Hot on the heels of the City of Unley debating Climate Emergency, the Local Government Association had its own debate. At their Annual General Meeting yesterday they debated the motion below.
The motion was modified slightly during the debate. The following clause was added.
As happened earlier in the week at the City of Unley Council meeting the motion failed. It failed I suggest for a similar reason.
The word “climate emergency” was again the hiccup.
There is also a fear among many in Local Government regarding a declaration of an emergency. Like with Unley, it is a fear of being an easy target for litigation. Because someone could sue a Council because they believe action is not following the words quickly enough.
Many speakers spoke along this vein.
There was a widespread acceptance during the debate of items 2 through 5 of the motion. These clauses were related to taking tangible action as one Mayor noted. What we would do, as opposed to what we need to say.
One Mayor spoke similarly to my language yesterday of walking the walk as opposed to talking the talk. Another Mayor compared this to State Parliament passing laws that they cannot police. Yet another suggested that we should not vote on something that we do not know. I assume this refers to what the legal consequences might be in making such a decision.
Unlike Unley however, the failure of this motion did not bring about an alternative motion. The meeting procedures prevented suggestions from the floor that may have prevented that. This included suggestions such as whether the motion could be split into two. Likewise, whether item 1 could be excluded. Or to bring an amended motion without notice should this motion fail.
That was disappointing because (at the LGA level) there is now, not only, no talk but no “walk to boot”.