Page 4996 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Any sort of cost-benefit analysis needs to be done on specific initiatives rather than on a broad statement about where the government is going or what it is planning to do. Those specific initiatives will be debated at different times. With regard to making such a statement in this sort of context, I think it is not the appropriate place to be specifically debating issues about the financial impacts of particular provisions or particular initiatives. As I say, I think that later in the debate we will come back to this with regard to some of the other amendments Mr Seselja is proposing.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.09): We are again seeing, from the failure of the government and the Greens to support this amendment, the lack of regard that is had to the cost implications of many of these policies. We simply cannot proceed on the basis of whatever it takes; we have to take a cautious and prudent approach. That should involve being open and up front with the community about what the costs of these measures will be.
Mr Rattenbury’s comments in response undermine the strength of what 11A, his original amendment, is meant to do. Mr Rattenbury is suggesting in his statement that it is simply a broad outline. But 11A(2)(b) ensures that the minister sets out what action will be taken to meet any subsequent target, including how the action will differ from any action that was taken for the target that was not met. Is Mr Rattenbury now suggesting that that is just going to be broad-brush stuff rather than an opportunity for us to actually hear at that moment what are some of the measures that are going to be taken? I think that undermines the credibility of the original amendment.
Not supporting the simple amendment that would keep this minister accountable and require the minister to tell the community the costs of the actions his government is proposing to take again shows the disdain of the Greens and the Labor Party in relation to the cost implications of these policies. We cannot proceed blindly following a target, pretending that there are no costs, hoping that no-one notices or suggesting that any cost is reasonable because that is all that is left.
In line with our earlier amendments, the legislation we have put forward and the position we have taken, we believe that, in taking action to reduce emissions, the costs on households and businesses should always be paramount.
We see parallels with the approach taken by the federal government on the Murray-Darling. There is this situation where you can pretend that you will consider the health of the river and the environment without considering the economic and social impacts of any actions that are taken. You cannot and you should not. The government have had to very quickly back down federally from what they were pursuing there.
Likewise, with our targets we cannot simply ignore the consequences. We cannot ignore the financial consequences; we cannot ignore the other consequences of these actions. We should, in an open, honest and mature way, say, “These are the proposed environmental benefits and these are the likely costs.” If we do not, the government, in doing that, is seeking to hoodwink the community and hide the true cost of this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video