Page 4919 - Week 11 - Thursday, 21 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
of the most expensive ways of reducing emissions that you could possibly imagine. It is one of the most expensive ways you could possibly do it, and they choose that. They make that their flagship—the flagship of their policy.
When Mr Corbell was asked about it today in question time he would not address it. He could not address it. He was saying, “You have got to look at all the costs.” Yes, you do. There are lots of ways of cutting emissions, but this government choose something that is 10 or 20 times as expensive as other measures—not just a little bit more expensive but significantly more. If that is going to be the attitude, if that is going to be the way—and if they are seriously going to achieve six per cent of their 40 per cent target through a scheme which is so expensive—then indeed the costs will be greater than we would have even anticipated.
There are lots of ways to do this. You have got to set a reasonable target and then you have got to find the best ways of getting there. This government has shown, through its actions and through its rhetoric, that it does not look for the most cost-effective ways. Indeed, it often pursues some of the most expensive ways to do it. There will be a cost.
There are two factors here and there are two reasons why we differ significantly. The target has to be reasonable, not pursued through blind ideology. And the method of getting there has to be efficient and effective. The government, through their support for this and through their actions, fail on both counts—as do the Greens. They fail on both counts. These debates show just how little regard they have for what this costs the community, just how little regard they have in pursuing this target. They will pursue it at any costs. The costs will not be to them; the costs will be borne by all Canberrans.
I commend the amendment to the Assembly and I look forward to further debate on this issue.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (5.03): I am conscious that we need to progress the debate on the amendments and I will be brief, but there are a couple of comments that Mr Seselja has made that must be answered for the purposes of this debate.
Once again, we do not hear from Mr Seselja how he believes he will achieve 30 per cent. He keeps running away from that debate. How is he going to achieve 30 per cent? He talks about all the terrible measures, in his mind, that will need to be applied to reach 40, but how is he going to reach 30? He has been out there fraudulently presenting to the people of Canberra that he can get it through energy efficiency, and he is wrong, because he can only get eight per cent of his 30 per cent through energy efficiency. How is he going to get the remainder? How is he going to achieve it?
The fact is that a significant element of achieving 30 or 40 will need to be achieved through the sourcing of alternative energy supply—energy which is not generated from fossil fuels. That is the truth. That is the fact that he has to face up to. There is no way—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video