Page 4861 - Week 11 - Thursday, 21 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Le Couteur): Yes. Mr Corbell, I suggest that you may wish to withdraw.
MR CORBELL: I withdraw any suggestion that Mr Seselja is engaging in a fraud, but the argument is fraudulent; it is completely fraudulent. This suggestion that 30 per cent is good—no pain for the community, no cost, and no issues with that—but 40 per cent is incredibly bad and dangerous is fraudulent. It just shows how insincere this opposition is on this issue.
Let us get to the facts of what analysis has been done to date on achieving emissions reduction. And let us understand what Mr Seselja’s 30 per cent will entail. The government has commissioned three studies to identify opportunities for achieving emissions reduction. These include work undertaken by Heuris Partners, commissioned in October last year; work undertaken by Heuris Partners again, in May this year, on gap analysis and opportunity identification; and work undertaken by the firm Kinesis in December last year as a primer for the development of action plan 2.
What all those studies identified was this. About half of the 40 per cent reduction is achievable in the following areas: energy efficiency, eight per cent; solar hot water, a further four per cent—and the next couple are the kickers for Mr Seselja—green power purchase, three per cent; feed-in tariff, six per cent; and modal shift, sustainable transport, vehicles and mode shift, four per cent.
We have just heard Mr Seselja rant on about how, to get from 30 to 40, we are going to have to put up parking prices, pay more for electricity et cetera. Mr Seselja, to get to your 30 per cent you are going to need to do all of those things. You are going to need to do them all, Mr Seselja.
And then you are going to need to do further actions. According to the studies identified and commissioned by the government, you are going to need a further 10 per cent reduction in emissions through the adoption of technologies including trigeneration and energy from waste technologies. You are going to need a three per cent reduction through policy interventions such as employee density and biosequestration. And you are going to need additional purchases of green power.
So let us be very clear about this. Mr Seselja’s 30 per cent is not just energy efficiency, as he likes to claim. In fact, energy efficiency is only eight per cent of his 30 per cent target. He will need to spend money and make policy intervention in solar hot water, in green power purchase, in utilisation of the feed-in tariff and in modal shift. He will need to do all of those things. So his argument is fraudulent.
We have heard Mr Seselja go out day after day and say, “We are adopting a responsible target of 30 per cent and we will achieve it through energy efficiency.” He only gets eight per cent of his 30 per cent through energy efficiency. He only gets eight per cent. Where is the other 22 per cent coming from, Mr Seselja? Where is it coming from? His argument is fraudulent. It is fraudulent and it is a big lie. It is a big lie.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video