Page 3541 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
generators besides the ones that get the government’s handouts. Indeed, the chief executive of the Energy Supply Association said the coalition plan could get rid of the highest emitting of Australia’s 33 coal-fired power plants, but that it would need to be followed by a carbon price to prevent investments in inefficient and more expensive stopgap technologies. Tony Abbott’s denial—and listen to this—
Mr Seselja: Madam Assistant Speaker, a point of order on relevance.
MR RATTENBURY: Can we have the clock stopped, please?
Mr Seselja: I am not sure this is sticking anywhere near to the points that are in the motion. You might want to direct Mr Rattenbury to return to it.
MR RATTENBURY: On the point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker. Can we have the clock stopped, please? He is running my time down.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Stop the clock. First of all, members, it is not mandatory to stop the clock. It is something that is done at the discretion of the chair. It is absolutely unedifying—and I have witnessed it a lot today—to have members shouting out across the chamber to stop the clock. It has been unedifying. On Mr Seselja’s point of order, the wording at the beginning of the motion relates to the cost of living pressures on Canberra’s families. I would ask you, Mr Rattenbury, to be relevant to the motion.
MR RATTENBURY: On the point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker, Mr Seselja’s motion specifically refers to utilities. Mr Seselja’s motion specifically refers to electricity costs. I was speaking directly to a quote from the Energy Supply Association of Australia, a well-known stakeholder in the electricity industry, about the impact of the federal coalition’s policies on electricity prices. It is directly relevant to Mr Seselja’s motion because we are debating electricity prices.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: I draw your attention to the terms of the motion, and I will ask you to speak to the terms of the motion, Mr Rattenbury. Can you start the clock?
MR RATTENBURY: What else is there to say, Madam Assistant Speaker? You have made your very clear position. At the end of the day, this is a preposterous motion. It is going to get the vote it deserves.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Rattenbury, would you like to withdraw that assertion about the operation of the chair?
Mr Hanson: What was the assertion?
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: The assertion was that he had nothing else to say and that I had made my position very clear. That is unacceptable and I seek you to withdraw it now.
MR RATTENBURY: I was being quite literal, Madam Assistant Speaker. You made your position perfectly clear. I was unable to continue with that point, so there was
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video