Page 2628 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 2 July 2008

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

planning; I really do. These arguments have been run by this opposition ad nauseam, and they have got absolutely nowhere.

MR SPEAKER: The time for this discussion has expired.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Seselja’s) be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the negative.

Electricity Feed-in (Renewable Energy Premium) Bill 2008

Detail stage

Clause 11.

Debate resumed.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12.

MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella) (4.55): I move amendment No 12 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 2654].

This amendment includes a new subclause in clause 12 of the bill, which provides for review of the act at least every five years after commencement. The new subclause requires consideration of the impact to customers of costs passed on under the act and whether these costs are equitable.

DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (4.56): While I support this, I am concerned that we have got an ambiguous phrase here. I understand that Mr Stanhope was concerned about the equity issues surrounding this bill, as were the Greens. However, I do not understand why the government could not, in this case, support my amendments to be moved regarding concessions. In our office we thought long and hard about these equity issues and consulted quite a number of groups in our community about them. The Greens believe that we must fight climate change in an equitable fashion so that no group suffers. The amendments that we are proposing today, we think, address these concerns equitably. I have already been told the government will not be supporting our amendments, and I will not oppose this amendment in that case.

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .