Federal

Mar 22, 2018

The curious question of Kimberly Kitching

The senator, who has seen a rapid advancement up the ranks of Labor, brought an approach to questioning a Senate reference committee that left Defence representatives scratching their heads.

Charlie Lewis — Journalist

Charlie Lewis

Journalist

Mentee Labor Senator Kimberly Kitching (wife of long-time friend of Crikey Andrew Landeryou) is tipped to have a "meteoric rise" by many inside the party.

As Guy Rundle chronicled in these pages, Kitching's powerful political ties helped her into the Senate spot vacated by Stephen Conroy in 2016 and, according to recently departed Labor power broker Sam Dastyari, she's the only first-term backbencher who can expect visits from Shorten at her office in Canberra

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions

8 comments

Leave a comment

8 thoughts on “The curious question of Kimberly Kitching

  1. Pankration

    Presumably she meant to ask, “do nuclear-powered submarines cause less pollution?”

    1. Arky

      Or something broader about whether defence is tracking carbon footprints on a program by program or region by region basis, but then got sidetracked.

      It feels a bit cheap to lambast someone through verbatim quoting of someone stumbling through an off-the-cuff thought, frankly.

      1. MAC TEZ

        Would it still feel cheap if that off-the-cuff thought fell out of the mouth of Josh Frydenburg or better still, Sarah Hansen-Young ?
        I doubt it would trouble you at all,frankly.

    2. A.Blot

      You have to remember that she is a politician, they cannot speak in concise language, otherwise the general public would understand what they are actually doing.

  2. Roger Clifton

    Non-carbon military? If only it were true! The military of every nation is high on that nation’s list of carbon emitters. Although nuclear propulsion is efficient on large ships and icebreakers, it has a long way to go before it can replace all the fuel oil, diesel and jet fuel consumption at sea. U.S. Navy has reported that it is possible to synthesise jet fuel from an aircraft carrier’s nuclear electricity, yet it is more feasible on land than at sea.

    Submarines in our region are likely to remain diesel powered, as they are quieter than nuclear, with its noisy cooling system.

    Yes, emissions from our region would be lessened by the presence of any nuclear power plant. However the emissions quickly spread worldwide so the saving must be shared across the globe. For the same reason, the ultimate reduction to zero must be global.

  3. Woopwoop

    She came to wider public notice recently in a Good Weekend profile, apparently aimed at humanising her but not quite succeeding.
    Details can be revealing; it stated that at one point she had $6600 in unpaid parking fines. Perhaps she’s more suited to making the rules than to obeying them.

    1. Peter Wileman

      The she’s in the right place, ask Barnaby, Cash etc.

  4. AR

    You say ‘apparatchik’, I say ‘timeserver’ which is the essence of modern Labor.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...