Page 4986 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the Assembly. I would also say that if our amendment is successful, we would be happy to support Mr Rattenbury’s amendment.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (10.24): The government’s view is that the amendment proposed by Mr Seselja is too restrictive. The government would prefer not to be bound by a particular time frame in relation to that. It has always been the intention of the government to establish a renewable energy target and that is why the government is prepared to support the amendment proposed by Mr Rattenbury.
But the amendment proposed by Mr Seselja is, in our view, restrictive. It may be the fact that other policy development requires the establishment of a renewable energy target at a date beyond six months, obviously during this term, but beyond the six-month period. There may be other factors or policy considerations that come into play and in those circumstances we do not believe we should be locked into that particular time frame.
Whilst the government accepts the proposal to mandate the establishment of a renewable energy target through Mr Rattenbury’s amendment, we do not agree to the time frame proposed by the opposition.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (10.25): We will be supporting Mr Seselja’s amendment. I have heard what the attorney has said but I think that this has been in the pipe for a long time. We have been waiting a long time for an energy policy and I think that having a specific and accountable time frame will provide some focus here.
I think it is interesting that we have not seen a similar amendment on the energy efficiency target. I am not sure what the thinking is there—what the difference is between the two. It may well be that an energy efficiency target is a bit more complex. They are certainly less common as far as I am aware. It may take a little more time to work that one out. Probably there is merit in having some difference there. But we will be supporting Mr Seselja’s amendment.
Mr Seselja’s amendment agreed to.
Mr Rattenbury’s amendment, as amended, agreed to.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (10.26): I move amendment No 3 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 5086].
This is a very simple and essentially consequential amendment of the amendment just agreed to. I think it is self-explanatory in that sense.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (10.27): We will support the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video