls every morning and long calls complaining about every living thing in this country and calls which never identified one thing positive that was occurring in the country then you can imagine how depressing this must all be but you have to be Prime Minister to understand those things and those who thought that being Prime Minister was the ultimate maybe they're not beginning to understand or they have understood and I'm referring to all the Prime Ministers in recent years what's involved I remember last night I was having a conversation with somebody and so the person will say to me they wonder how Prime Minister up here is sleeping at nights and and I and I laughed well and I said well I've known him for years and I know he has a habit he goes to bed late he used to wander all over the place when he was a minister so I'm judging by the messages you may receive at night he does wander late so perhaps he sleeps well but in that jest I'm just poking fun at him but the reality is that the issues that face you the challenges are so consuming that you know getting peace of mind is a very rare issue and I dealt with those moments of boredom that I had by drafting legislation I actually drafted legislation sat and reviewed legislation and actually crafted legislation and I can remember several pieces of legislation that I then sat with a 30s general and actually crafted so you see there is a music to language of a beauty to language and to come back to it Mr. Speaker to zero in on the point there's a definition of loss says in relation loss in relation to loss and damage means any reversible and permanent impact of climate change now again it goes back to philosophy of language loss in relation to climate change is like taking loss out of loss and damage and giving it a separate meaning but then just below that is a definition of loss and damage means that economic and non economic experienced impacts of climate change despite mitigation and adaptation efforts so that in effect loss is not irreversible after all loss there could be loss that is reversible so why then have a definition loss in relation to loss and damage means any reversible and permanent impact of climate change that kind of you can have loss that is irreversible but that is only one aspect of the concept of loss would it have been simpler and better to say to absorb loss under the concept of loss and damage and simply say loss and damage means that economic and non economic experience impacts of climate change despite mitigation and adaptation efforts and also include irreversible and permanent impact of climate change again I don't know Mr. Speaker philosophy but it seems to me it looks a little clumsy in the approach that we are using but I don't know the lexicon the minister does so perhaps the minister can is in a position to say well it's necessary for reasons a b and c and the attorney general might I say that as he usually says to me well um you know um my drafters and my my officers say x y and z and at that point what what are you gonna do but I'm just saying I haven't had the opportunity to discuss this with him but these are the things I think that jump on the second thing Mr. Speaker haven't touched on these little minor matters I want to just direct attention to a very important clause in this bill and I'm very serious it does cause me a little anxiety and it's a lot unfortunate Mr. Speaker that sometimes you only see these things on the eve of the debate in the house it's clause three the force of law the clause says the united nations framework convention on climate change has a force of law in st lucia the coyote protocol has a force of law in st lucia the paris agreement has a force of law in st lucia a protocol or an agreement made under the united nation's framework convention and climate change to which which is the party has a force of law institution. I confess, Mr. Speaker, I confess openly, I am one of those lawyers, academics at one time, or an academic at one time, who oppose the enforceability of international conventions in domestic jurisdictions, unless they are overwhelming reasons to do so. I have always felt uncomfortable by the imposition of international law, because it undermines the sovereignty of individual states. I don't subscribe to it, and there must be good reason, as far as I am concerned. But that is an isolated view, and I have argued it with eminent counsel and with eminent lawyers and so on, and practitioners of public international law, which is not a body of law I have much regard for. I confess all my sins, Mr. Speaker, I confess all my sins in that regard, but I'll tell you why I have issues with this. I don't know whether all nations will go as far as to make all these conventions the force of law, give them the force of law, because you have to remember in the same piece of legislation, we also say, I believe, in clause 5, that this act binds the crown, which means that the crown, the state of St. Lucia, is bound by these protocols, etc. Now, what is the implication? It means ultimately that any citizen of this country can, in fact, sue the government of St. Lucia for not observing or implementing any of those conventions. That's what it means, and life has been made easier these days, because in the revised rules of civil procedure in St. Lucia, and this is an amazing development, I don't even think you are aware of around this table, I don't even think you are aware of it, that the Chief Justice has made new rules or made some changes to the civil procedure rules, and one of the major changes is that you do not require leave anymore to challenge the decisions of ministers or public authorities or public functionaries before it was a two-stage process. First, you have to apply for leave to bring the action, we call it leave for judicial review, and if the court agrees that there is a valid case, a prima facie case, and there is a case to argue, then the court will say, all right, I am going to grant you leave and then you get leave to deal with a substantive matter or a substantive complaint. It was like a sieve, it was not sorry, like now it's not even a sieve, the doors are wide open, so you don't have to apply to the court for leave for judicial review, you just apply directly to the court for an usual administrative order of the judicial review, and then the court will decide on the merits of the case, your name. Which means basically that if ministers commit infractions, no longer can the Attorney General put up the initial defense, but this is not a suitable matter for judicial review, and the courts have liberalized what you call local standard, they have liberalized the rights of complainants to appear before it. The courts are no longer interested in whether you really have a relevant interest in the matter to bring the matter to court, I mean yes, I mean when you consider what happened in the Rochamel case and then counsel brought a challenge on the Rochamel case, we had to go through these processes, whether leave should be granted and of course the government has decided whether they oppose the grant of leave and up, but then it was a procedural safe guard that prevented busy bodies from going to the courts and arguing all kinds of specious cases. So now the doors are wide open and this is a problem with this because you see once you ascribe the force of law, then what it does mean is that if you're not going to keep your commitments in respect of these various protocols, then you are open to be challenged. That's the implication, but there's a deeper problem for me, Mr. Speaker, and it is this, we all know that what was agreed in Paris is not been implemented by nations. We know that for a fact. We know that there have been several agreements protocol after protocol, but nations are not observing or implementing or ascribing any importance to a lot of these protocols. So what are you going to do? Because the reality is that we are ascribing to ourselves a seriousness because nations want us to do it to show that we're serious about climate change, but they themselves are not observing those protocols and we have gone to the extreme now of saying these things have the force of law in our country and it binds the crown. Now again, I don't know what the philosophy is and I regret I didn't have a chance to do the kind of reflection, but then I am just saying that these issues that we need to think about very carefully when we are attempting to impose those conventions on our country and ascribing to a legislative force. And I don't know, we were talking about memory today, we have been chatting about memory and so on, and I don't know if my former cabinet colleagues will remember that whenever and I see the minister of external affairs is looking at me intently, he has a way, when he suspects I'm about to touch on some matter, touching his ministry, he looks at me intently and asks him to say now what are you going to come in with or what is it you're going to tell me, etc. He abandons his aviation posture. He is no longer preparing to land or anything like that or looking to the skies to determine which airplane is going to land, he looks at me, but only I'm going to make a simple non-contentious point and that was that if you remember very well, whenever he presented one of those conventions to cabinet for approval, he always met in me a certain reluctance to go along with it and to approve it and put it into law. So this is nothing new I'm saying, it's been an article of faith because I used to resent the fact that these international obligations were putting obligations on small states like ours and we did not have the resources to satisfy or meet these obligations because we were being oppressed by these larger states. It's nothing new to me but my article of faith, that's what I believe and I just think we have to be exceedingly careful, true, true, very true as a speaker. When countries see this and they look at St. Lucia and they say that is the example we want, that is the right example, St. Lucia is leading the way. The question is at what cost, that's the issue. So Mr. Speaker, I have a few little reservations. The third thing I want to say and this one perhaps the Attorney General may want to reflect on this. Mr. Speaker, I believe that some of the objectives are very, very laudable. I really, really, really do. If you look at clause 4 this speaker, it has a compendium of sub-provisions and look at it. It says in clause 4D, the purpose of this act are to support the integration of climate change considerations into existing and new sectoral laws, policies, strategies, plans, standards, guidelines, criteria, programs, projects and processes. That institutes measures to reduce the vulnerability of the people and ecosystems to the adverse effects of climate change and you can go on a very laudable. Now if you look at the functions of the department which have been very carefully, very carefully worded, the department functions, as you will see Mr. Speaker, says without prejudice to the functions of another ministry or department, careful wording, the functions of the department are and then they go through it in some detail. Really interesting and if you look at G, formulate and review policies and guidelines for climate change and measures and actions, A on climate change, mitigation, adaptation, climate displacement, loss and damage, planned relocation to encourage scientific and technological research, the development, transfer and deployment of technologies, equipment and processes for climate change, mitigation and adaptation and I mean this is very all embracing and then if you go down to H, in the case of green gas emission reduction, incidentally I want to tease the minister in a few minutes, a range of things, provision is made in J for collaboration, K, L, M, N, O, P. Now I tell you what bothers me Mr. Speaker, I tell you what bothers me, there is absolutely no reference, no guidance on the issue of physical infrastructure to deal with the vulnerability of climate change. We are not closing the department with the power to recommend even policies on infrastructure and physical development to deal with issues of climate change. Now you will tell me in response, the drafters will tell me in response but I just like to make noise, all of that is implied, all of that is implied in the legislation in typical K and N, it is not there, you don't need it because it's implied, that is a usual response but let me give a warning to this house, I am in the Court's delusion, I have had the experience in a labor matter where when the labor act was being presented, there was a section in that labor act that on presentation I indicated that the intention of a specific provision was that issues that employees, employees of public authorities like statutory boards, castries, constituency council would be exempted from the provisions of the Labor Act in respect of matters of their termination and discipline, they are not public officers and for those purposes, they are not to be treated, sorry, they are to be treated as public, the other way around, they are to be treated as public authorities or public servants or employees of the Crown and therefore these matters should not be handled by the Labor Commissioner or in fact the Labor Tribunal, the Court said that's not the meaning of the section and you know that, of course I went on to win the case subsequently and the person whom I represented was able to secure reasonable damages for the wrong that had been committed and what struck me was that there was Parliament in its deliberation saying well that's what the section means, that is what we intend and the Court is telling you no, you are wrong, that's not what and what is worse is that I sat on the chair and I was the one pointing out what the section was intended to do, we go tell a judge and by the way you was a very bright judge, we go tell him, you then go and sit down and tell him but your order, I was in Parliament, I'm the one who presented the legislation, I didn't mean to say that and I told my colleagues that's not what it meant, you're going to put that in the Court, of course you can appeal the decision but as you know sometimes you have to live with decisions, you know that are wrong because the client just don't have the where it's all, sometimes you have to fight on principle but it's not a lot of time I have the energy to fight on principle Mrs. Speaker, don't look at the clock Mrs. Speaker, I think it's a critical and crucial issue, it is to the credit of this government Mrs. Speaker and it goes back to our tenure in 2011 that we have been building for example climate resilient bridges in this country, we took a decision, we made a decision in 2011 that any bridge to be built in St. Lucia must satisfy climate resilience because we can no longer afford a situation where bridges were being torn asunder by rising waters, beaded rivers or otherwise and you saw that policy being given expression in the bridge Water Wash, two bridges, Grand Riviera, the Alba Bridge, the Tamazo Bridge, that policy being in the PI Bridge when I signed the agreement for the PI Bridge, also when I signed the agreement with then Prime Minister of Japan for that bridge that is in Kalisak and I've told the minister I hope we have the courage to name that bridge after the Prime Minister involved Shinzo Abe because of that very generous grant, Japan deserves it because of the investment they have made and I hope we can name the bridge after him the Shinzo Abe Bridge because it is a fascinating piece of architecture for a nice bridge I can't see much for the road next to it but now and now that new generation of bridges apart from PI we now have canaries and hopefully ancillary and you know this speaker I mean I heard members waxing eloquently today and some made references constantly about the future which we have to talk about all the time but and we do things as politicians and people don't understand why they'd all appreciate the value of it I mean but something will happen sometime that suddenly will resonate and people will see the importance of what we do you know you must never give up never ever give up never ever give up don't give up on people no matter how cruel they are to you and how abusive they are to you don't give up on them never ever do that you are your own politician and you don't understand but it's all right they'll come around and they'll understand someday so they're beginning to understand those very bridges yeah everybody's praising the PI Bridge because of the cultural symbols quite rightly everybody's to be applauded for that I think is a step in the right direction and the minister of tourism said it right that we have to allow our personalities to come through the architecture of our buildings of course I know I'll have more to say on that in due course and I may say on something that unpleasant but it'll be consistent with that philosophy that being said mr speaker um I do not believe a matter as important as that should be left to the ministry of planning you see that ministry of planning I don't believe a matter like that should be left to them um I wish we could have had a debate on the ministry of department of department of physical planning and the planning authorities in this country I wish we would have had a debate on that something will happen for us to have a debate to have a discussion on that department but that should not be left to them because you see in this bill um we are the minister has correctly understood he has a minefield he can't dictate he can't direct to ministries but what he has done skillfully and this drafter may have helped him on this occasion so I applaud the drafter is to allow him or her the authority and the power to make prescriptions to issue to issue guidelines now what I'm saying is that either the department under the provisions governing the department maybe a gentle amendment could be made um to say something like um that the department will issue guidelines for physical infrastructure in vulnerable um in vulnerable um areas of some such things some such language something like this and that physical infrastructure should not just be roads and bridges but also should be buildings now I believe that the member of a castries north is getting my drift because you can't tell me in this age of climate change you're going to put up a wasco building with glass if you vote south next to a major beach how you justify that how do you justify that now mr speaker the minister is absolutely correct mr speaker to identify if you fought as a vulnerable area and I have spoken about this matter before I don't know if we're taking this seriously you know I don't know if slasper is taking it seriously I really don't know I don't know if investment which is taking this matter very seriously I don't know how many people know how many feet above the um sea level before that section in the world radius and how vulnerable it is and the member for castries is will tell you when you are minister of infrastructure that he had a taste for it when we had that famous weather system that tore apart what viewportions insist must be maintained as part of their patrimony the concrete road left to sandy beach that the former prime minister was intent on destroying because he had to teach viewportions a lesson the fact that the matter mr speaker is this no infrastructure should ever be allowed on sandy beach or that area close to sandy beach tourism or no tourism that should be a no building zone period the minister speaks of decades I think he's wrong I think he's wrong the effects of rising waters will be sooner than their kids and before it will be the first to suffer as a matter of fact I am saying now that as part of the process of our forward thinking to deal with issues of climate change we should prepare a relocation plan for the inhabitants of viewport whether you don't do it tomorrow is done the day after but land should be reserved to move the people of viewport from that piece of land between the area of mula chic and of course going beyond the airport to viewport north that is what forward thinking means and that is what adaptation and that is what resilience means and that is what it means prepared for climate change god forbid god forbid that we have to face a major earthquake and the people i don't know mr speaker whether i'll be alive when these things happen i don't know the rate at which things are going i'm a little mortified these days but you know mr speaker um these are things these are realities we have to come face to face too we shouldn't be putting any more buildings so close to that area rather what we should be doing is to protect it to the best of our abilities and the northern part of the runway is particularly susceptible that i'm not too sure that a good job is being done to maintain it i've raised this matter with the ministry of infrastructure i've raised this last one but you know slasper don't take me on no no no i've been telling them to clean up they invested lucid to clean up the road leading to the airport it can't be right that the people upset lucid have to be driving along a road like that and the road is in that state with all kind of old buildings all kind of vehicles at the side of the road on the way to international airport but you know they leave it there but you know i'll tell you something i have what two and a half years ago two and a half years ago there's ten there's ten you know there comes a time when you're tired of talking and talking and talking and talking mr speaker i spoke about the value of repetition this morning you see i'm raising this issue all the time which one which part i'm referring to i am referring to that section from the quarry going driving into the airport on the right side i have asked for that quarry to be closed down because of the damages doing to the health of the people of your fault when i had the pleasure to serve as a prime minister this country i ordered to be closed they closed it the next government came in they probably reopened it they have disfigured that mountain that mountain was part of the patrimony of you thought they didn't figure it and you must think i must be emotional about these things because you warn them you talk to them you talk well you know and and and the minister who's responsible for plan please tell the ministry of planning i don't want no more billboards in you forth is this figuring my constituency i'm fed up with the billboards go and put the billboards in other constituencies that want decorations take them out i don't know whether it's labry or mikus south or north or whatever the case is but take out the billboards from my constituency now mr speaker i hope what i'm trying to say is understood and maybe the minister in his reply will say to me i must not worry because now that i have this legislation i have prepared mitigation plans but we have to begin to think further and that is why i have to say to the member for castries is i am so petrified about the future and the safety of give an orange international airport that's why we have to make wise decisions regarding the expansion of the airport and when you see a terminal building was being put in an exact area which used to be an old river water course it has to be madness utter madness that is why you have the back and day in the state that it is because water continues to leak from the river beneath the airport finding itself over there that's why that place can never dry remember for labry understands what i'm talking about because in his weather days when he has to work at the airport in his border means to look across it back and then the river there to be distracted not so i know your habits but these are the realities that we face that means that mr speaker and i hope the attorney general will just take that comment in strad and see whether we're gonna it doesn't have to be done today but there are ways of doing it you think about it and maybe it can be done in the senate but at least a provision to enhance the capacity of the department to give guidelines regarding physical infrastructure including buildings roads bridges etc you cannot leave those things and don't tell me it's implied because the implication is not strong enough and section 25 where we come to that in a minute i'll come there in a minute so you understand mr speaker what i'm trying to because we haven't started we have in fact started to practice some of those things when we build this new generation i call them a new generation a new generation of bridges and you have seen the evidence of it every time i pass on the alba bridge i marvel at it well it's in your it is in your constituency but i remember it was the then minister of infrastructure who was faithful to the discussions we had regarding this new generation of bridges and he was criticized a lot but everybody applauded that bridge today everybody now i want to go briefly to clause 18 let's just speak to take a look at clause 18 the department shall in collaboration with the committee coordinate the development of climate change adaptation policy every 10 years now that can be for real because climate change issues are developing so rapidly that i mean you really this is something that should be looked at every two three years and i don't know if this slip this slip the minister i don't know if it slipped the the minister and look at it is reproducing clause 19 the department shall coordinate the development and updating of a national adaptation plan at least every 10 years you become obsolete but then you you would be up totally totally obsolete what i find the act does is to perhaps give an institutional focus onto itself and maybe there's excessive institutional focus so that these vital things are looked at now a little perhaps destruction take a look at clause 21 greenhouse and before we vote south you are 15 minutes left how many more 1515 okay i have a speaker i didn't realize i spoke for an hour time has a way almost an hour but anyway i'll come to that take a look at clause 21 the department shall after consultation with the committee and other experts keep and maintain agreed house gas inventory the greenhouse gas inventory on the subsection one must show a theoretical estimate of human induced emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse greenhouse gases i know this is very interesting because how are you how are you really going to go about measuring emissions in seclusion and determine the human contribution to it because i mean the reality is that what we are suffering basically um it's because of emissions induced by the developed countries they're the cause of our problems you know we are making things worse by some of the things that we do here in silocia and i'm happy you mentioned the issue of replanting trees and you have to hurry up about it when we were when i had the honor to be in the former governments i kept on pushing replanting trees plant more mahogany trees plant more teak do so quickly let the young people go in the forest and plant trees the fellas who are roman have nothing to do give them plants send them in the forest the country with trees please they bought they have nothing to do send them in the forest give them a pickaxe give them a good spade and so on and let them go and plant some trees spend a hundred two hundred thousand dollars why because this country is needed because of the damage caused by bananas you're running away from the damage caused by bananas the contamination of our water table is due to the banana industry and we don't want to talk about it but we have to replant the trees that they destroy now i'm asking how do you measure these emissions now on a lighter note on a lighter note i know of course a lot of problems we have with methane gas it's produced by cattle dung isn't it and in europe there is a big movement a huge movement to reduce the consumption of cattle of a beef so as to cut back on the emissions because they are the most efficient producers of emissions the member for mikus so check the member for um souffle mrs because she's looking at me and asked me where get that from she has not did you know that did you know that you didn't know that cattle is a major cause of emissions the dung cattle dung yeah i wish you in my classroom yeah it's a major cause and you know what i wanted i said to myself we do not we do not is not so so why are you pushing cattle production i'm just teasing we do not have the population of cattle in seducia to be alarmed about but i'm just saying to you that in a couple years time the onslaught against cattle production will commence you know i i envisage a time in the next 10 15 years when human beings will be asked to consume leaves alone human beings leaves but you're already doing so eating cabbage eating lettuce yes fellas already tell you um you have to try as part of your your diet your your your your your your diet um potato leaves in africa potato leaves is a big part of the diet in africa they take the potato leaves the sweet potato leaves and they stew it nicely you know with a little seasoning pepper and a little oil and you'd be amazed when you eat it you never think you are eating have you tried it of course i did i do it at home have you tried it but when you go to africa spend your time wisely and look at some of the and look at some of the dietary practices because you see that's going to be the reality and i did tell you that this is a moment of liberty but it's a very serious matter because it is not that methane gas is a problem here in seducia but what is going to happen outside in the wider world will eventually go into going to impact but minister politics we have to learn to laugh in politics there are moments of levity we need to do that how are you going to sell a message to cattle farmers that they are catalyst producing methane and how are you going to tell them how are you going to tell them well you know on a more serious note might maybe you might have been helped in a way you did not realize the member for nico south he destroyed the cattle industry in viewport remember that viewport is no longer the primary producer of cattle in this country because of what they did that's a tragedy and i have endless elderly farmers on my hands whose livelihoods have been destroyed by it and we we don't take those things seriously but you know when they try to explain to him and the people of seducia the enormity of the damage unleashed on the people of seducia they don't take it seriously take it as a joke but he destroyed it he destroyed the cattle farmers if you thought so maybe you have been helped indirectly and you didn't know but that's the reality of the situation so mr speaker that being said i want to just mention briefly clause 22 and just to emphasize the point i made earlier if you look at clause 22 it says the department shall after consultation with the committee another expert set the greenhouse gas emission tar reduction target it is a clause perhaps like this that might be useful in respect of the guidelines when i speak of building of future buildings and infrastructure in other words the capacity to issue guidelines about these buildings that becomes enforceable now there is a possibility as the member for migo south said under clause 25 there's a possibility because i have if you look at my copy here it is marked mr telegeneral clause 25 says the minister of main consultation with the relevant minister develops standards and codes of practice as required to accelerate the response to climate change in accordance with the provisional now drafters love this kind of provision because they get away with all their sins they always tell you that there's a provision to cover nonsense nonsense it is nonsense mr speaker because they know full well that no recourse will ever had to deal with specific ministries or specific entities under this they tell you the general power is there nonsense if my point resonates with uber certainly general what you can do if you like is to amend this and put in a clause there to deal with this issue of physical it is too important to allow i'm undefined and unregulated in this the minister and his committees will never do what i'm talking about and this is too vague to allow this to happen and i really want to urge the speaker in all seriousness that that something be done in that regard and this is too vague but i know the speaker whenever i stand up to speak about legislation the people in my own party attack me and criticize me you know not answer speaker you tell me oh i come to parliament i come to criticize the government why didn't i tell the government that before and i know there are even other colleagues who share that kind of view let me tell you all something you see it was careful you never know who you're talking to you go and sit down at a dinner in one hotel or elsewhere and you talk and talk you don't know who you're talking to you don't know who is the relative of who you don't know who is the friend of who you don't know who went to bed with who that's the harsh reality of your society so when you see i come in this chamber and i make oblique references you'll feel that i don't know you'll feel because i said that i'm not aware of it but you know speaker it reflects so many things the lack of understanding of the role of a back bencher in the parliament lack of appreciation sometimes to understand that some points don't come to you immediately that it takes a little while before and it and it is not intended to more than assault on the government or the attorney general of the minister these are those things along the passage of time you pick up so this is because i am actually applaud the legislation the minister is creating a bureaucracy it is true and i don't like bureaucracy i have attacked bureaucracy that we love towards bureaucracy he's creating a bureaucracy but then he has to make a start and i hope that as time goes along he may want to make adjustments because you see bureaucracy is our enemy it is our enemy enemy everything in san lusiano because you know why we don't trust each other no more we have lost the ability of good administration so everything we want is rules and procedure i'm sure you are victim of that in your ministry yes yes you want advice but you'll never come to me for advice because what i tell you you wouldn't want to follow it but that's the reality that we have in this country so it is in a sense that bureaucracy is creating but an understandable bureaucracy but minimize future problems by getting it right we have to tackle this problem of infrastructure in this country and trust me well if we do so you will give confirmation that as a government we were ahead of our ahead of our time this labor party has always been ahead of its time that's one of the strengths we have had and when i hear all of you you don't realize it but you're confirming we are ahead of our time when we gave out laptops we were ahead of our time we understood where these things were going we understood where the world was going when we decided to fight cable and wireless and decentralized communications and create a competitive environment we were ahead of our time remember for south yes i'm ahead of my time five minutes to conclude your presentation i'm ahead of my time speaker all i'm saying to my colleagues please confirm we are ahead of our time and let's continue to live ahead of our time by doing what is right and doing what is bold thank you mr speaker