Page 3037 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We accept the advice that the government has given in relation to some of their broader reporting requirements. But the principle is one we support. I think it is very important, going forward, that the minister takes this seriously rather than, as he said to us across the chamber, just taking bets on how many megawatts—
Mr Corbell: You misrepresent me again, Mr Seselja.
MR SESELJA: Actually, I do not. All of us heard what he said. He said he has got a bet going in his office as to how many megawatts it is going to be per week. Instead of taking that reckless approach to it, what we want, and what the community deserves, is a responsible minister who will do all he can to keep them informed, to monitor and therefore to adjust, as he has the opportunity to do—he has the opportunity to adjust; our amendments allow him the opportunity to adjust down—but the onus is on him to make sure that that reporting is rigorous and that the community and the industry get the maximum amount of information so that we do not see the same stuff-up that we have seen in the past.
So we are happy to see beefed-up reporting requirements, because that is what we have put forward. And on the basis of the information the government has given us in discussions, we are happy to accept Mr Corbell’s revised amendment which would take a slightly different approach, though similar approach, and therefore not move our amendment in relation to reporting.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (4.45): I am not going to allow Mr Seselja to childishly misrepresent me in the manner he has just done. I was not for a moment suggesting that the government would be monitoring uptake in the manner of a betting activity. That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. My comments were in relation to the speculation, both within the government and the broader industry, about how long it is going to take to reach the cap. I said that I reckon we will be keeping a book on how quick the uptake will be. But that is not the monitoring arrangement and to misrepresent me in that manner is completely false.
The fact is that Mr Seselja is in denial. He is in denial that there is going to be a rush of applications. He seems to think that what he is doing today is responsible. It is not responsible. It is completely irresponsible.
The fact is that, whether it is seven weeks or seven months, during the term of this Assembly this scheme is going to close again. It is going to close again. They were on notice before. They were on notice when the cap was introduced. Mr Seselja, you have done a complete backflip on this issue. Here you are standing up, holier than thou, “Feed-in tariffs are inefficient. Feed-in tariffs should not proceed. Feed-in tariffs should be shut down.” Now you are voting to open it up again. That is what you are doing today. You are a complete hypocrite on that matter.
Mr Smyth: On a point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video