Page 5008 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
housing sector would be covered. We see them as critical players. The facts say that they are the critical players. They should therefore be on the council.
I note that the Greens, in foreshadowing their amendment, have taken the approach that they would not in any way negotiate on this. I think that is disappointing. Presumably they have done some deal with the government where the government will back their amendment. They certainly have not attempted to negotiate with us on this in any way. I commend my amendment. I think it is a significant improvement on what is being put forward by Mr Corbell.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.58): The government does not agree with Mr Seselja’s amendment and it will not support it. The reason for that is that, in relation to the proposal from the Liberal Party to include a person to represent the transport sector and a person to represent the housing sector, the government’s bill already makes provision for a person to represent the built environment. Obviously, the built environment includes housing, transport and all those elements of city construction, city activity, that are appropriately reflected. It is unnecessary. Mr Seselja is providing a level of specificity that is not required and which is appropriately captured through the provision of someone to represent the built environment.
The other point I would make is that the bill makes provision for at least five and not more than nine members to be appointed to the council by the minister. Only six persons are specified as having to have particular interests represented. Only six areas of specific interest have to be represented in those appointments and those are listed in (i) to (vi). That would still leave three members that the minister could appoint effectively as members at large without having to represent particular interests or come from particular backgrounds.
That would allow for other interests or particular perspectives that the minister determined as being necessary to be represented. But it also ignores the fact that it could very well be the case that people who are appointed to the council may be able to represent more than one of these particular elements already. For example, someone who represents the built environment may also be someone who represents the interests of business because they come from, say, a successful architecture firm or a successful construction company here in the territory.
Equally, someone who represents climate change science may also be someone with environmental management skills and, therefore, those two criteria would be met. It is not uncommon to find people appointed to government bodies who bring more than one particular area of expertise in terms of requirements to provide for certain perspectives to be represented in an act. The government does not agree with the limiting in the way proposed by the Liberal Party.
In relation to retail electricity suppliers, why is it just retail electricity suppliers? Why is it not generators? Why is it not renewable energy generators, for example? Why is it not other players in the electricity space? Why is it just retail electricity suppliers? It is a narrow approach, one that we believe is unnecessary and one that is best
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video