Page 5006 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
this morning, that we have the ability to have someone from the social sector who has an understanding of the sector and is able to represent the interests of people who are disadvantaged, whether financially, socially, physically or otherwise. I think this is a broad-ranging amendment designed to capture anyone who faces disadvantage and to have their views represented in the climate change council. It is an important change and I commend it to the Assembly.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.51): I move an amendment to Mr Corbell’s proposed amendment [see schedule 9 at page 5095].
This amendment would simply take account of the fact that we ensure that lower and middle income families are represented. We believe that is reasonable. We believe that it will be all-encompassing and will also cover the disadvantaged groups which Mr Corbell refers to. It will actually go broader than what is being suggested. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.51): The government does not agree to Mr Seselja’s amendment, again for the reasons that we have put forward. This is actually a narrowing of the representation of people facing disadvantage. People can face disadvantage for a whole range of reasons. They can face disadvantage because they have a large family and face large energy and water costs. They can face disadvantage because they have an illness, for example, and they need to use a large amount of electricity because of support or other issues associated with their illness. Disadvantage can occur in a whole range of ways. We believe that for that reason it is best encapsulated in the terms proposed in my amendment and not in those proposed by Mr Seselja.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.52): The Greens will not be supporting Mr Seselja’s amendment. It is a slightly confusing point of debate here because my next amendment, No 19, picks up both this matter and Mr Corbell’s matter. In my amendment No 19 we refer to a person to represent people who are socially or financially disadvantaged. This picks up on the point that Mr Seselja’s amendment seems to make as well.
As I have touched on earlier today, we believe that climate change disproportionately affects particular groups in our society. In this legislation we want to be absolutely explicit about the fact that these are the people we are seeking to consider and that we have a particular emphasis on those people. I can perhaps best explain this by using an example. If electricity prices go up then those who are living at home, perhaps due to unemployment or because they have a disability, are likely to spend more on staying warm at home than those who have an office to go to. The opposite might be true in the summer period with cooling.
While it is true that young parents from a middle income bracket might also find themselves at home, particularly when looking after young children in those early years, the difference between those two families is that those in low income brackets do not have the money to cover the extra bill and do not have another breadwinner
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video