Page 6086 - Week 14 - Thursday, 9 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
transparent process. So our amendments will include requirements for a regulation which prescribes the criteria that the minister must take into account in deciding if an environmental impact of a development proposal has been sufficiently addressed by another study; a statement of reasons for the exemptions; a copy of any previous study to be incorporated in the DA paperwork; and an exemption to be a notifiable instrument.
I have only got 20 seconds left. Other issues we are concerned about include the definition of native vegetation. As we have said many times in the past, a vegetation and ecological area overlay in the territory plan would be very helpful in this respect.
I will have more to say at the detail stage, when I will be moving some amendments.
Debate interrupted in accordance with standing order 74 and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour.
Sitting suspended from 12.34 to 2 pm.
Unparliamentary language
Statement by Speaker
MR SPEAKER: On Tuesday, I undertook to review the Hansard after Ms Bresnan raised a matter of the use of unparliamentary language. I have reviewed the Hansard since then, and there was no use of unparliamentary language. The words Ms Bresnan thought were uttered were not.
MS BRESNAN: I seek leave to make a brief statement in relation to the ruling.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, Ms Bresnan.
MS BRESNAN: I just would like to apologise to Mr Seselja for incorrectly hearing what he had stated.
MR SESELJA: I thank Ms Bresnan for the apology and I accept it.
Questions without notice
Energy—feed-in tariff
MR SESELJA: My question is to the Minister for Energy, and it relates to comments made by the minister in his presentation speech for the Electricity Feed-in (Renewable Energy Premium) Amendment Bill 2010. Minister, in that speech, you noted that if electricity bills were to increase at the rates they have in the last couple of years in New South Wales then the $4 per week increase related to the solar feed-in tariff would represent only three per cent of the total electricity bill in 10 years. If, as you claim, the $4 a week increase in electricity bills as a result of the feed-in tariff represents only three per cent of electricity bills, this would mean that electricity bills would be $133 a week or around $7,000 per year for a household. Minister, is this correct? Are you expecting electricity prices to rise to $7,000 per household per year over the next decade?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video