Page 4995 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
happening and what action will be taken, we will also have the minister setting out what the government believes the costs of any action that will be taken will be for households and businesses. This is important—that with any action that is taken, the government is up front and clear about what the costs are so that the community have the opportunity to judge it on its merits, to consider the environmental benefits versus the cost that they will bear. That is reasonable for all manner of government policies, but it is particularly important here, in taking measures to reduce emissions, that we always consider the costs on households and businesses.
There is no doubt that cost-of-living issues are increasingly important to Canberrans. Despite a strong economy in the ACT and nationally, we know that there are significant cost pressures. We have seen costs rise in all manner of areas. We know that many families, even those on reasonable incomes, are struggling to make ends meet. This is an accountability measure that we believe very strongly in. We believe that ministers and governments should have to set it out. They should be up-front; they should not try to sneak costs in. They should tell the community what their actions will cost.
MR CORBELL: (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.06): The government will be supporting Mr Rattenbury’s amendment. It does provide a reasonable framework for the government to explain why certain targets have or have not been met and what the circumstances surrounding those factors are.
In relation to Mr Seselja’s amendment to Mr Rattenbury’s amendment, the government does not agree with and will not support it. The reason for that is that a range of measures will obviously need to be deployed to achieve target outcomes—the targets set out in this legislation. Some of those will involve the use of resources through the budget, and there is ample opportunity for the Assembly to scrutinise the cost and benefits of those measures through those mechanisms. Others will occur through legislative provisions, and equally there is ample opportunity for the Assembly to conduct appropriate scrutiny on the costs and benefits of those measures.
So we do not believe that this is required in legislation. Indeed, the minister’s statement is not necessarily going to deal with each and every specific policy measure or response required to achieve a particular outcome. That would be dealt with through broader mechanisms of the budget or specific pieces of legislation that come before this place. In those circumstances, there is a wide range of opportunities available to non-government members to scrutinise those proposals, to put the ruler over them and to ask questions about costs and benefits. We believe that that is where that action should occur.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.08): The Greens will not be supporting Mr Seselja’s amendment. We believe that, particularly if you look at part (b) of the proposed amendment, this provision is about reporting the broad outcomes; it is about directions. This is a debate we will have with regard to a couple of Mr Seselja’s amendments this morning, but the purpose of this bill, broadly speaking, is to set a policy direction. It is not a mechanism; it does not set out the detailed policy programs.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video