Page 4858 - Week 11 - Thursday, 21 October 2010

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

Question put:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 10		Noes 6
Mr Barr	Mr Hargreaves	Mr Coe	Mr Smyth
Ms Bresnan	Ms Hunter	Mr Doszpot
Ms Burch	Ms Le Couteur	Mrs Dunne
Mr Corbell	Ms Porter	Mr Hanson
Ms Gallagher	Mr Rattenbury	Mr Seselja

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Detail stage

Clauses 1 to 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 7.

MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (12.08): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 4935].

This amendment which I am moving is, I suppose, at the heart of the difference in approach to this. This amendment would omit 40 per cent as the target and replace it with a target of 30 per cent. We believe that this would be the sensible way forward, the correct way forward. It would be a target that shows leadership, that sees the ACT make some changes to the way we do business. We would increase energy efficiency; we would improve public transport. We would change the way we plan our city in terms of having more density in our town centres and our transport corridors.

We do not believe that Canberrans should be subjected to a regime which would deliver the kind of pain which the 40 per cent target will deliver for the environmental benefit which we do not believe will flow as a result. It is all well and good for the Labor Party and the Greens to say that we need to be well ahead of everyone else. But there is a reason why governments need to consider this very carefully. There is a reason why even Kevin Rudd, who declared climate change to be the greatest moral challenge of our time, did not go to a 40 per cent target.

There was a range of targets under Kevin Rudd, and he settled on a five per cent unconditional target. That may increase depending on what happens internationally, and we hope that it does. But there is a reason why even a true believer like Kevin Rudd did not do it. I have no reason to believe that Kevin Rudd did not mean it when he said that he believed it to be the greatest moral challenge of our time. Obviously, there was an understanding that there are significant costs, and that is why the government did not go ahead with a 40 per cent target federally.

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